Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 16, 2006 City CouncilMeridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 22 of 56 D~~ Nary: This is just approving the variance as recommended. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: 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 Bott Lane: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request far a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC -- 4240 East Bott Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this process. Okay. Items 17 and 18. I will open these public hearings on AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010. Start with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hendrickson project. It is located just east of Kingsbridge Subdivision and it's west of Selatir and east of Eagle, south of Victory, which is just up the -- would be up at the top of the slide there and north of Amity, which is right down here on the bottom of the slide. It's getting toward the edge of our area of city impact. Actually, this dotted line is our current area of city impact. This is within Boise's area of city impact. The applications include annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The gross residential density is 1.9 units per acre. It includes 18 single family lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone. Most of the lots in this area range from 12,000 and, then, they are a little larger on the perimeter. I do want to paint out some awkward lots that -- we have a flag lot here that's a 30 foot flag and a house here. We have the existing house on a large lot back here that would also have a 30 foot flag coming out and they currently take access to Bott Lane, which is in this location at the southeast corner of the property. The open space for the project has a flag coming off this street, opens up briefly back here, and another flag going that way. The staff has recommended a development agreement. Some of those provisions that are unusual or site specific include that the applicant shall install and maintain the proposed off-site vegetation shown in the strip along the eastern property line. What we have is -- you can just see it here. Selatir is a public street. It ends and, then, you have Selatir as a private lane extending from there. There is a small strip of land between Selatir Lane held in separate ownership and between this property. And I'm -- they have agreed to an off-site commitment to landscape that piece of property. The other development agreement condition is this -- that a maximum of 18 single family building lots will be platted on the property and, then, the applicant has proposed that all the homes in Block 2 would be single story and the Commission added a development Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 23 of 56 agreement condition that stated that the homes in Black 3 would be similarly restricted. The Commission recommended approval at their April 4th hearing. In favor of the application were Ken Elliott, Gordon Bates, Don Hendrickson, and Christine Hendrickson. In opposition were David LaVigne and Leonard Vanskoy. And commenting were Tim Petchy, Shelly Robertson, Lisa Becker, Jerry Larsen, Virginia Welkerstein and Susan Brender. And I apologize for any mispronunciations on any of those names. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were access to Bott Lane as I noted dawn here. Design of the open space as I called out. It's kind of double L shaped, I suppose. Or double flagged. Limiting the height to single stories on some of the lots. And, then, the stub street to the north. The key Commission changes to staff recommendations were that they -- and I noted before, they did restrict the building heights on Lot 3 to be similar to what was proposed on Lot 2. So, if the applicant wanted to allow two story homes on Lot 2, then, lot -- or Block 2, then, Black 3 would not be limited either. And they also decided -- the Commission has recommended that the existing home be allowed to continue to access Bott Lane until Hendrickson Avenue, which is the street on the east end of the property, until it is extended as a public street to the southeast. I wanted to show you where Bott Lane goes. I believe this is the current path of Bott Lane and, then, it cuts across here to Cloverdale and then -- it's not showing, but it does eventually connect to Cloverdale, I believe. And the applicant may have a comment about that, but it does make its way there eventually. The outstanding issues before Council -- I have referenced the applicant's letter that you have received on your desk today and I did go through all of the other concerns. The first concern that they note is the Planning and Zoning Commission's restriction on height for Block 3. I think I have explained all the issues there, that, apparently, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing they also -- the applicant did offer to set the homes on Block 3 25 feet from the back of property line to provide some additional buffer to those homes that are on Selatir. The zone only requires 15 feet. The applicant has also raised the question about fencing an the south boundary. They may need to explain this one further. I wasn't sure exactly where they were going. It's -- there are two general conditions in the landscape provisions that call out required fencing for the perimeter of the subdivision. I believe their concern is if they are accessing Bott Lane that they don't want to put a fence over it and, clearly, we allow breaks in those fences to accommodate access routes. The applicant also raised questions about the Ten Mile feeder improvements. That comment is not referencing an actual condition of approval, it's just in the analysis and the Findings. So, there is no need to address that on Council's part. There is a -- the applicant Hates that there is some contradiction between staff analysis and Section 10 in the conditions of approval. This is not uncommon. Staff writes their analysis, they develop the conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to change those conditions of approval, we just go and change the conditions of approval, we don't go back and change the analysis. The analysis is still left as it was for the planning -~ original staff report far the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sa, that covers a lot of the items in that. One -- number one on their -- on their list under those is, yes, the preliminary plat revisions now address the issues discussed in Section 10, but we don't typically remove that analysis from the report. Item number two. Yes, those conditions have been met, but regarding a redesign of the site, staff had proposed a redesign. The applicant took another route to address those concerns and that's the one Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 24 of 56 you see before you tonight, sa -- but those references are still there, but they have redesigned the site. Condition 1.1.4, as noted, was removed, because it was inconsistent with the Commission's decision, but it's noted in the key changes. So, there is really no action needed on that one either. Item number four, the applicant -- the Commission has recommended that the applicant be allowed to continue to use Bott Lane until Hendrickson Road extends to the southeast. I noted that before. They are asking you to address language in the -- again, in the analysis section stating that access to Bott Lane be fenced off. So, it doesn't reference a condition of approval. There is no condition of approval that says Bott Lane has to be fenced. But I did want to take this opportunity to point out that staff is still very concerned about allowing this property to maintain access off of Bott Lane. This is our one chance and our only chance, basically, to get this current property owner to abdicate their rights to that access and as we have seen on Wingate Lane, it's crucial that the furthest in -- and this is the property furthest in on Bott Lane, that they -- that we sequentially abandon thane rights. Now, in this case it may not affect the City of Meridian much, given that it's close to the boundary, but it may prevent the logical extension of Hendrickson Avenue if it's contending with Bott Lane access before it gets out to Cloverdale and that east-west connection through the section does become important, even if it is Boise city property it becomes important. Comment number five on their response, again, it references the analysis section. It's not necessary to address that one at this time. Finally, the applicant has requested that the Council remove the condition for the stub street and instead allow the applicant to have an emergency access to Selatir Place, the private lane just to the east. ACHD has provided comment for you. They sent an a-mail over immediately stating that it is a condition of their approval and they do want to see that stub street go in. If the applicant wants to provide an emergency access to Selatir in addition to that, they are free to do that, but they want to have that stub street and they will address the issue of whether it should connect at a later time. This does not provide a connection to Selatir at this time and they will address that later, but they are pretty adamant that they want that stub street to remain. So, the issues that need to be addressed from my notes are the stub street, access to Bott Lane, and the height for Block 2, and Block 3 and, then, the redesign that staff had proposed basically removed these flag lots from being so secluded and also made the open space more open. Again, the Commission has recommended this one to you. Staff still has concerns about these private -- these residences on these flag lots. Code does allow it. It's up to I suppose Council to decide whether it's in the best interest of the city to have these flag lots tucked way behind these other lots. And with that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have Wane. Rountree: Mr. Mayor? De Weerd. