Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 84 of 136 Zaremba: Some yes, some no. Borup: And maybe out of deference to them for sticking it out, could we do one more? Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Batt Lane: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Batt Lane: Rohm: Absolutely. I'll stay until -- I don't have -- I have got a tee time at 9:30 in the morning. Okay. With that being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 16th, 2006, of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both related to Hendrickson Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am pinch hitting for Joe. He is on vacation this week. Real quick, this project is on the east side of the recently approved Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is the R-2 piece there, about 1,500 feet east of Eagle Road. The application includes 9.43 acres. They are proposing an R-2 zone. There are 18 single family residential buildings lots and 11 common lots. I see here it says 18.84 acres. I'm not quite sure which one's correct. This is the plat. A couple of things to point out on the submitted subdivision plat. There are a couple of changes. The one being a common lot is proposed here. There is an existing home on this larger lot. I can't read the lot number from here. Staff is recommending that this common lot be moved to where I think it's Lot 3 is, whatever this lot is. Basically centralized. And these two share a flag lot that has a flag lot down to this one, share a driveway. The flag lot made this a buildable lot. So, essentially, you flip these two buildable common lots, have flag lots, and the buildable lots on the other side. That makes the common area accessible to more of the homes in the subdivision, get it more centralized to everyone and puts it out on the street and not secluded back here, essentially, the back yard, a front yard for the existing home. Speaking of the existing home, it does take access currently to Batt Lane, a private lane, and, then, that goes out to Cloverdale Road. A condition of the preliminary plat is that access be taken from this newly proposed road and not Batt Lane. I think that the applicant had a problem with that, but we do not allow single family homes to take access from private streets. So, like all their lots in the subdivision should be required to take access from a public street and I think those are the main things that Joe asked me to point out. With that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 85 of 136 Elliott: I was going to say good evening, but I think it might be good morning by now. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Elliott. I'm resident legal counsel for Vision First, LLC, which is the managing member of Kingsbridge Properties, the applicant. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, in Eagle. 83616. As the staff mentioned, we are the developer also of Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is just to the west and adjoining this property. The Commissioners may recall in the course of proceedings on Kingsbridge that there was extensive discussion about the issue of secondary access through county roads, either to the north of Kingsbridge over Terry Lane or to the north and east over Selatir Place. I stated then that our intent was to acquire the Hendrickson parcel and explore ways of getting secondary access either to the south and east to Cloverdale Road, rather than trying to get through Selatir Place. Our original site plan that was submitted to this city at pre-app just had one stub street out to the south. The staff recommended and ACHD has since ruled that we need to have a second stub street to the north. We think that we have come up with a decision or a recommendation, an agreement with the neighbors on Selatir Place that we would hope to have this Commission's permission to take back to ACHD and, then, go to City Council. We are back this evening with a nine acre R-2 subdivision, with 18 residential units, including the house and lot at the southwest corner, which is being retained by our sellers, the Hendricksons. And the two options for secondary access that we intend to explore in the months ahead, first, our preference -- our very strong preference and we think probably the most likely outcome is that there is a large tract just east of Selatir Place that extends all the way to Cloverdale Road. It's split down the middle between the Boise and Meridian areas of impact. We think that within the next year or so that will be in for development approval and we would like to discuss with them the possibility of having an access through that property out to Cloverdale Road, essentially, just looping around the south end of Selatir Place. At the same time we benefit that project, because we, then, afford it secondary access to the west through the Hendrickson and Kingsbridge Subdivision out to Eagle Road. Another probable scenario is that there are large tracts of land south of Bott Lane that may be developed in the future, which could require the full improvement of Bott Lane from Cloverdale Road as a public street and, then, a possible connection through the Hendrickson Subdivision out to Eagle Road for their secondary access. We think that both of those potential access solutions are superior to having a road punched through over a county road, Selatir Place, and that's why we would like to go back with the neighbors' agreement and talk to ACHD again. Vision First's project manager Gordon Bates has taken the lead on this approval and in the negotiations with the city and ACHD and the neighbors and I'd like to introduce him at this time to give the rests of our presentation. Thank you. Bates: Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. Address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Eagle, Idaho, Suite 160. Excuse me. 120. Very tired and I'll try to be as quickly to the point as I possibly can as this comes through. I would first say that we are in agreement with quite a bit of the staff report. We don't agree with the park. We think we have a solution tonight that would address the staff concerns and the very realistic concerns voiced from the police department. We'd also like to discuss with you about stub streets. I think in your packet there should be a clarification letter from me already of Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 86 of 136 record. I'd like to summarize that the applicant is not proposing to remove the south connection to the existing lot right here. We are not proposing to provide access to Victory Road via Selatir Lane over here. We are proposing -- we would like to propose a stub street to the south down here. We would like to have the option to go back to ACHD, similar to Knight Sky development and remove ACHD's requirement for a stub street north. We do comply with the -- this is our initial layout that we took to the planning department last fall, November, October, I can't remember the exact month, and Anna Canning, the director planning of the City of Meridian, requested a stub street north to a large five acre, six acre parcel there. Go to the second slide, please. Therefore, we went in with a layout similar to this, showing that stub street and move forward from there with public meetings with the neighbors. The development that you have before us -- before you tonight does meet the five percent open space. It does have the R-2 required 12,000 square foot minimum lots, 80 foot frontage. We do have a couple flag lots that we are revising to staff comments to have shared driveways. We have a few other concerns that we will discuss in hopefully just a couple minutes. Our amenities on top of the five percent open space is a micropath through the park. We are also proposing to have picnic tables and barbecue grills back there. We are also proposing to have parkway streets with detached sidewalks and street trees. Excuse me. We have had three meetings with neighbors. We have had lots of correspondence with the neighbors on top of that and I'm happy to say and unhappy to say we are one item short of agreement with our neighbors. If you could go to the next slide, please. The concerns of the neighbors to the north here, Mr. Dan Johnson, who decided he was going to go home tonight, he is openly admitting that he is thinking about doing some type of redevelopment there. He doesn't have exact plans, he does not have an application before the city. He is and has in his last e-mail to me, agreed with our layout with the number of lots adjacent to his parcel, with exception that he does not support a stub street to his parcel. The six acres north of us has direct access to Selatir Lane and it does not need right of way access for a development from Hendrickson Subdivision. We would, however, still stub utilities to his parcel, so he could enjoy city utilities. The neighbors directly east of the project and further up Selatir Lane, their biggest concern is traffic from Kingsbridge and from Hendrickson connecting through some day if this redevelops onto Selatir and going on up to Victory. They are very opposed to that and as Vision First is the developer, a stub street isn't warranted. We don't want to pay to put it in, to be blunt. So, we are in agreement with the neighbors to discuss with Ada County commission -- Ada