Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNapoli Subdivision AZ AZ 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. June 15,2006 ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R~4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Attached Minutes from Kingsbridge Sub. Public Hearings CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment nt/vL ) () .. tiJrV1) ~ ~~1. tJ [lJ !Ld /1 tV (11'1/ ~~I . ~j)/)-o S' /-; ~~ l/r I {!ju CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SETTLERS'IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Posting / See Attached Letters of Concerned Citizens contqcted~l^n..:v ~>d Dqte:~ Phone: ~-ql()(J Emqiled:1<W~I\,^ ~ brl~ ~S ~~ i~l~"j~~ Initiqls: JJe-. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 3 of 70 Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 2, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 16, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 04- 030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family residential building lots and 21 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda. Unless we have any additional comments -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on each of the minutes, some minor things, but does that mean we need to move them off of the Consent Agenda or can I just -- Borup: Let's just go ahead handle them one at a time. Zaremba: -- make the amendments? Okay. On the minutes for September 2nd, on page 34, a little bit below halfway down the page, a vote was taken, motion carried, three ayes, one absent, then, the next statement is credited to me, however, Chairman Borup made that statement. So, I would change the -- who is credited with saying that. Similar situation on page 76, at the very top of the page, Chairman Borup says, okay, thank you, anyone else and, then, I actually, said the rest of that sentence, I would ask a question. That is it for the September 2nd. On September 16, a similar -- two similar comments. On page 30, near the bottom I'm given credit for a statement: Yes, please. Yes. This is discussion time. That, actually, was said by Chairman Borup, not me. And on page 41 of the September 16, at the very bottom, Chairman Borup says: Okay. Okay. And, then, I said the rest of that sentence in that case. Those are my only comments, sir. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda with the amendments to those two minutes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 4 of 46 Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-039, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date of October 21 st, 2004, the transmittal date of October 18th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of Preliminary Plat for Kingsbridge Subdivision PP 04-030: Borup: Thank you. Our next item is a request for reconsideration. This was a denial from this Commission of a previous preliminary plat. I think we all have the information. This is not a Public Hearing, it's for us to make a decision whether to consider -- to reconsider. Do we have anything staff would like to input or add on this? Siddoway: Maybe just a brief comment on process. The applicant has requested reconsideration of the findings for denial, has submitted a packet of information to show from their perspective how they have addressed the reasons for denial. The question before the Commission tonight is does what they have presented warrant a new Public Hearing. If you agree that it does, then, we need to set a specific date and ask the clerk's office to notice that date for Public Hearing, like the original Public Hearing, with mailings going to all of the residents within 300 feet and the other noticing requirements and, if not, then, you would just uphold your -- the findings for denial. But the question is just whether or not the motion for a reconsideration and a new hearing should be granted. I guess I'd look to the city attorney if there is any other process issues that need to be brought up. I do believe we can take verbal testimony from the applicant, if you so choose, but with that I will just stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions? Zaremba: I do have one question. In reading through the new materials provided, they have dealt with a number of the issues that I brought up as a reflection of what the audience had said. The primary reason for denying the preliminary plat was that we recommended denial of annexation. Has the city acted on that? If it's not annexed, we don't have jurisdiction. So, there is no point in having an opinion. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 5 of 46 Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit were before the City Council two nights ago on October 19th. What they did was they set that matter over, knowing this matter was pending before you for reconsideration of the plat. They set that for November 3rd for them to take that matter up again. What was anticipated is that pending your decision, then, on November 3rd, the Council would have either an appeal of this decision from the applicant, if you chose to not grant this reconsideration. Or if you choose to grant this reconsideration, as Mr. Siddoway said, you would have to set this for a new Public Hearing, the Council would anticipate remanding those other matters back to this Commission to again review this matter in total, rather than parts, because that would make the most sense. And all that is before you tonight, as Mr. Siddoway stated, is, essentially, your prior decision of denial of the plat. You can certainly take limited testimony from the applicant, but, again, this is not a Public Hearing and they have submitted written material that is part of the public record that is probably sufficient for you to make a decision on whether to reconsider. You're welcome to take testimony if you want, but I guess I would caution both the Commission and the applicant that you probably don't want to vary from what's already been submitted as part of the public record, because, again, this is not a Public Hearing. If you choose to reconsider again, my recommendation would be to set this matter over for a Public Hearing, giving adequate time for notice and the like. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment or two and, then, seek the opinion of my fellow Commissioners. Borup: Okay. That's what I was thinking would be good to have some discussion. Zaremba: This came before us at a time when, in fact, we did have a legal quorum of us up here, but we were not all here. I don't have any problem with the applicant attempting to have it reconsidered with more of us here than were here that night. I don't have any problem with that. I don't necessarily have any problem with some of the changes that the applicant has proposed. My feeling is that the underlying reason for my motion on the annexation, that that be denied, still exists. The applicant has provided us with a lot more information and I appreciated that. We seem to be getting last minute information when this was in the real Public Hearing when this came before us before, a lot of last minute information, some of which didn't seem to be totally complete. What it comes down to is requesting this Commission either to make a legal opinion about some items that are in the CC&Rs and that were formalized by the Ada County commission when they approved this subdivision ten years ago and there clearly is a dispute on those matters between the other property owners of the original subdivision, which includes some of this property, about how those terms should be done. I didn't feel and still don't feel that it's my job, really, to make the legal decision about which one is right. All I need to know on behalf of the city is that the neighbors have made it clear that they will take this into legal proceedings regardless of which way it's -- and so my instinct is it's not in the best interest of the city to get involved in that. So, I still feel that the annexation should be denied, which means it's kind of unnecessary to reconsider the plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 6 of 46 Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Then, the only other -- the only other, I guess, process thing I would just add for the record, a motion to reconsider would need to be made by a person on the prevailing side. It can be seconded by any member of the Commission and it needs to be -- if so moved, it, then, has to be approved by a majority of the Commission that's here tonight. So, again, the matter before you, it's your decision, so it's your choice and your discretion whether to choose to make that motion or not, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. And I am the one that made the original motion for denial and at this point I have no problem making a motion for reconsideration, except that I -- if it's only me, it's pointless. So, that's why I need to hear from the other Commissioners. Moe: Okay. Well, having been one that wasn't here last time and I have read through the material and whatnot, what came -- basically I don't want to sound like, gee, I agree, but, quite frankly, going through it all, I have a real problem that there seems to be a consensus that the neighbors think one way and the applicant is going another way and never the two shall meet right now and I have a real problem going into annexation with neither side agreeing with the other and I really am concerned, I think that needs to be somewhat cleared up. And, again, I don't have a problem going and rehearing, but I guess what my concern is is that I think before -- when we do set the date for the rehearing, I think it needs to be out awhile in order for the applicant and possibly the neighborhood to get together and try and work this thing out before it comes back before us. Rohm: I think the two of you have said it all. Zaremba: No alternate opinion? Rohm: No. That's-- Borup: Of course, I was here, but did not vote that, but I think the thing that's different before us now is we have had -- at lease for me I have had an opportunity to read what the covenants say and what county ordinances say and I don't see how they can be interpreted any different than what that -- they are pretty plain. I mean they say it -- I don't think it leaves anything ambiguous about it at all. Everybody that bought a lot in there signed and received that document and it states it pretty plain. Now, whether the design of the subdivision and everything else is appropriate, I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting just strictly on that it is -- Zaremba: Let me pursue that, because I'm -- for myself I'm avoiding deciding which side is right. I'm just going on the instinct that this may turn into a lawsuit or are you saying that you don't think it will? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 7 of 46 Borup: I have no idea. If someone's opposed to it, there is always going to be a disagreement. I mean us not acting on something because someone disagrees with our city ordinances should not be a reason to detour us from moving ahead on something. If that's the case, what kind of precedence does that set for all future development annexations? Every time someone objects to it we -- and say they are going to sue, we say, okay, we are not going to annex anymore? Zaremba: Yeah. These aren't just neighbors suing, though. These are other signatories to the same CC&Rs. Borup: That have already -- by being a signatory they have already agreed to annexation, though. Zaremba: Well, they have agreed to annexation, but not necessarily -- Borup: And development. Zaremba: -- that density of development. Borup: Exactly. And that's where I say, I'm not addressing that aspect. But they agreed to some type of development, some type of urban development with sewer and water services. And the density, that question needs to be answered. I mean the density is less -- something less than five acres. Something less five-acre lots. So, that's a big -- that's a big area. Zaremba: If we did ask for the reconsideration and, therefore, have a Public Hearing, the thing that I would want to learn from the other people who are part of the subdivision, not necessarily even the other peripheral neighbors, because I agree with you, we can't let -- there is a Comprehensive Plan and there are ordinances and, you know, they have all been worked out in public hearings and if something complies with that, that's fair. But the people who are a part of this subdivision, I would want to hear from them whether they are planning to sue or not. That's probably the only thing I would learn at a Public Hearing. Borup: The other thing that -- Zaremba: I'm already comfortable that the changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, but -. Borup: Well, they have made -- the other thing that I -- Zaremba: They have made a good effort. Borup: Well, there was still some things up in the air and I'm trying to find which -- I thought they had a range of lots that they were talking about. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 8 of 46 Zaremba: Well, they enlarged the perimeter lots and they -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: -- did a number of things. Nary: I guess so that you don't get too far a field, I think you do need to confine yourself to the decision on whether to reconsider the decision on the plat and not take into consideration tonight all of the potential changes that are only part of the written request and not part of a Public Hearing, because, obviously, the opposition doesn't have an opportunity to comment on that tonight, but if you have another Public Hearing, then, you have an opportunity for everyone to have that say. So, I would just suggest you keep confined to the decision of reconsidering or not. Borup: Okay. I guess what I was referring to was their comment that they wanted to work with the subdivision, they wanted to work with the neighborhood on design and I'm missing the exact paragraph that said that, but isn't that what you remember, too, that they wanted to work with them on that? Zaremba: Let me ask it this way: If we did not reconsider that, they still have the opportunity to appeal to the higher jurisdiction, the City Council, our final decision to deny. They can appeal that to the City Council. And they would do that at the same time they were presenting all the rest of their meeting in a Public Hearing. Part of the reason we are having this problem is the current glitch in our current ordinance that makes this one thing different than the other two parts of the application. If we -- and I feel all this pressure, because I'm the only one that can make the motion either way, according to the rules. Borup: No. I think -- Rohm: I wasn't here either. Zaremba: No. It was Wendy and I that were here. Borup: Oh, Wendy. Moe: Neither one of us were here. Borup: Oh. Zaremba: So, I'm the only one that can make the motion either way, so, you know, I don't want people to live or die on my own personal opinion, unfortunately. But the out is that if we say, no, we don't need to hear this again, they appeal to the City Council, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 9 of 46 that appeal on the plat is heard at the same time that their discussion on the annexation and the CUP and all pUblic is notified about that anyhow, I'm, actually comfortable with it going that direction, so that the Council hears all three at the same time and I'm looking at the city attorney to either nod or smile or -- Borup: Well, I think they said they will hear all three at the same time, because they can remand them back. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, you're correct that certainly if this Commission chooses not to reconsider that decision, the applicant is able to appeal that decision to the City Council. They will likely hear that -- or schedule that the same night as the current other two, the Conditional Use Permit and the annexation hearing, so that they could be decided together. The Council can do a couple of different things, one of them, as Chairman Borup has raised, they can grant the appeal and hear the matter and if they feel there is a significant change in circumstances, they could remand it back to this Commission again to review it. They could deny the appeal and if they were to deny the appeal, they would, then, likely deny the annexation and the conditional use, although they could approve the annexation separately, if they wish. So, they do have a couple of options, but yet the answer to your question is, yes, they can appeal this to the Commission -- or to the Council if they wish. Zaremba: I think I would like to see it go that way and, then, my question is do I need to make a motion not to reconsider or the fact that I don't make a motion to consider is sufficient? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, if you choose not to make a motion, then, no other further action is necessary. And since you were the only person on the prevailing side that's present to make it, if you choose not to, then, the matter is done, the denial has already been approved by this Commission, and they would have the opportunity to appeal. Borup: I think -- and you have got the ability to do that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's my intention not to make a motion. Borup: The only thing that does, it does not give the other two Commissioners any say in the matter either way. Moe: Fine. Rohm: I guess the only thing that I would say is just, historically, the City Council has taken those things and remanded them back to this body to be heard again anyway and that will more than likely happen, so all we are doing by taking that action is postponing the inevitable by another week or two, anyway. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 10 of 46 Zaremba: Except that they would remand all three back to us and we would be dealing with all subjects at the same time and I'm comfortable with that if that happens. Rohm: Fair enough. Nary: Mr. Chairman -- and just so the record is clear, Commissioner Rohm is correct, if -- I think that what's being contemplated here or sought by the applicant is the avoidance of having a hearing in front of the City Council and, then, a remand back to this Commission and, then, another hearing in front of the City Council and what that puts the applicant through, as well as the neighbors, so it is your prerogative to not hear it today and Commissioner Rohm's correct, it may end up exactly in that fashion, the City Council, I certainly wouldn't presume to know what their decision would be, they certainly are -- they certainly can agree with your denial as well not hear this continuous either, so it could certainly go either way. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We move on, because no action. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one point of process clarification -- Borup: Yes. Siddoway: -- to Mr. Nary? If the motion for reconsideration dies tonight, I'm just wondering for the appeal process to Council, the ordinance states that they have 15 days from the date of the formal denial to apply for an appeal. If we count that 15 days from the original motion to approve the findings for denial -- Borup: That's two weeks ago. Siddoway: -- it would be tomorrow. So, I'm just wanting for clarification procedurally is their deadline tomorrow or is it 15 days from tonight? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr. Siddoway, their time for appeal would be tomorrow. Siddoway: Okay. Nary: Because it's from the denial. There is nothing in our ordinance that has some tolling of that time by asking for reconsideration. Siddoway: Thank you. Borup: Well, that can be as simple as a one-paragraph letter, can't it? Siddoway: No. There is an application for appeal and a fee. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 16 of 71 Bird: I move we approve CUP 04-046 for Jack in the Box by RHL Design. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Before you open the next hearing, I had several people come up to me, as you saw, asking me to organize slide presentations. If we could just take about a two- minute break, so I can get those organized for those folks, I'd appreciate it. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Rountree: I'm fine with that. De Weerd: Okay. We will take a five-minute break. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kinosbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 04-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family residential building lots and 21 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed KinQsbridoe Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and reopen our meeting here. Items 13,14, and 15 are all related, so I will open all three of them, the Public Hearing on AZ 04-23, PP 04- 030, and CUP 04-032. We will start with staff comments and, then, I will ask the city attorney to give us an overview as well. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 17 of 71 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I struggled with how on earth I was going to present this to you. It's come before you in bits and pieces. I know you know th.e name, but you haven't had an official presentation, so I am going to do it in the best way that I think makes sense, which is to go through the original staff report, show you briefly the original site plan, go to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and what they were looking for and, then, go to the letter from Steve Siddoway that addressed how the new site plan met those conditions. So, that's just to give you an idea of where I'm going and, hopefully, that will make some sense. I'm not going to dwell on the characteristics of the development too much, because I think the applicant has a far nicer presentation for you than I would, so I will let them do that. But, hopefully, I can just hit some of the planning issues that staff was concerned with. Okay. With that preamble in mind, here we go. This is the -- this parcel is on Eagle Road. It's on the east side of Eagle road between Victory and Amity. There is an existing Dartmoor. The large part of the property is a lot within the Dartmoor Subdivision. The remainder of the Oartmoor Subdivision is out on Eagle Road. It was done as a non-farm in Ada County and, then, they also have two parcels south of there that