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 25 of 56 Rountree: Anna, I can't read the number on this parcel. It's either three or five. Is that part of the flag lot access or is that -- can it be a common lot or what's going on there? Is that part of this lot here? Canning: It is the common lot. It tames down here, kind of shaped like a -- Rountree: Okay. Okay. Canning: -- flag with a pendent that connects. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Elliott: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm with Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Gordon Bates, who is our project manager, will be dealing with two of the points that Anna raised. I'd like to talk -- or I had planned to talk just about the height restriction on Block 3, but I first want to clarify one point on the Bott Lane access that I think may not have been stated clearly and that is that it's only the existing Hendrickson house on Lot 1 Q of Block 2 that will maintain its historic access to Bott Lane. The rest of the project will have that stub street blocked by a barricade and we will not seek or have any access to Bott Lane. Just the one house. And the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that compromise and, again, it will not interfere with the future extension of our southern stub to the south or the east, because the condition further says that once that public street connection is made, then, the Hendricksons will use that instead and will relinquish the existing access to Bott Lane. With that said, I'd like to go on to the -- the single story restrictions on Block 3. And interpreting the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning, I think it was primarily based on the fact that as a matter of contract when we bought the Hendrickson's land, we agreed that those interior lots that back up against the Hendrickson's backyard will be restricted to single story. Planning and Zoning seemed to think that if we did it voluntarily as a matter of the land purchase, that we should, then, go ahead and restrict those that adjoin Selatir. As you can see, the Hendrickson's house is oriented -- the backyard is to the northeast and that's the primary view from this area is of the Boise foothills, Bogus Basin, those lots if -- on the interior, if they were two story, would directly block the Hendrickson's existing view to the northeast and that's why we agreed to that concession. Along the eastern boundary, Block 3, we did make several compromises with the Selatir neighbors and we thought that we had reached a census that did not include limiting those houses to single stories. As Anna mentioned, we have voluntarily agreed to a 24 foot rear yard setback. We are putting a three foot berm at the property line with a six foot privacy fence on top of it. There is an existing 16 foot wide strip to the west of that private lane, that's the area that we will be improving with landscaping and, then, maintaining through the Meridian City Gouncil May 16, 2006 Page 26 of 56 homeowners association. Then we have a 50 foot right of way and, then, we have the front yards on the houses ranging anywhere from 50 and up, 50 feet and up. We eliminated one of the lots there. We originally had six lots. We reduced that to five, so that we have the largest lots in the subdivision adjoining Selatir. All of them are well in excess of 15,000 square feet. One is over 16. Each lot lines up with the existing lots on Selatir. So, we have ahouse -- a house an Selatir, a house on Hendrickson and, then, the fifth one at the south end adjoins an open space tract that"s being held under the farm use covenant. So, we, basically, have four new lots aligned with four existing houses. These are the largest lots in the subdivision and with the primary view as it is to the Hendricksons, the primary view for the folks on Selatir is to the northeast and we think that the agreements that we reached voluntarily are adequate to buffer their front yard view from any two story houses that are built on our eastern black. I would note that Selatir is not restricted. One of the four houses has an existing two story house. The other three houses that adjoin us could add a second story at any time. There is no such restriction an their property rights. We are asking that the Council reconsider the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. You may recall as part of the Kingsbridge Subdivision approval that we voluntarily -- or through a negotiated settlement with the neighbors, limited the height on several of our preliminary lots to single stories slang Zaldia Lane, along Dartmoor, the subdivision. Just to make this more than a hypothetical exercise, I want to let you know that we have signed lot reservation agreements on all of phase one in Kingsbridge from 18 builders who want to be part of the project. We had that on all the lots, except those that are restricted to single story. We expect that they will eventually sell, but it shows that there is a very real drag on the marketability of those lots when they are restricted to single story. So, we would ask that these five lots not be so restricted. And I'd invite Gordon Bates now, project manager, to address the other two points that Anna raised. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Unless there are questions that -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that the 16 foot strip over here -- Elliott: Yes. Rountree: -- would be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners? Elliott: Correct. Rountree: Is that a piece of property that your company owns or is that owned by the neighboring homeowners? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 27 of 56 Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Rountree, it's owned by the -- either one or two of the residents of Selatir Place and so it will be an off-site obligation that we are taking on as a matter of deed restriction and covenants that will affect our subdivision. Rountree: And is that something that you could do? I mean have you negotiated that at this paint ar is that just wishful thinking? Elliott: That's part of our agreement that we have reached with the Selatir neighbors, that they want us to improve and landscape and, then, maintain that strip. Rountree: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Bates: Good evening. Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. My business address is 661 South River Share Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. I very quickly will go through the presentation we have this evening. I want to thank all of you and Madam Mayor and the Council members far your time. We agree with most of the Exhibit B conditions of approval. I think the clarification letter that I sent speaks for itself there. There is a few items that we will discuss here in just a few moments. The neighbors that are here I believe will mostly speak to their concerns regarding the stub street and they will also voice their opinion on the height restrictions. I would like to Hate that this project does comply with the R-2 zoning, including the five percent open space, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, 80 foot frontage. There are actually 15 foot flag lots and that's per the UDC and that was based upon redesign comments from Joe Guenther and I believe also Caleb Hood on that. They do have a shared driveway, which is the hatched area. There is a shared driveway here. There is another shared driveway right here. We do believe that these flag lots meet the UDC code. Amenities. If you could switch to the next handout there, Anna. The green. Thank you. A little bit of a zoom out, please. The green space highlighted is the common area. This is a detention area and common area here with trees and landscaping. The park originally came down a very narrow flag lot and flared out in this area. There was no access to Hendrickson Avenue here. This has been redesigned based primarily on Lieutenant Stowe's comments from the city police department to provide a flare visibility from the street here into the park to provide visibility and access into the park here, so that we meet his primary concerns about anybody, a police officer ar otherwise, would have visibility back into this park. We also feel like this is a very centrally located park, it provides access by the new lots, it also provides access from the existing home. It provides a path area far younger children to play in it away from the street. We looked at separating the major recreational activity from the street traffic. We feel like that is very save. And as per staff comments, we will have non-trespass light to provide very low level lighting to discourage activity after dark, but, yet, will also provide these neighbors with very limited visibility into that. This light will not splash out into those lots and creating a type of nuisance. It will most likely be three foot high bollards of light, shielded lighting on top. And we feel that P$~Z has -- as they have approved this as Hated in Exhibit B, item 4.1. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors. Three of them to be exact. Lots of communication. There Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 28 of 56 is concerns with the stub street going north to Mr. Dan Johnson's parcel. This area here that I did not highlight, because it's off site, is our 15 foot landscape strip, and the neighboring association has agreed verbally, we have not developed a written agreement yet, that would allow us to not only construct these improvements, but maintain them by the Hendrickson homeowners association. It will include a three foot berm and a six foot privacy fence centered on our easterly boundary and their westerly boundary. Ken went through the other concessions. I won't repeat those. I would note that we have the 25 foot yard -- rear yard setback and that's on note 15 of the preliminary plat. Fifteen foot wide buffer strip, a 50 foot wide right of way and, then, we start getting into their front and side yards over here. Staff notes -- also note that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential future use. We also have provided reasonable transition lots and voluntary concessions that exceed the city requirements. Regarding the access -- Anna, if you could go to the next handout, please, with the fence. Existing Lot 10 of Block 2 is a portion that the Hendricksons are retaining ownership of. Their existing house is here. Their existing driveway comes down and comes into the Ten Mile feeder canal right of way and continues down to Bott Lane. We are not -- we are proposing to provide dual access for this lot. They will have a gate here with a paved shared driveway for city code, access to Hendrickson Avenue to Kingsbridge Drive and westerly. We are requesting that their existing legal and historic access to Bott Lane to the south remain and be allowed to continue until Hendrickson Avenue is extended to the south. Mr. Hendrickson is not here this evening. He'd point out that many of their friends and most of the community that they have relationships with are along Bott Lane and they would just like to continue that access for their sole purpose far this lot only. They would secure this gate and not let public access come onto their private property. They would not allow public access to come to Bott Lane. It would be solely for their use only and not the remaining subdivision or any adjoining streets. Fencingwise. There is some comments regarding fencing the south boundary against the canal located here. We are providing fencing from this point to here along the south boundary to the gate. These are all fenced -- either proposed fence or open fence around the common area. It connects to the fencing praposed for Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west. We are asking far a formal waiver from this paint to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 2, to the gate at the westerly terminus of the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrickson's pointed out that they enjoy the canal there, it's part of the amenities of their property, even though it is not part of their property, it's on a separate parcel and is requested not to have to fence this, since we are providing fencing boundary in other areas of the subdivision and we would ask for a formal waiver noting that portion. Regarding the stub street, the developer, ourselves, and the neighbors along Selatir Lane would dearly love to see that stub street go away. Mr. Dan Jahnson, the owner of this parcel here, speaks for himself on that matter. The staff report indicates that this stub street connects to Selatir Lane and up to Victory. Ta date I'm not aware of Mr. Johnson having a formal application to do that. I feel like this stub street may go nowhere. It really depends on Mr. Johnson's development plans and I'll let him speak for himself. Selatir is a county road. It has no sidewalks. We feel that future connectivity is much better served down Hendrickson Avenue to a full urban street with sidewalks and connection over towards development off of Cloverdale Road. We would offer -- if we could have that next slide, please, Anna. I would note that this is Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 29 of 56 purposefully a hand sketch change. This is just a proposal. It's not gone to ACHD, etc. But if ACRD agrees to eliminate the stub street here, we would offer to substitute that with the gravel and gated emergency vehicle only access lane to provide enhanced vehicle access to the Hendrickson and the easterly side of Kingsbridge Drive. De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, summarize. Bates: You bet. In closing, we meet the zoning requirements, Comprehensive Plan designation. We are providing the city with larger lots south of the freeway, in comparison to the relatively denser subdivisions elsewhere. We ask that the city would reconsider the height restriction on Block 3. We ask that you could concur with the Planning and Zoning allowance for the continued legal use of the access of Lot 10, Block 2, to Bott Lane. We ask that you would grant a fence waiver on the southerly portion of Lot 10, Block 2. We ask that you would allow for -- subject to ACHD approval, the removal of the stub street to be replaced by an emergency vehicle access, again, contingent upon ACHD approval at a later date. This would allow for staff level approvals of those changes of preliminary plat, rather than a new public hearing before you. We also would -- De Weerd: Sir? Bates: Yeah. De Weerd: Your time is aver. Bates: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question. De Weerd: Okay. Bates: Yes. Rountree: What is this feature? Bates: That is an existing canal. It will be piped around the perimeter of the property. That's the McDonald Lateral. And we have worked that out with the Boise Project Board of Control. They feel like the hydraulics there are reasonable such that a piping will work just fine through there. It's got several checks providing lots of fall that we can pipe on the perimeter. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 30 of 56 Rountree: So, it will be on the southern perimeter? Southerly and westerly perimeter, yes, sir. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have a number of people signed up here. When I read your name I will also read how you have checked the form. If you wish to provide testimony when I read your name, please, come forward. If not, we will at least record your name and opinion for the record. Lisa Becker. Against. Becker: Goad evening. My name is Lisa Becker. 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: I live one lot north of the proposed development. Both Vision First and the homeowners testified at Planning and Zoning Commission. All opposed the northern stub street, so we wanted to explain why we oppose it. Our street Selatir is a very narrow street. It was designed as a dead end cul-de-sac to access six estate lots. I wrote you a letter, but the picture didn't turn out very good, sa I wanted to show you the width of the road. You can see if two -- if two cars are on that road, basically, there is no room for another car to get by. The road is, actually, 23.5 feet wide and we have irrigation runoff on both sides of the barrow pits. A lot of times the irrigation runoff it's basically from side to side. So, it's a very narrow road. ACRD in their letter dated March 21st indicated that that northern stub street was placed there in anticipation of a future connection to Selatir Place. We feel this creates a safety risk. It would allow dumping urban density residential from Kingsbridge and Hendrickson onto this very narrow rural lane. ACRD also indicated that the stub street was there for future development to the north. However, we don't feel that's necessary. Our restrictive covenants only permit up to one acre lots. They are currently all five acre estate lots and our restrictive covenants only allow future development to one acre lots. Those one acres could be accessed easily off of Selatir. There is no need for the stub to access future development. We want to indicate that we do support the vision for connectivity between neighborhoods. That's why we have proposed a compromise of the fire lane, which would allow bike and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods without dumping urban density traffic onto this rural road. So, we just ask -- I'd ask in summary that you either remove the stub street -- we have talked with Commissioner Huber from the ACHD and she's indicated that on some occasions you have been willing to remove stub streets. Or we ask that you refer it back to the ACHD far a public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 31 of 56 Becker: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Jeff Welkerstein. And I really apologize if I just messed up your name. Welkerstein: That's okay. De Weerd: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Welkerstein: Jeff Welkerstein. 