County Highway District commissioners removal of that stub street of the commission -- if the highway district would approve that. As concessions to the neighbors' concerns regarding density and perimeter lots, transitions, et cetera, we have a one-to-one ratio of one, two, three, four, five lots next to one, two, three, four lots that already have homes on them and a deed restricted open lot to the very south. That is a little bit nicer than what occurred with Knight Sky and their eastern boundary. We also have larger 12 foot -- or 15,500 plus lots adjacent to there for the transition lots. We have voluntarily offered and will provide a 25 foot rear setback against those adjacent properties, above and beyond city requirements. We voluntarily have agreed to provide a 16 foot wide landscape buffer at our developer's expense and maintenance on the adjacent property that we do not own off site, owned by the neighbors with their agreement to do so. The last request that the neighbors had before they said we would Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 87 of 136 come into the Public Hearing and support or at least neutral to your development, is they asked for height restrictions on the five lots common with our easterly boundary. As the developers, we feel we should enjoy the full benefits of the proposed R-2 zoning, which allows for two story homes and that's one item that we are not in agreement with the neighbors on. The staff's report, it was briefly ran through due to the time constraints, notes that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan low residential future use, provide reasonable transition lots and the voluntary concessions I just summarized offer enhancements beyond the city requirements there. Regarding the park. If you could go to the next slide, please. I did meet with Lieutenant Bob Stowe with the Meridian Police Department to gather some first-hand information regarding the concerns from the city on the park. I was not able to meet with the planning department. We have revised our park. We have access to Kingsbridge Drive here. We have access to Hendrickson Avenue here. We have a looped micropath through the entire park that provides access from all of the lots to a dead centered right in the middle of this development park. We also have flared this boundary to provide visibility from the street directly into the deep park and that was a concern from the police department that either a police cruiser and/or anybody walking along or driving along the public street didn't have very good access in our previous layout and we agreed with that concern for public safety and we are willing to revise the park to do so to provide that visibility. An added benefit -- it's hard to see with this green lit up -- a micropath loop back here with the picnic tables and barbecue grills, provides an area for toddlers and et cetera to play where the moms don't have to worry about them running straight out into the street after their ball. I mean we have a hundred feet or for them to get to the street for mom to be able to catch them. We actually feel like with the enhanced visibility, with the agreement to add in non-trespass lights -- in other words, lights that are going to provide reasonable lighting in this park that do not trespass into these backyards, an emergency vehicle access, either -- in all likelihood here, provide an opportunity for emergency vehicles to get down into and access the park. I have met all the conditions and all the comments that the police department provided and I think this park -- it's deeper than if it was just right up along the right of way, but is does take advantage of some dead property back in here that the -- Mr. Hendrickson did not wish to retain around his existing home. As to the intent of our park, we would ask for a condition of approval of this development that would say that we would -- we would get resolution with staff ten days prior to City Council hearing on this subject. That brings us to the summary, quickly, of the biggest issue on this development, which is this stub street right here and potentially a connection to Selatir Drive. This spite strip right here - - I use spite strip correctly in this case -- is privately owned. Hendrickson Subdivision does not abut Selatir public right of way. We do not have any direct access to Selatir Drive right of way to -- to make a connection at this point in time. The -- all the neighbors have said we would rather have Mr. Johnson, if he ever develops, bring his traffic on his six acres to his public access point to Selatir Drive and isolate any traffic from Kingsbridge or from Hendrickson from ever accessing a rural, no sidewalk, narrow, 24 foot wide asphalt Selatir Drive and on out to Victory. As Mr. Elliott summarized, a connection via a fully urbanized road with detached sidewalks, et cetera, to -- eventually to Cloverdale is a much safer route for urban style traffic than down a rural road and we would ask the opportunity as a condition of approval that we would -- before we go to .. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 88 of 136 City Council ten days prior we would have resolution from ACHD regarding that staff -- that stub street. The added benefit, if you take the stub street out and you relieve any utility easement, these lots in here can get a little bit bigger and we give a little bit better transition to our neighbors than what we currently have. I'm going to go really quickly and I will wrap up. The staff in their summary of the Comprehensive Plan said that the access to the existing lot -- existing access should be closed. They did, in our opinion, correctly exclude this from their site specific requirements. We will comply with ACHD's request to provide access to the new public street via shared access drive, a flag lot, to this property. We feel that their existing legal access that's been there for I don't know how many decades should not be removed without just compensation from the party removing the access. In other words, they should be able to enjoy their historic access and the additional access here. Also -- if we could have the next slide, please. I think this is my last one. Regarding fencing, Ten Mile feeder canal is here. This is owned in fee by the irrigation district and Bureau of Reclamation is not part of this subdivision, is off site. Therefore -- and also when Kingsbridge was going through approvals, the Boise project border control provided a letter saying we don't want this thing piped, it's a great big huge wide ten foot ditch. It was excluded from being piped. We feel like it should continue to be excluded from being piped. Hendricksons have requested that their existing improvements along this boundary remain as is and that fencing to keep neighborhood and subdivision toddlers, et cetera, out of this canal be provided from our south boundary line here along the south boundary to a gate that would block access from the shared drive into the private lot and, then, around to the canal ditch bank road, along the back of all these lots and tie into the Kingsbridge Subdivision fencing on this side. This fencing boundary effectively fences off the Ten Mile feeder canal. Rather than being located right at its bank, it's located further away. That would prevent trespass onto the canal ditch bank from the neighbors. The staff report asked that this small Lot 11 be removed. It's, actually, an open space. It's 300 and some feet -- square feet between the proposed right of way and the existing canal bank right of way property that we would put landscaping in to prevent cars from going through and getting onto the ditch bank. So, we feel like that lot actually ought to stay as open space. The staff report -- and I think it's just a standard condition where they talk about perimeter sidewalks. We don't abut this drive, this right of way, and I just want to make it clear that there is no side -- we are not proposing to put any sidewalks against a right of way that we don't abut. That's more of a clarification I think. There is a provision regarding any structures on this existing lot, that they don't encroach -- this is from public works -- encroach setbacks or straddle lot lines. We agree with the straddling lot lines, you don't put a lot through a building, and we won't do that. We do feel if there is any existing structures in here that encroach into a setback in this boundary area, be grandfathered in. To be honest with you, I haven't been able to look at the details of the staff report and go out to the site, due to all the mud we have had, with construction down on Kingsbridge, et cetera, to try to figure out if there is really an issue there, but we think that if there is an existing structure out here that might be in this setback, that it ought to be grandfathered. And on the last subject, on this existing lot, there is an existing gravel, all-weather surface here that provides emergency access. We would like to propose to have this section also be graveled and it would be paved to their gate through this shared -- shared driveway on the flag lot and graveled on through. I think n . Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 89 of 136 that would be ultimately something the fire department would say they agree with or not. And with that I will tell you that the neighbor's going to come up and give you some more feedback on this stub street as a concession to enhanced secondary access for emergency vehicles, not required by the fire department in their comments, both Vision First, who is the developer of this property, and the neighbor who is the owner of that itty bitty piece right there, in agreement to provide an emergency vehicle access with a gate to prevent trespass by -- and through traffic, but that would provide emergency vehicle secondary access into all this development. We would like to be able to put a knuckle cul-de-sac here if ACHD approves that. This is more for your information of something that we will present to ACHD. With that, this small nine acre subdivision, 9.4 some acres, meets the R-2 zoning requirements and meets the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation and requirements. It will provide the City of Meridian with larger lots, being 12,000 square foot minimums and up to 16,000 something right here. Any comparison with Tuscany across Eagle Road, with Sutherland Farms north of Victory, et cetera, I believe, with the exception of maybe a few transition lots, all other lots are much smaller than this. They are actually free from the diversification of the lot sizes south of the freeway and giving the City of Meridian some options there. We will extend the utilities north, as I just -- as I previously said and we feel it is in the best -- the city's best interest to annex this parcel. We'd ask that you grant your conditional approval tonight of our application for annexation, R-2 zoning, and preliminary plat. With that I would stand for any questions from the Commissioners. Rohm: Thank you. That was a very thorough presentation. Bates: Sorry it took five minutes longer than I was hoping it would. Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just a couple I have. Where is their existing access to this property? Bates: If we could go back to the aerial, I believe, the first slide. Borup: I have got an aerial here. Is it -- Bott Lane was mentioned. Bates: Their current access to their house -- this property -- the original tract of land included this ditch. I didn't bring the title report, so I can't tell you -- Borup: Well, that's fine, I just wanted to know how their access -- Bates: They dedicated this access to the -- or this property to the ditch company and they have enjoyed their access down the gravel lane and on down to Bott Lane ever since. .- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 90 of 136 Borup: Alongside the ditch? Bates: Alongside the ditch on a gravel lane. Borup: Okay. Bates: We are proposing to provide not only for them to seek to keep their existing access that they already legally have right to, but they have another access to the proposed street, so that we meet the city requirements that they have access to streets. Borup: Well, they legally have access -- they legally have right to that as long as they are not annexed into the city, but that's not what you're asking for. The other question I had was on -- Bates: This lot needs to be annexed into the city, because it will be smaller than five acres, Borup: Right. I mean that doesn't guarantee them the access if you're asking to be part of the city. The other question I had -- you kept referring to that drive as a shared drive. Who is sharing it? Bates: If we could go to I think maybe the third slide, where it shows those shared drives real quick, please. Perhaps the last slide. Borup: Is it the lot to the north is also going to have access off of that? Bates: Yes. The lot to the north would also have access. And that's in response to staff comments where if you have a flag lot where this lot has 15 foot wide property that abuts the public right of way here and this lot abuts the public right of way, a 20-foot wide asphalted improved driveway would go through this hatched area serving this lot for their access and this lot for their access. Borup: Does that require this lot to access there or have they got their option? Bates: I believe the UDC says that this lot would access via the shared drive, but I think staff could maybe provide a quick clarification there. Hood: It depends on how much frontage the flag has. If they have 30 feet of their own, they can have their own driveway. If it's less, then, they need to share with the lot to the north. Bates: We could make that work out. However, I think this layout is something that would work out with all parties interested on this, both the Hendricksons retain their existing house and land around it and the future development both. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page91of136 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Bates: Thank you. I'll/eave the pointer up here. Rohm: Quite a long list. Before I call anybody forward, is there a spokesperson for the group of people that have signed up here? Anyone single spokesperson? Borup: Doesn't look like it. Rohm: Doesn't look like it. Tim Petchy. Petchy: I'm here. I can get up and talk. Commissioners, my name is Tim Petchy, I live at 3726 South Selatir and that is actually -- can we keep that slide up there. That doesn't look familiar. Actually, I have the end of the cul-de-sac here and I have these two parcels here. I appreciate all the work that Vision First has done with the neighbors on meeting some of our requests on this project. I guess my biggest concern that I have left remaining is the fact that this is, basically, an extension of Kingsbridge and on the original plat of Kingsbridge you guys had half acre lots on all the perimeter of these larger lots and we are one acre to five acre lots in there. So, I would hope that that same scenario would carry through on this extension. And we were willing to forego that if we could deed restrict these lots along here to single level homes, because, in fact, they did restrict all of these for Hendrickson and our biggest problem is a two story house 25 foot off of this back line -- I mean we are looking right into the backyard of a two store house sitting there, because that's -- our houses are facing that direction and it's just -- we have enjoyed these sunsets all these years and we really don't feel like we need to be looking at the back of a two story house. So, we are willing to forego any problems with their size of their lots there, if we -- we could get those houses deed restricted. And I think as far as all the other issues we have, they have addressed those. So, that's all I have to say. Thanks. Rohm: Are all of your homes single story? Petchy: I think, what, is there just one? All but one. Yeah. Rohm: Thank you. Lisa Petchy. She -- from the audience she said she's been spoken for. Bill Fifcot. He's in bed? Great idea. And Mary Ann Fifcot. She's gone, too. With any luck. Yeah. That's enough. Shelly Robertson. Robertson: Hi, my name is Shelly Robertson and I live at 3350 South Selatir, which is just to the north of the proposed project. As stated earlier, I think that the developer has been somewhat agreeable. My main concern, because I am to the north of the project, is the stub street and any traffic from the project getting onto Selatir Place. As they stated, it's a rural street, no sidewalk or anything, and any additional traffic coming Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 92 of 136 through there is not advantageous to those of us who live down there. That's my main concern and why I stayed until this time at night. That's all I have. Borup: Quick question. I assume you and the neighbors would feel the same way or-- notifying ACHD in how you feel? Robertson: I have not. But we just had a meeting last night with the developer with the Borup: They could help you with that, I would think, if you wanted to know who to contact and that's how you felt and you want ACHD to know about how you felt about the stub street. Robertson: Okay. I will be sure and do that. Borup: Thank you. Robertson: Thanks. Rohm: Before I ask the next person to come forward, I just have a question of staff. Does that seem reasonable, because the adjacent property already has access to the east, to eliminate a stub street to the north? Hood: It sounds somewhat reasonable, but I don't think it is. The real issue, if this road -- or when the project to the north develops, should it tie back into Selatir, can be answered at that time. The real question is interconnectivity with that six acre parcel -- five or six acre parcel to the north, with and to Kingsbridge, and I think that is important that there be the interconnectivity, at least with these two parcels. Now, whether, again, they take a street and tie it back into the existing rural 24 foot street is to be talked about at a future date and that battle is, really, for another day. The stub street to the north is going to an be unimproved five or six acre parcel. Now, I did talk with a representative from Pinnacle Engineers today who told me he was representing that property owner and they were -- were wanting that stub street and wanted to make sure that that stayed in. That's the conversation I had this afternoon with someone at Pinnacle representing the applicant. The other thing is I looked at ACHD's requirements and they acted on this on March 21 st. They have a 15 day appeal period. Their appeal has passed. There is no way to appeal