they are bringing in. As you can see there is a relatively low density of residentials platted around it. There is not a lot of large parcels, aside from the Dartmoor lot. Most of these are kind of two, three, four, five-acre parcels and, then, they get a little bit larger as you go south. This is our Comprehensive Plan designation. This large Dartmoor lot is shown as low density residential. The other two are medium density residential. And that becomes important later. And, then, this was the original lot. So, again, I'm just going to go through this, so that you can see -- you don't understand the last letter from Steve unless you're able to look at this -- at this first plat. This is the entrance road, comes off of Eagle, comes into the development as you see here and, then, there is a connection to Oartmoor Drive that makes a dogleg and, then, ties into the main road. Find my notes. Sorry. The original -- the applicant has submitted a planned development, along with the annexation and rezone, as well as they have requested R- 8 zoning. The planned development originally requested a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and, then, the city requirement, as you know, is 8,000 square feet. The lot frontage they originally proposed is 70 foot minimum and to my knowledge that has not changed. The block length they proposed was 1,300 square feet instead of the 1,000 square foot maximum. In the findings -- in the original staff report the recommendation was for denial. I mean -- I'm sorry. The original recommendation was for approval, but I wanted to go through some of the findings that were particularly of issue at that time in the staff report. One was that the new zoning be harmonious with and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive amendment. Again, these were the original findings in the original staff report. And the issue was -- there was that they were asking for a step up in density. They are no longer asking for that one. So, that was one of the original findings that was kind of borderline, but they are no longer asking for that step up in density. The new plan that they have proposed is less than three units to the acre. In Finding D, has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened. New railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 18 of 71 proposed rezone area. And Mr. Siddoway says this is perhaps the most difficult finding to make for this project. The subject property is surrounded by one to five acre lots. Very low density. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the west -- it shows up better here. You can see the beginnings of the platting there -- was platted at 2.4 dwelling units per acre gross density and 3.1 net. So, although it's similar to what's being proposed on the west side of Eagle Road, it is dissimilar to what's being proposed on the -- or what exists on the east side of Eagle Road. Moving on to Finding E. Will the proposed use be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. And staff finds that the proposed use of the smaller lot, single family residential will change the existing character of the area, which is largely rural. However, the change is generally harmonious with the intended character as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. So, I wanted to point those out. I'm going to move now to the summary that was prepared for you coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission did conduct a hearing on September 16th. The applicant Ken Elliott of Vision First, LLC, testified in favor of the application. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard and took oral and written testimony, as reflected in the clerk's record and the minutes, and duly considered the evidence and record in this matter. The majority of the testimony was in opposition to the project mainly due to density and traffic issues. And that traffic issue was primarily on Oartmoor Orive and this connection as you see it there. Key issues of discussion by the Commission included density and lot size issues, the cut-through traffic on Oartmoor Drive, stub streets, landscaping, and also the outstanding legal issues. The Planning Commission did recommend denial and, then, those denials are in that -- those findings are in that recommendation sheet. So, the Council has before it the findings for approval from the original staff report and the finding from denial as listed in the summary recommendation to City Council. Depending on whatever way the Council may want to go tonight, as staff I would feel much more comfortable if we came back with findings that you could see, because I think you don't have the findings appropriate to either way that we want to go and I'll just leave it at that for now, unless the attorney has other recommendations. Okay. Now, I'm going to move to the letter by Steve Siddoway as the staff report update that was prepared for hearing and for that I'm going to go to the new layout. It's been washed out, but as you can see there is Dartmoor Drive comes down and ends in a cul-de-sac now and we have a connecting street that angles northeastward and, then, ties into the -- the kind of arching system that's in this area here. So, that was the big change. As you go through Steve's letter I'm going to leave the outstanding legal issues to the city attorney. So, I'm going to move down to B on page two. It says -- in response to the findings is how Steve has organized this. So, the plat needs to provide a better transition from the surrounding large lot subdivisions, both in terms of increasing the perimeter lot