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Welkerstein: I live down about the cul-de-sac, second house from the end. I just want to concur with the previous testimony from my neighbor concerning allowing the stub street to connect into Selatir Place. I just want to reiterate it's a rural narrow road with barrow pits and no sidewalks. On the ACHD report they estimated that the Hendrickson Subdivision would add about 170 vehicle trips per day. I don't believe there was any mention of the additional traffic that would be added from the adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west that would want to shortcut through there as well. Also, we were unaware of any ten day appeal process to the ACRD report. The letter was dated March 21 st and I did not receive a copy of the a-mail until after the ten day appeal period. So, I also would appreciate City Council recommending removal of the stub street or sending it back to ACHD for review. Another point I want to make is originally we were apposed to the density as it currently stands. I would be happier if the lot sizes mirrored the size of the Kingsbridge lots abutting the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was a half acre to one acre transition on some of the perimeters and some height restrictions as well. In talking with Vision First, we told them we would be more amenable to the proposed site, which are about third acre lots, assuming the house and the out buildings adjacent to Selatir Place are limited to one story and maintained a 25 foot setback. And so that's what Planning and Zoning recommended and we support restricting those and I think it's Lot 3 to one story. Then, finally, I also believe there is confusion about whether or not the Hendrickson property is included in this -- in the 9.43 acres. If it's not, I mean I'm confused, if they still want access to Bott Lane, if they are not part of the subdivision, then, including them in the 9.3 acres, the density is too great for R-2 zoning. So, in summary, concerns about the stub street. Hopefully, we can send it back to ACHD for review. And concerns about the density and/or the height restrictions. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jenny Welkerstein. Welkerstein. Also against. Okay. Thank you. David LaVigne. Exactly. I always appreciate coaching, though. Okay. If you would like to step forward and just say your name and address for the record. LaVigne: I didn't want to use my minutes up yet, so I was just waiting -- De Weerd: We won't start it until she's ready. LaVigne: Okay. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 32 of 56 Nary: Please summarize. LaVigne: Wait a minute. My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is just a little north of the proposed subdivision. And so what I wanted to do is just kind of talk -- walk you through some of the points. One of our primary concerns -- you want to flip to the next slide -- is -- we are requesting denial of the proposed plat map primarily because of the concern for the stub street to the north property for future. Primary concern is just the stub street. If you could go to the next slide. And as you saw, this is the stub street that we were talking about we would like to see removed. And if you want to go to the next slide. The Selatir Place, as referred, is a rural road, it's 22.3 feet wide with no sidewalks, barrow pits, and as you can see on the right-hand side over here, this is water that fills up with the irrigation water on the side. Cars in the middle here and you want -- I have got -- I have got two kids -- I have got three kids. Two three year old twins and -- forget how many I have. I don't get a lot of sleep. Rountree: How many is that? LaVigne: I don't know. It's a blur. But they -- you know, they, actually, go dawn and visit Jeff's kids down at the end of the street, which they have to run all the way dawn here at the end of the street and it's a one mile road. So, if you want to go to the next slide. So, as you can kind of see the way that the road is, it's along -- long narrow road, barrow pits on each side, and it's 1.75 -- one to 1.75 acres and if you open this thing up to -- to what's coming over on Selatir from Kingsbridge and from the Hendrickson Subdivision, it's going to be like a speedway and a question to you guys is where are our kids supposed to walk and go down and visit their friends when you have -- when you potentially have 500 cars per day coming down this road when you open it up to Hendrickson Subdivision, as well as portion -- back portion of Kingsbridge. So, the next slide. To give you a flavor of what's on the street, if you haven't been down there before, just to kind of give you an idea of some of the homes, the estate homes that are on here. There is anywhere between one and five acre lots and it's right on the edge of the Meridian city limits, if you have seen it. If you want to ga to the next slide. These are just same more five acre estate lots in Selatir Place. Just to kind of give you a flavor, the homes are setback, they are big acreages, and nobody's -- I mean it's just a -- it's a great rural environment that's still within -- you know, it's close to the City of Meridian, which we are getting fewer and fewer homes that are -- developments that are still out here like this. If you want to go to the next slide. So, what we'd like to -- the primary concern is the public safety is the primary concern regarding the potential connection to Selatir Place via the stub street on the Hendrickson Subdivision. And as you have kind of heard, what we'd like to kind of propane is some options -- layout same options for you. If you want to ga to the next slide. And the Selatir homeowners, as well as Vision First, we were, first, unaware of the 10 day appeal period that must be filed to contest ACRD recommendations. That had actually lapsed, almost, by the time we had gotten to talk to the Planning and -- to Planning and Zoning. And what we'd like to recommend is the City Council -- one of the options is to -- the City Council not act on the report and -- Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 33 of 56 De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. LaVigne: Okay. This is -- if you want to go to the next slide. That was one option. And the next option. Bottom line is -- you have heard a lot of the options and you also heard about the proposed stub street. Removing the stub street and that piece of strip, spite strip that we have been talking about, is granting access across, is -- that's in lieu of -- we would grant access to something like that, because it's, actually, a part of the homeowners association. The group has purchased it under the homeowners association, that spite strip, and we would, actually, like to encourage some connectivity, but we don't want to encourage the connectivity to have all of the traffic coming down, but we do agree with the connectivity of neighborhoods. We would like to have connectivity between Kingsbridge, as well as Selatir as well. So, we would be mare than happy to offer that up in lieu of removing the stub street regarding any future connectivity to that whole piece as well as you see right there. And one other last option, a quick summary, and I'm out of here, is that -- is that on putting a restriction on the stub street, which I had talked to Sherry Huber, ACRD commissioner about, she said that you could actually put a restriction on this stub street that it could not be used for -- for vehicle access, only emergency access or pedestrian access, if the stub street still had to stay there. So, that's an additional option for you to consider. So, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Sir, we have a question for you. Wardle: Okay. Mr. LaVigne -- and I'm referencing your mention of increased traffic and those sorts of things. And maybe I'm not understanding the plat right. Does this stub street connect to your lane or does it just -- LaVigne: It does not. It is the future -- I mean we are -- it's -- the next step would be -- the person -- if you want to put up a slide of where it stubs out, the person or the property to the north is considering right now subdividing that -- that parcel and putting additional homes on it. ACHD has -- Lori Den Hartog, in her report, had mentioned that she would be willing to -- or she likes the idea of the connectivity and would like -- the whole -- there is nothing in the back here and there is a stub street right here right now in Kingsbridge, which is already here. There is already one over here. So, one additional stub street here and, then, you have one down here. One going here out to this road. If Dan Johnson subdivides and brings that -- or approves -- you know, ACRD says they would like to connect, bottom line is and the concern is once -- once Dan Johnson decides to subdivide, which he's planning on doing and we don't know what the plat map looks like, because he hasn't filed it, but the next step would be to -- you know, the connectivity would go out to -- ACHD would like that connectivity out there. So, that's kind of where -- we are trying to be a step ahead of it. We have been talking Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 34 of 56 about this for two years now as Kingsbridge was going through all this and wanting to connect over to this way, over to Selatir as well. So, we are trying to be a step ahead of it, because we know the next step is just going to be a continuous -- I mean that's kind of what the end result's going to be. We are trying to prevent that. Does that help? That's your question? Wardle: That clarifies it. Thank you. LaVigne: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It raised a question. Maybe it confused me. LaVigne: Sure. Borton: So, the concern that -- if there is a stub street here and there is connectivity here, it's not going to increase traffic an the street in front of these properties. LaVigne: It would nat. Borton: Okay. Your concern is for properties up here? LaVigne: My concern is for properties up there that go all the way up. There is probably a quarter mile roadway from here all the way up here and my kids go walk dawn here right now to catch the bus, as well as other kids dawn here walk from here down the street to catch the bus at the end at Victory. Borton: Your photographs were of these properties, not -- or of the street up here, not of the street down here? LaVigne: Correct. These are all -- there is two more -- that's my property right there. There is two more properties here and there is more over here, but -- Borton: Okay. Thank you. LaVigne: Does that help? All right. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Susan Brender signed up against. Brender: I'm Susan Brender. I live at 3568 Sauth Selatir Place, which is the second one acre lot on the east side of Selatir, not exactly adjacent, but my south property line would be the same as the north property line for the Hendrickson Subdivision. Meridian City Council May 16, 2D06 Page 35 of 56 De Weerd: Thank you. Brender: I agree with everything that's been said so far. I just want to add two things. One is in regards to the safety along Selatir if the stub street were put in there and future access for all of Kingsbridge traffic were to dump out on Selatir -- right now the street is one of those where it's been blacktopped a couple of times and so on the sides there is probably a five inch dropoff in someplaces to the gravel. I'm sure the kids riding their bicycles down there, if they were trying to avoid a car, it could be serious and there are a lot of children on that street. The other issue that Ihave -- that I want to emphasize -- it's already been mentioned -- is the height restriction on the east lots or Block 3. Contrary to the statement that everyone's view is to the northeast, which is true, but we also have a terrific view to the southwest. We can see the Owyhees. We won't be able to see them with two story houses. But the major thing is that single story restriction of Black 3 would be compatible with the house across the street. Those are my concerns. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jerry Larsen signed up against. Larsen: Jerry Larsen. 3536 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Ditto all my neighbors on the -- especially on the stub street. We have pretty much run that one. A couple of comments on the single story development. It is wrong for the area. It's a very open area. I agree they have made a big point about the view to the northeast -- primarily east northeast. We also do have a fantastic view out the west. I have some amazing pictures of the setting sun that a nine fact fence would not occlude those two story skulking homes from ruining. So, I would ask they be restricted to single story. Also, I'd note that if you look at the scale on Kingsbridge would like to talk about how far away the houses are across the road and across our front yards. If you scale that, they -- those one story homes, hopefully, would be about the same distance away as the one story homes surrounding Mr. Hendrickson. So, it's the same distance. The other point I'd like to make is -- as explained on P&Z meeting when we were here before, the Harm is that when somebody joins the city, they give up access to the county. I would ask that that be enforced here. Mr. Hendrickson seems to -- or Mr. Hendrickson needs to decide whether he wants to be in the city or in the county and either get in or get out, rather than cherry pick to his own exclusive advantage. The -- you know, if he wants to have his dogs play in the ditch and have access to the ditch, then, stay in the county, don't develop. He can make that choice. But if he wants to be in the city, I think he needs to be in the city, so -- and if he is -- you know, if he is allowed access and out, then, let's take his property out of the density calculation, you know, not have it both ways. That's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rick Anderson signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Delphic Anderson. Or Delpha. Thank you. Dan Johnson. Neutral. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 36 of 56 Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson. I live at 3501 South Selatir Place. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I don't know if neutral is really the right way I feel right now, because I mean I have had some conversations about maybe doing something at some point with my property. I have been out there since '91. Built the house, enjoyed it. I'm seeing things change. But I agree with all my neighbors and also with Vision First that that stub street is not needed, not wanted, and doesn't belong there. You have seen what sort of area we live in. If I ever do split lots off, it will not be to move Hendrickson and Kingsbridge traffic dawn Selatir. I know from my two neighbors -- and we are all three irrigators, we fill those borrow pits full of water about twice or three times a month and it's not safe. Victory Lane is only -- or Victory Road is only two lanes with no turn -- center turn and there is no way you can stack maybe a third of a mile of cars in commuter time up and down our road. Sa, everybody's right, if I ever do split my lots, I don't need that stub street and I'm going to fight it with the rest of my neighbors. I know the Council here can make that decision. It's back to ACRD. But I think, from what I understand, the Planning and Zoning Commission understood what we were all saying is that that emergency access is really a gift from the neighborhood to allow something to happen while the dynamics of development and connectivity and things like that happen. My understanding is that it's going to be about 14 to 18 months before the sewer and water and the absorption rate of Kingsbridge and Hendrickson come our way. In that amount of time it's hard to say what could happen to the other parcels and ACRD needs to understand that, Council, and everybody else. So, I'm standing with my neighbors. I don't want the stub street. I will not connect to it if it stays. And so that's where I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Tim Petchy signed up against. Hasn't changed yet, uh? Petchy: Not yet. My name is Tim Petchy. I live at 3726 South Selatir and that's actually -- I, actually own these two lots at the end of the road here. And I'm with my neighbors an stopping the stub street connecting out to Victory Road in the future. That's just -- there is no place far that an our street. It's a small rural road. But another concern of mine is that the restriction on Block 3, we da enjoy a view out to the west. Actually, the way this lays out, we would have three of those lots would actually be abutting my property and we do enjoy our sunsets, our views out to the west. If I'm out -- our house actually views out to the northwest from the front of our house, so that directly affects our views and I kind of thought we had P&Z on our side protecting that. We did make some concessions on the size of those lots, so I don't feel that third acre lots are really a transition to the five and one acre pieces we have out there. So, I thought that was maybe a concession that we could work with with Vision First and that's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lisa Petchy is also against. Thank you. And Bob Becker. Against. B.Becker: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I really don't have much more to add. I think my wife did an excellent jab. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 37 of 56 Nary: Name and address. Name and address, sir. De Weerd: Oh, yes. B.Becker: I'm sorry. Bob Becker, 3421 South Selatir Place. She stole all my notes, so she, essentially, did my work for me. The only thing I would like to add is you, essentially, have everyone here opposing the stub street. Yau have the developer opposing the stub street. Yau have the adjacent landowner Dan Johnson opposing the stub street. You have all of the other neighbors opposing the stub street. And we would ask that you send this back to ACRD, so that they can study it and hold a hearing and we have a chance to maybe get the stub street removed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any additional testimony on this? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I forgot to address one knew issue that the applicant had raised in their letter and I just feel it's important to at least note it on the record, so that we have a clear record for the future. They have asked that Mr. Hendrickson be allowed to continue having livestock on the property, the larger lot that's being proposed. In the past the city has allowed livestock to continue on larger properties for a limited time as a nonconforming use. If the Council does wish to grant that request as part of the development agreement, the applicant would need to document what animals they have and what animals they continue to have -- will continue to have and when that use will end, because they are not allowed in the city. So, they did raise that issue in their letter. It was not discussed previously, so -- typically we see that that -- well, the last time you did it, the ability to have horses was limited to the current property owner only and I think we limited it to exactly the number she had on the property at that time, which was three. Actually, I think we limited it to those three horses that were an the property, so -- De Weerd: And we lost them through attrition. Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the developer if they would like to have -- yes. I'm sorry. Before we call you up -- Wardle: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 38 of 56 Wardle: If Mr. Inselman could ask -- or could answer a question that's been raised by the neighbors and that would be the process to -- is there a process to appeal ACHD's decision an this stub street? Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACRD. 3775 North Adams. This was acted on in March. There is a ten day appeal period. The developer certainly knew. It was attached to our staff report that went to them. If the Council approved a plat that differed from the one we did, there would have to be a reconciliation of. If they denied this plat and the applicant resubmitted, certainly we would review the new plat and hold public hearings now we are aware of all of the interest in the neighborhood. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: While we have got the other black cat up here, I'm confused by your letter. And the letter starts off about -- you didn't require a stub street to the east, because of the strip of property and so you proposed a stub street to the north and required that. Your letter ends with this statement: The district is supportive of the neighbors' proposal to allow an emergency access from Selatir Place across the strip of property now owned by the homeowners association. So, they kind of got ahead of this -- ar in the middle of this. Does that mean that if that were provided you would still take their -- or ACHD would still take the strong position for a stub street? Inselman: The lane to the east is private, so a public stub to a private road would not serve a lot of benefit to the public and, then, there is that spite strip that would need to be crossed at same point. The only reason for the stub to the north is to preserve the opportunity for the connectivity. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a connection to Selatir if Johnson, I believe that's his name, developed his property in a manner that it does not require connection to this subdivision or does not require a connection to Selatir, perhaps it would never happen. I can't say until that parcel comes in. It's only to preserve options for the future. That stub could be moved west of where it's at, anywhere along that north boundary would provide a little mare circuitous route in the future if it ever did connect. It may never connect if Mr. Johnson doesn't develop. If it ever did, we certainly Ioak at the condition of the existing street. We are very concerned about a place for pedestrians. We have to tackle these issues, unfortunately, far too regularly in the county, where alder narrower streets are developed at the end and more traffic is put down them and as best we can we require off-site improvements to widen that road to provide aplace -- safe place for the pedestrians. It's difficult to require the developer of a small parcel like Mr. Johnson's to improve a quarter mile of road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but we will certainly make what provisions we can for the safety of the pedestrians in the future. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could follow up on that. I have been involved with at least one project that was similar to this where what we ended up Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 39 of 56 doing is taking the stub up, run it over, and, then, run it up again and some of the houses would have faced what is Selatir an this one. So, there are ways of getting public street connections in there without having a direct access to Selatir at this time. And so it's -- this one is -- everyone's assuming that the next one will just end -- you know, pull that public street right to that cul-de-sac and my experience has been that ACHD commission does listen and that they try and meet those concerns that Mr. Inselman has pointed out. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess there is this problem of institutional memory, too, if Mr. Johnson sells and the next person comes and does it, you know, they can do it a little bit differently and we have seen the dangers of urban densities connecting to some of these private roads or rural roads that are really there to serve just more of that rural level development and it is -- we are seeing that all around and this is the first time I have seen it really be asked to stub into it. Canning: Madam Mayor, we -- I have had hits on probably half of those five acre lots, people looking to buy them, assemble them, and redevelop them. De Weerd: Well, that is sad. I really like the pictures I saw. Tell them there is other places and land. Thanks, Gary. Okay. If the developer would like to come up with wrapping up remarks. You have five minutes. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record I'm Ken Elliott for Vision First, 561 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We have -- I think looking at this map, it is helpful to recall that the Kingsbridge Subdivision does have two stub streets to the north, one near the northwest corner, one near the northeast corner, then, we have our primary access out to Eagle Road, plus a secondary access through Dartmoor. So, by adding 17 houses to that 125 unit subdivision, we are being asked to, essentially, add two additional stub streets. We think one is warranted. We think an emergency access is warranted through Selatir, but what we think is going to happen, what the scuttlebutt is, is that that large rectangle to the south of the R-1 abutting Cloverdale, which is split by the Meridian and Boise areas of impact, is likely to develop and that with some cooperation from our neighbors to the south on the large ten acre tracts that we could loop the Hendrickson Avenue connection over to that large rectangle and go out to Cloverdale Road. That's been our hope and plan all along. That's what we told the Council and the Planning and Zoning with Kingsbridge, that we were hoping to acquire Hendrickson, so that we could get access out either by Bott Lane and, again, although it's not shown, the part that's within the Portland -- or the -- Portland. Boise. I'm slipping back to a past life. The Boise area of impact, that is all a public street all the way to the point where it gets to the canal, which is the diagonal road. In response to the one gentleman that would take away Hendrickson's access through Bott Lane, it seems a little counter productive if you're going to add one more house that has no way to get out when we are trying to maintain an access that goes back about 80 years. The canal was sold to the New York Canal Company at a time when that ten acre lot owner was a shareholder of the canal company and so to just take that access away because they are a remnant parcel and Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 40 of 56 now part of the Hendrickson subdivision, that was certainly never our understanding as a developer, it was never the Hendrickson's contemplation that they would give up their access to a county road, the only stretch that's private, I think they have got a goad argument for the title company, if it has to be made, that they have an established legal access to the paint where they connect to Bott Lane. So, we urge you to give them that -- to allow them to maintain that historic access. Again, it's only far them. We have got a fence and barricades preventing any of the other future residents of the subdivision from accessing Bott Lane. We will go out on the public streets through the city. I would also like the Council's consideration of -- to allow them the personal right, as long as they own the property, to maintain the number of horses or llamas that they have on the land, not limited to lives in being -- as to the livestock, but allow the Hendrickson to enjoy the right that they have historically had and to allow them, as one of the animals die, they could replace it, they wouldn't have any more in number than they have now, but they wouldn't lase their rights slowly as the old critters fall away. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for you and it's something that hasn't come up through testimony. Can you show the plat, Anna? I am curious. Yau mentioned the open space and it's very accessible and in a good location. I don't see what's good about it. It's behind people's houses, it's tucked behind, and it is out of the vision of the public. So, it is concern of the safety aspect. It looks like it's more beneficial to only a couple of people, rather than the entire development in terms of the esthetic value. And, then, you also count your drainage lot as -- in your open space calculations. There is not too much play that goes on in a retention area, but I would like to hear your comments regarding open space. Elliott: Madam Mayor, we meet the code requirement for open space. We redesigned the park at the express -- with advice of the police department. It was a narrow strip coming in from the east-west street to the north. We flared that open, adding that Lot 5 to the park, so they have complete visibility into it. It"s quite clearly a pocket park and I think there are lots of those in -- in other subdivisions. We think by adding the opening to Hendrickson Avenue to the east, that we create a nice loop, we create a safe area for young kids to play, but the people who are cutting through the neighborhood on bicycles can also readily good through the park. De Weerd: Well, I guess I will politely disagree. I sometimes think that we are creating attractive nuisances behind -- and hiding them from the public eyes keep them safer. And so I guess there is just a difference of opinion. And, yes, you did meet our minimum requirements. You know, nothing more and nothing less. But I guess in -- well, it just seems like it's -- it's pretty minimal and there is not too much benefit to the homes that are in and around there. But that's, again, my perception of it. Elliott: I guess in response, Madam Mayor, I would just say, again, that we -- we got some pretty strong criticism from the police department and redesigned it in a way that they approved and that Planning and Zoning Commission approved. And we think there are benefits to having the main -- the main play area removed from the street for safety Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 41 of 56 and sa you get a little peace and quiet, rather than just being right aut an the street front. De Weerd: Well, again, I guess in what I have observed through community design is the more eyes on open space you can get the safer it, really, truly is. So, again, just a difference of opinion. Elliott: We do have six or eight households with their backyards up to that park, so I think there will be a lot of -- a lot of eyes on it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information from the applicant or staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing. Or to continue it for reconsideration back to ACHD regarding the stub street. Bill, would that take a continuation to have it ga back to ACHD or what is the process for that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, I guess there wasn't -- there isn't a mechanism to remand this back to ACHD. If the Council approved a plat that was different than what they approved, or did not allow a plat, they would, then, have an opportunity to revisit it. But there isn't a mechanism to just simply remand it. De Weerd: So, we have no appeal of their decision either, then? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, the only -- the only avenue is to turn this down and make them go through the whole process all over again? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly that's an option and that would certainly be one process. If the Council was of a mind to recommend a different plat configuration without a stub street or with the stub street in a different location or with the other connection -- again, I think it was -- if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, if this Council recommended something different than what they have seen, they would, then, have to revisit it and I think there has been some proposed alternatives. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to reject it just to have it reviewed. Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, the only thing I guess additionally I would like the Council to consider and maybe we have all become a little more heightenly aware of these types of concerns. You have a consentual annexation, but it appears that a lot of the testimony from the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 42 of 56 applicant is disagreeing with the conditions either placed on this by ACRD or staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess just for your consideration in making your deliberations, you may want to consider whether there is truly a consentual annexation request in front of you or whether their conditions are such that it no longer is conceptual and that may not be something the city wishes to annex at this time. The conditions regarding the animals on the property, although may be small, is a significant change from what you have done in the recent past. The conditions regarding access to the public street is a significant change from what's been required in the past. The conditions regarding the house sizes and limitations was fully discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that was their recommendation. It just appears, Iguess -- and Ijust wanted to just make all of you aware and maybe you already are, that, you know, normally a consentual annexation doesn't always place quite so many conditions upon their consent and if their consent is so conditioned, I guess I just wanted to make the Council aware that you may want to factor that into your deliberation and give that some due consideration as well. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? What directian -- I would look for a motion as to what direction you would like to go an this. Rountree: Is the Public Hearing still open? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If there is no further information or public testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings an 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. Matian carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, the reason I'm opposed to closing the hearing is because I think it's still valid to get some more input. We don't have -- and I don't know that Anna Meridian City Council M2y 16, 2006 Page 43 of 56 has the road situation for the adjacent subdivision to the west and where those stub streets may or may not come into this parcel. Canning: To the west, sir? Rountree: Yeah. Canning: To the east? Rountree: Kingsbridge. Canning: Kingsbridge? The only -- Rountree: That's the only one? Canning: That's the only stub on their eastern property line, I believe. Yes. Rountree: I thought I heard somebody indicate that there was one -- Canning: I believe they have two to the north. Rountree: Further north? Bird: On the north. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? I guess I'll give my~-- I don't have a vote, unless you tie, so I will start discussion. You know, I appreciate larger size lots. We don't have a whole lot in our city. But at what cost? You know, just because they are bigger lots doesn't mean they are really a true amenity to add to our community. I'm concerned about the open space. I think it will be nice for a couple of houses to have that open space, but the safety of our kids -- I mean we looked at park design, we don't like to tuck things behind things. It's better to have it open to the vision of all and it's even that self- policing, thinking a car can drive by and -- and it's another set of eyes. It's another set of eyes for that safety. I know I'm a big advocate for connectivity. I appreciate the concession to bring this stub out and have it pedestrian. I can"t imagine that those neighbors are going to be walking -- their kids will be walking to the elementary school that's going to be down the road and they will be walking through those subdivisions. So, it's a good access to have. I get concerned about the ability to connect vehicles to those more rural natured roads that don't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Again, it is a safety factor. 50, the open space and the stub street are certainly concerns of mine, but when a property subdivides, sells it off and subdivides, they lase some of their rights. I mean the right to develop urban and they also want to stay agricultural. They need to make up their mind and, again, that's only my opinion, but there is a real contradiction on this that has some areas of concern and I guess it's going back to a phrase that has Meridian City Council May 16, 2pp6 Page 44 of 56 been used -- we are in na hurry to add more land to our city limits, that these kind of concerns should be answered before they get here. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Yau have heard me say thane words before. De Weerd: I quote my favorite people. Rountree: And I think you made something -- you made a statement that really rang true to me is that this is a confused venture, in my opinion. It's a property owner who wants the best of all worlds and at some consideration, but not total consideration of what the world that they are going to create around them is going to be. I very much support the idea of internal circulation and I think that it needs to be accommodated. If that's the best location in the world, I would be surprised. I think there are other combinations that could be done. It's somewhat limited by the fact that out of this parcel somebody wants to run a hobby farm in the city. It's either city or it's a ranchette. It can"t be both. I'm really concerned about our experience with lanes. We have fought lanes for the last ten years and I got to tell you, they are nightmarish and nobody comes out winners. We have been to court. People have been to court. Nobody wins. The City's come out all right, but there is issues with those things created. As far as restricting heights, et cetera, in this particular subdivision, the sale is I assume pending or done based on the conditions of height restrictions on some lots and to me that's between the contract holder and seller and on that point I guess I don't have any strong feeling. I think that the lots are big enough and the spaces are spaced enough that that really is not an issue, from my perspective. It's proposed as a city subdivision, yet we have ordinances that require a subdivision to be fenced, yet they don't want to do that as an entire subdivision. It's really hard far me to say that I can't support this particular application, because I have been pushing for larger lots and Anna's going to growl at, because -- De Weerd: Me, too. Rountree: -- we like small lots from a planning perspective. Canning: It's the density, not the design. It's design, not density. Sorry. I gat that backwards. Rountree: It is design. It is about design. And, I don't know, I could ga either way, but I think that there is nothing that don't work for me with this particular project that now is the time to say they didn't work. For me. I don't know what the rest of the Council wants to do. I'd probably -- unless I hear a really good argument, not support this particular annexation at this point in time. I would be willing, however, to reopen the Public Hearing and look at some additional design details or changes that the applicant might want to make to save them the aggravation of trying to da this over. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 45 of 56 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Rountree reopened it and what you want to bring back, the problem is ane of your biggest holdups was the existing hobby farm and I'm in the same boat you are. We both love the larger lots and everything, but I -- I mean, evidently, we are not talking about a couple of horses or one or two llamas, they want to go on and keep it the deal. They don't want their south end fenced, when everybady else's is fenced. I think if you're going to be annexed in, you live under the same rules and regulations as everybody else in the subdivision. That's my personal opinion on that. I'm quite shocked. I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want a way over to there, because if they got water standing like that, (certainly -- beside the fence, I certainly don't want my kids walking -- or grandkids walking down it. That was a pretty good volume of water going down there. In fact, I'm shocked that we didn't see a bunch of mosquitoes -- De Weerd: I did. Bird: -- with animals and stuff around there. I'm kind of like Councilman Rountree, I could go with a new design to a degree, but lalso -- the owner of the property that sold the property is -- in my book, has to live within the same regulations. I have no problem with if he's got two or three animals on there now, he can have them, but once they decease or he sells them, he don't replace them. And pretty soon he's not a hobby ranchette. So, I can -- I could support opening it up again if he felt -- I don't know what kind of redesign they are going to do, unless they do a complete redesign. I da like -- I really do like the size of their lots, though. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? We would look for your direction. I guess, Mr. Nary, some of the options would be to remand back to Planning and Zoning to address some of the issues that Councilman Rountree and Councilman Bird have discussed or what are the options? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you probably have -- have two primary options. I mean you can -- you can certainly -- well, I guess three. You can approve the project as presented. You can make amendments as you have done. You can reject the project as presented. You can remand it. There is a number of issues that you have raised and I guess I'll concede to Mrs. Canning, I mean at a certain point the staff time that's necessary to re-analyze a redesign when you have raised -- I mean I just made a very quick Hate as you have been speaking of six primary issues that there are some significant concerns about. To the lane, to whether the -- the private lane. The animals on the property. The height restriction. The stub street to the north. The access to Bott Lane. In addition to the access to the canal. And the fencing surrounding the property. And the relationship with the other county subdivision that's adjacent. Those are quite a bit of -- of redesign to ane project, but, again, like f said, it's been my experience from the staff s perspective at planning, you know, the remands work fairly Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 46 of 56 well when it's fairly small and lot sizes -- or parks. I'm sorry. The open space is another issue you had raised. When it's simply a redesign of a minor thing or just a park redesign or streets or one thing, but you get a number of them, the staff time gets eaten up pretty heavily and realistically a re-application is just as -- just as easy on the staff as it is to try to remand it and redesign it that way. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might add to that. In the past when you have remanded things, even if they were large redesigns, it was generally when staff was unaware of a City Council concern and was not able to guide the applicant through the review process to address some of those concerns. We have worked with the applicant on all these issues. We have made suggestions that were not followed. We have told them that the access lane was an issue in the pre-application conference. And we have really struggled to get to this point today. And so I would ask that -- I would certainly prefer a new application. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard some of the choices that you can make in the farm of a motion. I would entertain a motion or further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Ijust -- just a comment as far as my preference to -- and I understand staffs concern with continuing to work with the applicant. I recall this same applicant on the application next door, as I recall we denied one of those and they brought back a new project and, really, in my mind addressed the concerns we had at the meeting and so I don't think that we necessarily need to deny this and send it back, we can probably work through some of these issues. But that's just my opinion. De Weerd: Well, I look forward to whatever the motion is going to be. Rountree: You guys on that end do it tonight. Borton: I can chime in my list as well. They have been said. I have got similar concerns. In no particular order. The Batt Lane access. The single story, double story side. I made a list like Mr. Nary did. Sixteen foot landscape buffer on the east. Fence on the south. Stub street. The livestock. And the open space parks. And I agree with the Mayor. Those are -- that's the start of my list and if it's easier and more appropriate from staffs perspective to redo this, I'd defer to their experience and expertise in it. And with that I'd move to deny Item 17, AZ 06-012, request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, you will call roll. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 47 of 56 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny Item 18, PP 06-010, request for preliminary plat. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny on Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson - 527$ N. Cougar Flat Place: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a variance application for 5278 North Cougar Flat Place by Dana and Rhonda Patterson and you can see the outline of the property. It is at the end of the cul-de-sac, right near the entrance to Lochsa Falls. And so Lochsa Falls is between Linder Road and McMillan as you know. This is a picture of the patio that has been constructed. And I'm going to -- I forgot to put the site plan in the presentation, so I will have to put in up just to ask her. These two posts -- the setback -- the required setback is 15 feet. This post is at ten feet six inches. This post is at nine feet nine inches. And you can see the additional posts as you go down the property. The structure itself, this portion of -- the living portion of the building, is outside the setback area. It's just they extended the roof to cover their patio and that's where they got in trouble. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for approval of the variance -- or two of the three findings for the approval of the variance. It's a pretty straight forward application. I'll go ahead and switch to the overhead, so that you can see the site plan. As I note, I believe this -- this dotted line shows the 15 foot setback and, then, they have marked the location of each post and its distance to the rear yard fence -- rear yard property line. With that I will answer any questions Council may have.