a decision from ACHD after 15 days. So, it's going to be an uphill battle. And I don't think it should go away in the first place. I really do think it makes sense. I don't think it's in the best interest, then, of the city to approve this development if you don't have the future interconnectivity with the parcel to the north. Rohm: Thank you for your input. I think. Having asked that and received a response, we will move onto Rick Anderson. He's gone home. She's in support of the neighborhood and doesn't wish to add anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 93 of 136 Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe in the interest of time you might just ask those that want to speak come on up. Rohm: Come on up. Becker: My name is Lisa Becker. I live on 342 South Selatir and I do want to address the ACHD issue on the stub street. I have references to some of their letters that I would like to point out to you. You talked early about the street that goes nowhere. This stub street would be the street that goes nowhere. Dan Johnson, our neighbor, told the developer today that he was not interested in having the stub street. Dan Johnson lives here. Other way? Okay. This is Dan Johnson and we are right next to him here at Selatir -- five acre estate lots. So, on my slide I just wanted to pointed out on slide number two, the ACHD report, dated 3/21, says that the applicant proposed the stub street to the north of the property and they said with possible future connection to Selatir Street, but they said -- ACHD said the applicant asked for it, ACHD didn't ask for it. That's what they say in their report. And if you need the document, I have one for you. Also, I think it's important to note that ACHD says connection could be made to Selatir. They aren't saying it should or it must, it could. A possibility. It do want to point out that we have protective covenants in this neighborhood that only allow one acre development, so, basically, Dan, our neighbor, would only be able to put four additional one acre lots, which have a direct access to Selatir. As far as connectivity, I wanted to talk to you about slide number three. ACHD stub street policy says that it should not cause undue hardship to the adjoining property and that's -- I have the policy number there listed for you. One hundred seventy vehicles trips from the Hendrickson property and potentially 500 vehicle trips from Kingsbridge will cause an undue hardship for Selatir Street and I have gone and measured it. It's not even 24 feet wide. It's 23.5 feet wide. ACHD also has a policy requiring 36 foot streets for densities less than one acre. So, I just wanted to point out to you that Selatir Place here was originally designed to just access six estate lots of five acres each. The homes are between a half and one million dollar homes. So, it's not that we need to connect in with this neighborhood, it's kind of a unique place in and of itself. I don't know why there would need to be connectivity into an urban density subdivision in this parcel. We do have restrictive covenants here, so the future development will be one acre or less. I mean no less than one acre. And, finally, just on the second page I have some pictures of our neighborhood, so that you can see. We have been here before, you might remember it, when we were here for Kingsbridge, but that's what the neighborhood looks like. It's kind of the Eagle look that you were talking about earlier, nice large estate lots. So, we just ask that you take the stub street out. It doesn't appear by the ACHD document that they asked for it to be put in. They referenced that the applicant asked for it. So, if you need to refer to that -- we didn't know anything about an -- Rohm: Chances are the applicant asked for it, because the City of Meridian asked them to ask for it. So, it's kind of -- Becker: And if we have missed the 15 day deadline for opposing this, we didn't know about that, I suppose. We are real concerned about that stub street. ....." Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 94 of 136 Rohm: Well -- and I think that that's why I asked Caleb to speak to that before we took the balance of the testimony, because the developer's kind of put in a spot that in order to be in compliance with development standards within the City of Meridian, one of the issues is -- is we always want developers to provide that connectivity between one parcel to the next and if, in fact, they don't, then, what you end up with is landlocked parcels that there is no way to get to them. Becker: And in this case, this development has access to this Kingsbridge, access to Bott Lane. Dan Johnson has indicated he will access his -- any future development onto Selatir. So, everyone we have talked to opposes that stub. Dan, the neighbors, all of the neighbors to the north. Rohm: Understood. Becker: And you also took that stub street out earlier today that went to a five acre parcel to nowhere that the neighbors said they didn't want to have, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, just a real quick point of clarification while the next person comes forward. ACHD site specific condition of approval number two says construct the following stub street and it goes on to require that stub street. So, it doesn't give the applicant an option. What I may just offer up, since it is some new information, the letter from Gordon just a couple days ago didn't mention anything about wanting to remove this stub street. It's new information to me. Like I said, I had a conversation with someone who told me he was representing Dan anyways and wanted to have a stub street. I would say let's give the applicant two weeks to contact ACHD and if it's something they can -- they can do. Their policy used to be that if it's been 15 days since action, that that's their final action. Their appeal period is over. But this new information that's being brought up at this hearing, I think -- and not being Joe, I think it would be fair to get all of that information and see where ACHD stands. I still think it makes sense and that ultimately comes back on the Commission to make that determination, but I just wanted to point out that it is a site specific condition. It's not an option at this point from ACHD. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Please come forward. Larsen: Do we need a fingerprint, something that -- Rohm: Just name and address is fine. Larsen: Name and address. Jerry Larsen, 3536 South Selatir. I wanted to address the density, come at it from a little bit different angle. This is an R-2 -- called an R-2. But if you take the large block of Hendricksons out of there, the effective density along Selatir Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 95 of 136 is greater than R-2 and, then, they line them up with us, which I can see why they did that. And, then, to allow -- at a higher density and line them up with us and, then, allow two story homes seems a little bit -- a dramatic change from what we currently have. So, that's my comment on it. It seems too dense or too tall for this situation. Rohm: Thank you. Anybody else? Welkerstein: I thank you for hearing me tonight. My name is Virginia Welkerstein. I live on Selatir Place, 3702 South Selatir Place. And I just wanted to comment on your question that you had about the houses on Selatir Place and were any of those houses two story. There is one that is two story and it's mine. I wanted to let you know that even though it is two story, it sits on one acre, as opposed to .3 acres. And the house is also set back about 200 feet from the road, Selatir Place, anyway. So, even though we do have a two story house and have a different situation where the density is a lot less, I guess, is the proper way to put it, we are also and our family concerned about the density with the transitional acreage as well. It has been addressed. I agree with my neighbors, what they had said so far. I also agree with the stub street as Lisa spoke to it, very concerned about that. If you could come out and see our road, you would understand why, I think. The traffic that might be allowed through there is just something that would be unsafe for the people that live there now with the way the road is. And that's alii had. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Sir? LaVigne: How are you doing tonight -- or this morning. Excuse me. My name is David Lavigne. I live on 3317 South Selatir Place. That's further north than what the image is there. And I am opposing the development, primarily for a couple of reasons. Primarily because of the stub street. And just a couple points -- and Lisa's made some really good points, which I was going to make, and I don't want to take the extra time to do it. Some of those reasons I agree with as well. There is also one other thing pointed out is -- is this live? Okay. There is, actually, a stub street here, there is also a stub street here, which is about 600 feet west of the one that's being proposed here, which is going -- accessing out toward Victory Road. Do you need -- Rohm: There is another pointer -- there should be another pointer that -- there you go. LaVigne: So, there is an additional stub street right here that was already approved with the Kingsbridge Subdivision. So, is this really that necessary to have when you're only looking at going into potentially four more homes that are going to be -- that you could subdivide into, where you can access -- this has already been approved, it's already in the plat that's going to be there. So, that was one of my points. The other point was that there is public safety in stub streets and they are going to be in public safety, with a 24 foot wide road. If you really look at -- I have three year olds -- I have got two three year old boys and a six year old boy and they come down this road, they ride their bikes down this road, and they come and play with Jenny's -- Jenny's kids. Now, if you open this up to a 170 -- 170 trips per day, which is what ACHD says this will Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 96 of 136 be, and, then, this -- add in another 25 percent of the volume from Kingsbridge, you're talking about a 466 percent increase in the amount of traffic that's going to go up and down that street. So, how do my kids come down here to visit with their friends at the end of the street? I mean there is no sidewalks. They got to ride through the borrow ditch, borrow pits? I mean it just can't handle it. So, that's one of the other points. Density as well. You know, we had talked about the density and this -- and I think with the precedent that was set with Kingsbridge with the half acre parcels around the perimeter abutting all the large acreages, you can count -- there is no difference in this subdivision than there is in this. Why -- why is there -- why is there not any consistency with what everybody agreed to with this and what Planning and Zoning and City Council and everything approved with this, why are we not holding this subdivision to the same standards is a question I have. Finally -- and just without reiterating some of the other comments, in closing is I'm just asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to do what Vision First is asking, as well as Mr. Johnson and the Selatir homeowners association is asking for, eliminate the stub street north to Mr. Johnson's property to prevent any -- make it a safer street for everybody. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Brender: I'm Susan Brender and I live at 3568 South Selatir Place. Not quite across, but almost right straight across from this proposed development. And I, too, appreciate what Vision First has done in working with us and I'm concerned about that stub street, because I see a real possibility that if that's there, eventually, it will allow all of Kingsbridge traffic to go down Selatir Place. I'm concerned about the houses on the five lots that are adjacent to Selatir and if at all possible if we could keep those to single story houses, we would really have a pretty nice match on both sides of the street. So, those are my concerns. Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Vanskoy: My name is Leonard Vanskoy. I live at 3608 South Selatir. I am just to the north of the bottom cul-de-sac, the second house next to Jenny. I am in agreement with the Kingsbridge. We were here for nine months doing the same battle before. We do feel that the density that's there now and the stub street, why would 17 houses warrant another stub street, when the 125 to the south -- or the east of us -- or west of us were fine to the north stub street going up? Why does that warrant another stub street. And we would ask the same thing on the single level houses, because I'm directly across the street from about the third house from the north and I -- when I had my conversations with Gordon -- and they have been very, you know, willing to cooperate with us, so to speak, my comment was if you're going to put a house on a third of an acre, why don't I put a house in my backyard, and he said you wouldn't want one. Why would I want it in my front yard? And I just -- you know, I don't believe in the density that's going on. I think, you know, the precedent that was set in Kingsbridge should be happening for lots around also. That's all I got. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 97 of 136 Rohm: Thank you, sir. Anybodyelse? I think that the two main issues that most of you have brought up is the stub street to the north and the single story dwellings along the east line of this development and -- would the applicant like to come back up. Bates: Thank you for the opportunity. I don't believe that we need to rehash the concessions, et cetera, that were done on Kingsbridge. I believe Knight Sky that you looked at tonight and approved is a much better example of how to transition from rural one acre lots than Kingsbridge ever dreamed of being. I would just simply state that we did a one to 1.1 ratio with Dartmoor that had one acre lots, where there was a 60-foot canal easement and a 20-foot buffer between our lots and their lots we have 15, 16 thousand, 17,000 square foot lots in this subdivision. We removed the lots in this layout. This is -- we removed one of these lots, went from six to five to match the one- to-one ratio, which is better than what Knight Sky has done. We also provided a 25-foot setback, plus a 16-foot buffer, plus the 50-foot right of way, plus their front yards, which as one lady had said, it's 200 feet. We feel like we have got a big separation from their neighborhood to where these houses are going to go and a lot of that was above and beyond what the Comprehensive Plan or the city code would have required a development to do. Moe: Are those going to be two story or single story? Bates: Two story is what my -- the CEO of the company has said he's willing to bring to this meeting tonight. He believes that's in compliance with the R-2 zoning and that's where he stands tonight. The stub street, as they said, Mr. Johnson's parcel is not landlocked. I really feel like that's a discussion with ACHD and we just ask that the Planning Commission give us a condition with an option to be able to talk to ACHD and remove that stub street if other agencies allow it. Rohm: So, you're not opposed to the removal of the stub street? Bates: We would, actually, be very much in favor of removing the north stub street and providing only the south stub street. Mr. Johnson has gone back and forth and back and forth with any layout plans. I think that's why his engineer is talking to Caleb saying we want a connection to the south and Mr. Johnson was talking to me via the e-mail today before lunch saying I'll take my access to the north. He just really doesn't know for sure what he's going to be able to do out there and what he is going to do out there. All he knows is his five acre lot some day something's going to happen to it and I think that's all I can safely say tonight. Moe: Well, as of tonight right now he's going to have a stub street to the north, because ACHD's requiring it. So, that's one point you're going to have to get back to ACHD to get that rectified. Bates: Yes. We would have to go back to ACHD. We simply ask for the option if ACHD approves the removal, that we could remove that. And, again, the density that we are proposing for this development is within the R-2 zone requirement. It's 1.9 off Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 98 of 136 the top of my head. I believe the staff report says the exact calculations. It's smack dead in the middle of the low -- comprehensive low residential future land use, which is one to three dwellings per acre. I think, unlike Knight Sky where they were going against big tracts and going for R-4, are going for much less dense zoning. I think that's another favorable item in our favor on this. With that I have covered all my rebuttal notes. Any further questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. -- Gordon, did you say you eliminated one lot here and there is five now? Bates: Yes. This development -- this slide right here shows the layout that we took to the first City Council -- or, excuse me, the first -- Borup: Okay. I just didn't have a copy of the revised. 