sizes and reducing the overall density. They have removed two lots from the eastern boundary, making the average lot size 8,866 square feet along that edge. All lots in the subdivision now are over the 8,000 square feet minimum. They have removed two lots from the south boundary along here for the Ten Mile feeder canal, making the average lot size 8,957 square feet. They have removed one knuckle from the southeast edge here, so that small cul-de-sac there, making the average lot size 11,151 square feet. And, then, they have removed one lot from the Zaldia Lane, Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 19 of 71 bringing that average lot size up to 8,306 square feet. On the west boundary they have removed one lot, making the average lot size 16,832 square feet in this area here. And, then, they have removed four lots from the north boundary on here, making the average lot size 9,381 square feet. And, then, Steve does point out that there is also a 22-foot separation north of those lots. You can see that little sliver right there. The original plat included 110 lots, less than 8,000 square feet. They have proposed to remove 18 of those lots, such that all of the lots are at or over the 8,000 square feet minimum for the proposed R-4 zone. They have reduce density from 3.09 dwelling units per acre to 2.86 dwelling units per acre and that's related to that one finding that I mentioned earlier that talked about the step up in density, but is no longer necessary, given the reduction in lots. When the item went before the Commission, ACHD had not completed their analysis. ACHD did hold a hearing on October 6 and the final ACHD report did require several new stub streets to be added to the original plat. The revised plat does address all of those stub streets. Regarding projected traffic, the original layout would have put 800 new vehicles per day on Dartmoor Drive and this layout, because it is less convenient now to get to Dartmoor Drive, they are projecting that only 400 vehicle trips per day will take that route. They are predicting that most of them will come the southern route. The planned development -- I'm going to quickly cycle through some of the landscaping. Most of it's just street buffer landscaping. This is the -- as you can see, the streets as well as the community center, and here is the community. I'm going to focus a little bit of attention on that for a moment. This is a community park with a swimming pool, clubhouse, full size basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, and barbecue stands. Another park with a gazebo was located in the northeast corner. I believe up in this area. I don't know what happened to it. I'm not seeing it on the -- the applicant may need to address that one, because I'm not seeing it now. Here we go. There is the other park and there is a micro-path proposed to connect the two parks. There is also a path and landscaping proposed along the Ten Mile feeder canal. See, if I can find that one. I can't. There it is. And additional amenities include a landscaped entry boulevard, multiple smaller open spaces around the subdivision, a bridge or -- and here is the bridge. A bridge monument or ornamental street lights. Detached sidewalks and street trees are also proposed throughout the subdivision. And the applicant has offered to increase the minimum house size from 1,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet for the subdivision. There is -- the applicant stated that they were going to do a buffer along Zaldia Lane with a berm, grass, shrubs, fence and trees and that's the south boundary of the property. Here is Zaldia Lane. The landscape as you see here has not identified those yet and staff had some concerns about how to best accomplish that. Right now there is not sufficient room in the common open space there because of the irrigation easement, there is not sufficient area to put in trees, because they can't be on the irrigation. We have seen in other subdivisions where the applicant proposes to put trees in the backyards. Staff has found that enforcement of that condition is very difficult. You can't get the trees put in before the houses go up and, then, once the houses go up, there is some question -- it's difficult to make sure that the trees are going. So, staff had some questions about how best to accomplish that. I think, in general, we feel it would be better to increase the buffer width to accommodate those trees, but, then, these lots would likely fall below the 8,000 square feet minimum. ACHD in their final report has asked the city to preserve additional right of way for Eagle Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 20 of 71 Road. The current Capital Improvement Plan only shows a three-lane road-widening project for Eagle Road in the next 11 to 15 years. So, ACHD will be only able to purchase 35 feet of right of way at this time. However, they would ask that the city consider preserving the 48 feet of future right of way and that that be in a separate common lot that could be sold ,to ACHD in the future. The required 25-foot landscape strip should be at the boundary of that 48-foot right of way. Staff did not have an opportunity to talk to the applicant about this, so they should verify tonight if they could accommodate this recommendation. Regarding access easement, this large parcel -- there is one large parcel here. The board obscures the rest of it. It's just a square property, but right now it's separated from the road by a common lot and because it is a fairly large property, it would be anticipated that it would redevelop in the future, given