1-- Bates: Actually, I don't know where that came from. Borup: Mr. Hood, do you have a copy of the revised plat showing five? Bates: The plat in the staff report I think is, actually, the correct plat. Preliminary plat. This has a buffer here that Mr. Johnson says he doesn't want. He's got extra -- that's an incorrect earlier -- I don't know where that came from. Borup: Well, that's why I just wanted clarification. So, there is five lots along there, not six? Bates: Yes. There is five -- an earlier rendition when they were doing -- having neighborhood discussions, we had six here. Based upon their feedback we removed one of these 12,000 square foot lots and increase and created transition lots of over 15,000 square foot up to over 16,000 thousand square feet. I matched them at a one to one. Borup: Okay. There we go. I found another one. Bates: Thank you for -- Borup: So, one out of three had it right. Bates: Thank you for asking for clarification on the lot count there. Borup: And, then, the other question I had -- and I have never been in favor of restricting building heights, as long as they comply with the ordinance and you said your desire is to have two story on every lot in the subdivision? Bates: Two stories here, two stories here -- the Hendricksons, as a condition of purchase and sale, requested that the lots directly adjacent to them would be one story Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page gg of 136 and as a condition of purchase and sale we complied with that. As a condition of zoning and city approval, we do not agree that these perimeter lots should be restricted to single stories. Borup: And that's the only thing I have a concern with. If Hendrickson -- and like I say, I have never voted in favor of restricting heights, but in this case, you know, he wants it around his property, I don't know why these neighbors over here shouldn't deserve the same thing. But that's my comment on that. If he was not restricting it, I would have a different attitude. Rohm: So, you support restricting the heights on all of them? Because-- Borup: In this case -- and I have never been in favor of it before. Rohm: Understand. Bates: I guess the only response I would have is for the city agencies to go against the zoning ordinance request and restrict heights and impose that upon a development as an -- as an agency, to me, is quite different than a developer, in order to purchase a piece of land, making an agreement with the seller. I would just see that as two different -- two different things. Restricting all these lots -- Borup: Well, not all of them. Bates: Well, these lots -- restricting additional lots to single story, it just makes it that much more difficult to market these lots and we feel like that is a hardship upon the development. Borup: And I agree. That's why I said, I have never been in favor of it before, but you have already made that -- you have imposed that on yourself already for half the subdivision, so -- Bates: Any further questions of me, sir? Rohm: No. Thank you. Bates: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Moe, do you have any comments? Final comment? Moe: Well, I guess the only comment there, looking to go back to ACHD in regards to this stub and whatnot, if, in fact, that was to be given, then, the subdivision is, then, going to somewhat change and we also in the past have not liked to forward anything on until we have been able to see exactly what the final view is going to be of the subdivision, so I guess I'm curious as to whether or not we are looking to continue this until they can get decisions from ACHD. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 100 of 136 Borup: I feel it's a pretty minor change and I don't -- I mean we saw a hand sketch of what it would do. I mean I don't -- it's not going to add additional lots, it's going to make the lots bigger, so I personally don't have a concern with that. I don't know how we -- I mean what's our options on -- whatever ACHD does is kind of out of our hands, other than recommendations, I guess, the city could make to them. Rohm: Well, I think that our recommendation to Ada County carries some weight and, if in fact, we are in support of both the property owners and the developer to eliminate the stub street, it may influence Ada County into removing that requirement. Borup: But we may want to be in support of the staff, too. Rohm: There you go. Borup: I'm not sure if I would -- I mean I would just as soon not make a recommendation either way, but if that was the choice, I -- could I -- I really like the idea of interconnectivity, but, you know, if it's only going to be an additional four lots, then, maybe it's not that important. Rohm: Well, from my perspective, the interconnectivity already exists and to have this additional stub just provides additional interconnectivity. Borup: And there is going to be pedestrian connectivity if that emergency -- emergency access is in there. That would be -- I'm assuming they would still allow for pedestrian access. Rohm: Yeah. I -- really, I'm pretty much in support of everybody that's testified out here. The applicant doesn't have anything against removal of that street and nobody else wants it and it appears to me that that adjacent property can take access to the street to the east and still be able to develop at some future point in time. So, it doesn't seem to me that we would be losing a lot. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- I was going to ask Caleb a question, actually. Do we have an aerial or a site plan that includes the whole square mile that this is in the middle of? Oh, the future land use map is what I'm thinking of. It doesn't show the roadway. I guess what I was considering is whether Selatir is so oriented that ACHD might some day decide it should be a collector and improve it. Hood: Mr. Chair, I don't -- or Commissioner Zaremba, I don't see that happening. It does cul-de-sac there. I don't see there is any way that it's going to get over 2,000 vehicle trips a day, just based on the density in this area. There is no way -- even if you did connect it in the future with Mr. Dan Johnson, Jensen, whatever his name is, when Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 101 of 136 he develops, even if it does connect into Selatir, you still wouldn't have the vehicle trips to make it a collector. I don't see that happening. Zaremba: Well, in that case I would support not having a stub street. Rohm: Yeah, I -- Zaremba: If there is no opportunity for it to become a major access road. Rohm: I think that just removes some confusion, does it not? Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, I did have another point that -- I did want to talk about the stub street. I had just another clarification. Gordon mentioned in his presentation that staff didn't put in a condition about access to Bott Lane. There is quite a bit of talk about that on page nine. Now, he's right, there is not a site specific condition, but I believe the intent of Joe was to have a condition that actually restricts access to that single family home to be from their new public street, whatever that's called. There is two sections in there. One is on access and the one is existing residential buildings. The first one says access to the site is through Kingsbridge Drive and all lots shall take access to internal streets and bollards shall be placed on the existing access to Bott Lane. That sounds like a condition that just didn't make it to the condition stage. And, then, the second part just says that the house needs to be addressed off of that new public street. I'm reading this saying he just forgot to put that in as a 1.1 point whatever and just would ask that you add that as a condition. I think it was just an oversight on his part. But the applicant did point that out, that it wasn't in there and I don't think it was left out intentionally, I think it was left out unintentionally. Zaremba: Well -- and I would say precedent of history, we don't usually add an access, we trade accesses. With the new access available to them and, as Caleb points out, addressing it off of the new street, I would agree with staff that the old access should disappear. Borup: I also understood by the staff report that one of the concerns was the rest of the subdivision having access to that existing -- does having that landscape strip on there answer some of that concern? Because no one else would be able to access it, other than the existing house. Hood: Yeah. It was kind of a spite strip and I wasn't sure if even the irrigation company could access it, then, from the new public street. I mean it's a really narrow landscape lot that -- it may be prohibiting them from accessing it at that point, too. So, I'm not quite sure what's going on there. Borup: They have got access -- I mean irrigation has access now. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 102 of 136 Hood: Yeah. From Cloverdale they could, I mean, follow that same road up. I'm just saying if they came in from the other way and down, now there would not be any way to get to that lateral. Borup: Does this continue on down here? Hood: Yeah. Yeah. The Nine Mile goes all the way out to Eagle Road. Borup: So, they could get to it from Eagle and Cloverdale. Hood: They may be able to or Kingsbridge Drive goes north across there. I think there is a driveway access there. Again, I'm not sure what-- Borup: Well, see, I understand it's an ordinance, I -- I think all -- I'm assuming all they are asking for is some flexibility, because if he's heading to Meridian he's not going to use that access anyway, he's going to go through the subdivision roads. I assume the only time he'd maybe want to use it -- I mean if he's heading to the freeway, he's going to go to Eagle. You know, maybe he wants to go out in the desert in the southwest -- or southeast I mean. Rohm: We haven't closed the Public Hearing. I don't think we did. Borup: No. Hendrickson: Our house burned down two years ago-- Rohm: You need to -- you need to first -- Hendrickson: Don Hendrickson. 