the -- if the surrounding uses, if this were approved. So, staff is recommending that and ACHD as well have -- would like to see some sort of future access. The way it's written in the staff report right now it's asking for a cross-access agreement. But also another possibility might be just to have them have frontage on it for some length of roadway. So, that that would be secured in the future and they wouldn't have to negotiate with the homeowners association for that access, but either of those options would probably work. Finally, in number five Steve points out that there are some findings to resolve. One of the -- the first bulleted item there, as I mentioned before, the one step density increase no longer applies with this revised plat. The annexation Finding D on -- talks about how the project relates to the surrounding areas. Council should determine whether or not the changes proposed by the applicant are sufficient to address the surrounding compatibility issues. And, then, regarding annexation Finding F, the Council should resolve -- determine whether or not the proposed reduction in traffic on Dartmoor from 800 to 400 vehicle trips per day is sufficient to make the finding that it will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring land uses. So, as you see, there are a number of outstanding issues. That sounds like my phone, but it's not. I'm thankful of that. Staff anticipates that some of the major issues from the surrounding property owners will include the density of the project and related traffic impacts. Many surrounding property owners are hoping for lots of one to five acres in size for the subject property. Staff recommends resolving the issues raised in the report, including deleting the preliminary plat site specific condition number two, which I believe Mr. Nary will explain that one. That's the legal issues. And the Zaldia Lane landscape berm, the right of way preservation along Eagle Road, the access easement for Lot 17, Block 2, and resolution of required findings. With that I think I'll end staff's presentation, unless Council has specific questions or if they'd like to come back after the applicant's presentation. De Weerd: Anna, could you summarize the key points in the testimony that was provided in opposition for this? Canning: Density and traffic were the two key issues. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 21 of 71 Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Just for the record, to make it clear, this matter is properly before you. What you have seen before this is some procedural issues that you have addressed in setting this matter for tonight. As previously said by Mrs. Canning, this project originally was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the plat itself was denied. That was before you previously as an appeal of that denial. As you know, under our city ordinances the Planning and Zoning Commission do have the say on plats and if they deny the plat, it does not move forward to in front of you. They did request -- the applicant did request reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That was not granted. They came for an appeal. This Council did grant the appeal for the purposes of hearing all of these matters together and I think you made it very clear at the last hearing that it was not the intent of this Council to grant the appeal for any other purpose than being able to hear both the annexation request, the preliminary plat, and the Conditional Use Permit all at one hearing. This matter was set over one time at the request of the applicant and that's why it's before you tonight. Probably the only thing -- there is a number of lawyers in this room and as you would imagine when there is a bunch of lawyers none of them can agree on one thing, but I think we all -- I think all the lawyers do agree that this matter is within the discretion of this Council on the decision of annexation, that I don't think that's a legal issue that has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission or you or in the documentation we have received to this point. It is within the city's area of impact, it's within the discretion of this Council to decide that tonight as part of this hearing, unless more information is needed. I don't think that's a legal issue you need to be concerned with. The rest of it there probably is a tremendous disagreement and this Council will probably hear a lot of different legal issues being addressed by both the applicant and as well as the neighborhood, both through lawyers and on their own. The issues predominately -- and what the Planning and Zoning Commission had originally denied, the preliminary plat, was concerned with, again, the same legal issues, the concern that was expressed in the recommendation for Planning and Zoning, was that there were other legal issues and the P&Z was concerned about the city becoming embroiled in a lawsuit over this particular property. What I advised the Planning and Zoning Commission and advised this Council is under Idaho Code 50-222, that's not -- that's not a finding that this Council needs to concern itself with on whether to annex property or not. What the Council has to be able to address in an annexation is, essentially, three things. First, that the property is appropriate to be annexed. And what that means is that if it fits all the requirements of annexation, it's contiguous to the city, services can be provided, are probably the two most important. Secondarily, that it's consistent with the public purposes addressed by this Council and the needs of the City