4240 Bott Lane. Rohm: Thank you. Hendrickson: Our house burned down here two years ago and the emergency vehicles had to come down that canal bank to get to our house. If I have to go out Kingsbridge and all the emergency vehicles have to come in that way, it's a real -- a real problem and -- Borup: How so? Isn't that shorter for them? Hendrickson: No. They come from -- they came from Whitney and they came from the new station there at Eagle Road is where they are going to come from. Borup: Right. So, you want them to go an extra two miles to get to your place? Hendrickson: I just want as many access points as possible for emergency vehicles. I use that road and have used that road for 16 years. That's my connectivity to all my Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 103 of 136 neighbors, too. I have two young children and, all their buds are over there on Bott Lane. And I don't really want a fence bordering that canal. Borup: Well, I would feel the same way if I was in your situation. Hendrickson: You know, I got Labrador retrievers, they go into that canal every day. It's the way that property has been for 50 years. The emergency vehicles that came in there drew their water out of that canal to suppress the -- my house fire, even though it was too late. It burned to the ground and I lost everything I owned. Borup: I didn't have any other questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Quickly. Very quickly. Elliott: With your forbearance, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'd just like to speak briefly following up on what Don Hendrickson just said. We are completely willing to have the stub street blocked until it becomes a public street. So, this access that exists is unique and only for the Hendrickson property. This matter about keeping them off of Bott Lane was never discussed with staff. We had no inkling of this being a concern of staff until it arrived in the staff report I think it was either Friday or Monday. So, it was never discussed at a pre-app. We-- Borup: Well, they are not going to be able to cover every item the pre-app. Elliott: Well, this is fairly critical, because this is -- this is the existing property, it's not just equal access to the west along the canal, it's an unimproved dirt service road. When you go to the south along the canal it's a paved roadway. The public road comes in about two-thirds of the way on Bott Lane toward this property, so there is a short gap that is canal property. Also, this property was sold -- the canal, the 60 foot strip, was sold to the canal company at the time that ten acre property owner was a shareholder of the canal company. So, I think they have a very good argument that they own and still own a share of the road that goes along the canal all the way out to the point it gets to the public roadway of Batt Lane. So, we are providing them public access on our new street, we think they should be able to retain the access that they have used historically far before the Hendricksons bought the property. That road has been there and used for access to that ten acres since the canal was built. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just looked at the pre-app meeting notes from August 31st, 2005, and although we don't always catch everything, we did catch that one, actually. There is three items that are mentioned on here. One is a stub to the north and to the southeast. The second one is to relinquish your interest in Bott Lane. And the third one is traffic calming to Kingsbridge Drive. So, it was -- the applicant was put on notice in August of last year that we would be taking away Bott Lane. And if you like the access, it's not in the best interest of the city. So, I mean that's -- we are kind of changing and that's why the condition was put in there and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 104 of 136 Elliott: If I can just respond to this gentleman's comment. The context of that discussion was the rest of the subdivision. The 17 lots would not have access to Bott Lane. Hood: Anything in the subdivision. Elliott: Our understanding was that Hendrickson would always have access. Hood: The intent was anything on that property, because you don't look at the existing house as different than the subdivision. It's a lot and block in the subdivision. Rohm: Please come forward. C. Hendrickson: My name is Christine Hendrickson. I reside at 4240 Bott Lane and I would just like to reply to the planner. We, as the selling agent, selling party to the agent, we were never addressed by the planning department or the planners never came and talked to myself or my husband about having to either be readdressed or to be rezone into the subdivision at all. In February -- before February, before this hearing, this is the first we have heard about it. Borup: But, ma'am, that wouldn't be their responsibility to come to your house and tell you that -- C. Hendrickson: Whose would it be, then? Borup: It would the person that's making application for the subdivision. C. Hendrickson: So, they should have notified us, then? Borup: Well, yes. C. Hendrickson: Is what you're saying. Borup: Yes. It wouldn't be a city planner to do that. C. Hendrickson: So, the city planner wouldn't actually come out and speak to the whole residency? Borup: That's what this Public Hearing is for. C. Hendrickson: Well, I'm opposing that, then. I'd like it on record that my husband and I want to oppose that. Borup: So, you would like to see this application denied? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 105 of 136 C. Hendrickson: Well, we don't understand why we have got to be readdressed, for one thing. Borup: Oh, you said you're opposing this whole hearing, you'd like to see it denied? C. Hendrickson: No, sir. If you listen to what I'm saying, I'm saying I'm opposing what the planner has said, that we didn't know anything about that we had to lose our right of access from and to Bott Lane that has been there hereditary for over 50 years, the people that owned the property before my husband and I, that's what I'm -- that's what I'm opposing. I'm not opposing the development, I'm opposing the fact that we as residents there have lost the right to our access on Bott Lane and we are opposing that. Borup: Well, I don't see that as you losing the right, that you're voluntarily giving it up to have this project developed. They kind of go hand in hand. C. Hendrickson: Well, we didn't voluntarily give it up either. Rohm: Boy, I thought we were about done. Okay. Let's see. Where do we go now? Borup: Well, I'm looking at the staff report to see what things that -- if there is anything that we have discussed tonight that we would modify. I have only seen one area of discussion. Mr. Zaremba, you had something else? Zaremba: Yeah. Just a comment on the most recent subject. I would propose considering that access to Bott Lane could remain until the stub street, Hendrickson, connects to something south or east. At that point there would be two ways for them to leave their property. I mean once they got to Hendrickson they could go north and, then, west, or they could go south and, then, east, which, essentially, would remove the need to use Batt Lane at that point. Borup: I agree with that. Actually, I think they should be allowed to keep use of Bott Lane. I mean it's only one house. It's -- but I don't know if that would need to be a special condition or what -- what it would need to be, but -- and maybe it would be on a temp -- like you say, on a temporary basis. Rohm: Well, it doesn't appear as if-- Borup: But it's not -- but it's not a staff -- it's not in the requirements, is it? Hood: It's not a condition now. Borup: Right. Hood: So -- and probably just to clarify, since we had the discussion, whatever you want to do we should make it a condition or an allowance, just so at least it's addressed in here. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 106 of 136 Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Borup: Still, in my mind the concern would be that all the other lots would be able to access it and if they have that landscape strip there that would prevent that. Probably just the way you worded that would cover it, wouldn't it? The only other thing I noticed that was -- and there is probably something else, but the question on the common lot, the park, the interior park. The staff report calls for eliminating it and making Lot 3 -- the applicant came up with a new design, which I thought made sense. Makes it real central. It's not a large -- it's not a large subdivision, it's not like one that's going to have a hundred kids there and I don't see -- I don't see this as a park where the police are going to have a lot of concern. I mean there is not going to be a lot of problems. So, I guess what I'm saying is I would be -- I would be fine with their new -- their new design. Moe: l'd concur as well. Borup: Was there any other items? Rohm: I don't think so. Zaremba: Do we want to give them an opportunity to approach ACHD and, then, us see the result of that? Borup: I don't care. Personally, if you -- if you -- if other Commissioners want to, I'm fine either way, but I -- in this case I don't feel a need to, because it's not really changing the design of the plan. Rohm: We could just make it a condition for recommendation that they get the waiver from Ada County to the stub street to the north and move it on to City Council. Borup: And as part of that have emergency access. I mean that was the sketch that was shown to us. Zaremba: With the knuckle and the -- Moe: Based upon their emergency access and, then, the knuckle configuration that was shown on that sketch. I think that would be fine. Borup: Which would provide pedestrian access to the north for -- Rohm: Well, I think we have got enough to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Well, I was just going to comment that we haven't discussed Commissioner Borup's thought that if there is height restrictions on some of the properties, it would be fair to have them on all of them, and I kind of felt that way before he said it. I was going to ask the same question. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 107 of 136 Rohm: I, myself, I support the developer's position, that as a condition of development they agreed not to put multiple story houses adjacent to the lots next to the Hendricksons and the balance of the lots are setback far enough from adjacent property owners that even though it may sound obtrusive right now, I don't think at the end of the day it will be nearly as offensive as what it sounds on paper. Borup: That same argument applies to the Hendrickson's house. It's far away also. Rohm: Other than they are the ones that are selling the property. Borup: Right. Rohm: They kind of hold the hammer on that. That's just my opinion. Borup: One option may -- well, I don't know. This is getting too complicated. I was going to say if the restriction on those other interior lots was removed, I would be in favor of removing it on the lots to the east also. Otherwise, I like the idea of restricting it on both. I mean if it works for one, it works for the other. Rohm: I think, then, we should probably close the Public Hearing and make a motion to that effect and we will move forward. Borup: I move we -- Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on Items No. AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both related to Hendrickson Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT Rohm: Mr. Borup, Commissioner Borup, you're up. Borup: For what? Rohm: Making a motion. I think you have captured all of the concerns and -- Borup: Well, I haven't written anything that well. Okay. Then, maybe we need to go through and mention a few things, make sure we are all in agreement. We talked about the park. How about police department's comments? Zaremba: I don't know if I said, but I can support the drawing that they presented tonight with a new configuration of the park. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 108 of 136 Borup: Well, actually, that probably does say. That says Lot 5, Block 2, shall be redesigned to allow for surveillance. So, we just need to say that we feel they have done that. Zaremba: We accept the drawing presented at this hearing. Borup: Okay. Well, I'm a little hesitant to -- I'm a little unsure on the stub street. I don't know, I -- without knowing how that other property is going to develop -- Zaremba: Well, that would actually be a decision. If the stub street goes away, they must access Selatir. Borup: Well -- and if it's only going to -- if it is going to develop to one acre lots, then, I feel it's not a big -- probably not a big issue. So, how would that be worded? Rohm: I think just -- Borup: Just leave it like the staff report says and, then, maybe say -- the second bullet point, basically, leave it like it is and add unless removed by ACHD? Rohm: I think that would work. Borup: Actually, I'm reading the ACHD report in that -- just a minute. We need to get that in from the -- where is that mentioned in the staff report? Moe: I'm looking for it right now. Hood: There is no condition for the stub street in the staff report. Borup: It incorporated the ACHD report; right? Hood: Correct. And condition 1.1.1 is approving the preliminary plat that shows the stub street, so it's not explicitly there, but it's there. Borup: And then -- I can't believe I want to add this. I have always been opposed to this and I'm going to make it a motion. Would we add it to 2.22 on restricting -- restricting buildings to one story on the eastern boundary? Zaremba: The twos are public works comments. Borup: Oh. Zaremba: I'd probably back up and make it -- Borup: Yeah. I thought I was still at the -- yeah, I meant to do the ones -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 109 of 136 Zaremba: Make it at the 1.1 something. Borup: Yeah. Well, should that even be -- that really shouldn't be -- would that normally be on the preliminary plat? We don't have a development agreement here, do we? Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my only concern is if you limit it to one story, I think we have had issues in the past between one story, bonus rooms, and the like. If you want to limit it by height, which is what our ordinances usually cover, that would probably be easier from an enforcement standpoint, than trying to eliminate it by a story. Borup: Well, that's another reason I have always been opposed to limiting it to anything, especially the two story. You can have a one story that's just as tall. Hood: Just to continue that thought -- and as the applicant pointed out earlier, the R-2 does allow a certain height limit. If you want to do something that goes and restricts it even further, there is a development agreement and that has conditions on page eight. So, if you were going to modify or restrict that, that's probably the best place is to put that in the DA. Borup: Okay. I just thought of another way. How about we word it that the building height -- the buildings on Block 3 will be restricted to the same height as the buildings on Block 2 and leave it at that. I think that covers everything that I feel the -- do the Commissioners understand what I did there? And you said it should go under eight or can it go -- eight under where? I'm sorry, I missed where you were referring to. Oh, page eight. Hood: And just add -- you'd have to add a new bullet point. Borup: Which page eight? Well, that's in the -- that's in the analysis; right? Okay. Oh, there we go. All right. I don't know -- okay, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of files AZ 06-012 and PP 06-0101 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date April 6, 2006, with the following modifications. One, on page eight, a final bullet point, say the homes on Block 3 will be restricted to the same height as required for the homes on Block 2. Under site specific requirements, page one, that 1.1 -- 1.1.4 be deleted. Actually, 1.1.5 be deleted also. Isn't that what we were talking about? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 110 of 136 Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, at least one of those -- the first two lots are still going to have to share a common driveway. I don't-- Borup: That's why I was confused there, because I only -- I didn't have good notes on that. Hood: I don't remember in the new drawing if the other two share a common driveway or not. Borup: The first half of -- the first half of that sentence would stay. One and two, Block 2, would still share a common drive. Lots 4 and -- the second half of that, Lot 4 and 5 share a common driveway, would be deleted. And, then, the last sentence would still stay. Meet the UDC. So, I think -- yeah. I think -- everybody understood what -- and along with that, under the police department comments, 4.1, where it says redesign to allow for surveillance, the Commission feels that the application has shown a redesign of the park area that complies with this requirement. And, then, under 7.1.2, second bullet point, add at the end of that paragraph: Unless stub street is removed by ACHD. And if that is done, then, an emergency access will be added as shown in the design sketch. Hood: Mr. Chair, that's good at the end of the second bullet, then, because there is, actually, three stub streets that are talked about there and -- Borup: Oh. Hood: -- I assumed that, I just wanted to make the record clear. Borup: Yes. Did I do it right? I said at the end of the second bullet. Hood: I didn't catch second bullet. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I did say it right. Wow. What did I leave off? Rohm: I think that's it. Borup: End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, to include all staff comments with modifications as stated in the motion. Borup: There was one other thing I was going to add. Rohm: Oh. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 111 of 136 Borup: Weren't we going to add some -- did we get the comment there about access to Bott Lane? I don't think so. Moe: No, we did not. Zaremba: I would suggest allowing it until there is -- Borup: Okay. 1-- Zaremba: -- another connection to the south. Borup: That was my intention to do that, even though I know staff is not in favor of that. So, what did we end at? One point -- at the end of the -- at the end of site specific requirements -- Moe: Yes. Borup: -- for preliminary plat. 1.1.11. That we allow access from the existing Hendrickson house to Bott Lane, restricted to that house only, until other access may become available in the future. Zaremba: I would rephrase that until Hendrickson Road has access to the south and the east by public road. Borup: Okay. Incorporate Commissioner Zaremba's comment in there. Zaremba: The second accepts the change. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, to include all staff comments and including modifications in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: I think we are done. Borup: Wow. You got to be kidding. Moe: No, we got five more to go. Rohm: Yes, we do. And we are going to skip those and we will need one more motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just as a thought for discussion, would we want to poll the audience and see which item it is that they are here for?