of Meridian. Again, that's based on the testimony that you hear, based on the information that you have received prior to that that's part of the public record, that's this Council's decision on whether an annexation is appropriate based upon that and, finally, that it's reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the city. That, again, is a discretionary decision of this Council to decide and I think Ms. Canning has summed it up very well in looking at all of this project in conjunction with this annexation, you have to look at the consistency with the remainder of the city, the services that can be provided, whether or not it fits the orderly growth pattern as this Council determines it to be, those are all land use decisions within your discretion. Again, you will hear a lot of Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 22 of 71 legal issues on the applicability of the county's ordinance. When this was previously part of the Dartmoor Subdivision, as I stated previously, in the Council meeting, the county's ordinances, if this property becomes annexed into the City of Meridian, do not apply, the city doesn't have authority to enforce county ordinances and the city does not recognize county ordinances within its city limits. So, that isn't an issue and that was the reason that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was not appropriate and why this Council granted the appeal. So, that may be an issue again tonight, there may be some discussion, but that's still the same opinion that I rendered previously, that I wanted to make sure was on the record. I think that covers all that's within the bounds, but, again, it is clearly within your discretion tonight, it is properly before you for this hearing, so -- De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this point? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Donnell: None. De Weerd: Mr. Attorney, I guess I would have one in terms of these county clusters and when they put a note on the plat and, then, the county allows a split. In the county's opinion does that plat note follow the land? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you will probably hear some differences of opinion on that particular point and there are some cases in Idaho that have some discussion that probably addresses that to some degree on whether they actually follow the land. In my opinion I don't believe they do. I don't see how a plat note from one plat can be transferred to another, but there is probably going to be some testimony about some reliance that people have upon those plat notes in what land use decisions they make. That's probably the crux of the legal issue, that if this matter were to get beyond this hearing room to a district court that may be an answer a district court judge may have to answer better for us, but the case law is not very great in the state of Idaho on that particular fine point and I think that's probably why we are here and why there is so many people here is it's not quite that clear, but my opinion, again, it is not within the city's jurisdiction or authority to apply county restrictions or county requirements upon city subdivisions. De Weerd: I guess at some point the city should meet with the county on that, because the way their ordinance is on these cluster developments, this is one of many that could come before us. So, that question needs to be answered. Otherwise, you will have these developments where they develop a cluster, then, they split off their open area -- their required open area and you get this time and time again. So, that is something, staff, that we will want to address in one regard or another. Nary: Madam Mayor, just another point on that. Part of the reason we are here on this particular one -- and that may not be as prevalent an issue in the more -- the more recent county cluster subdivisions is because the ordinance itself has changed. And the Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 23 of 71 ordinance in the county now allows it to happen when there are services available to it, whereas the path when this particular subdivision was created, they had a time restriction and the time restriction, at least from the information we were able to gather, was not really based on any particular specific point in time that they felt there was -- that 15 years didn't have some magic to it, that 15 years was what was generally anticipated as to when services would occur in those areas. Services got ahead of that and so that's why this one has that. We may not see that it's much in all of them, but there certainly are other county subdivisions and, you're correct, in the southern area of our area of impact that may have similar types of wording or restrictions on it that may have the same applicable concerns, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anna, before we move on to -- just to point out to Council where this has its contiguous boundaries. Canning: Yes, ma'am, if I can get my mouse up here. Oh, I'm frozen. That's why. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the point of contiguity is right here to Tuscany. Rountree: Follow that dot. De Weerd: Don't blink. Okay. Thank you. I would like to preface this. There has been a lot of testimony, both in the Planning and Zoning hearing and the written testimony from e-mail and letters that we have received. I would like to read those names into the record, so that it is -- even though it is part of the record in front of you, to acknowledge that Tim O'Brien, Frank and Sue Shoemaker -- and if I mess up your name, I will apologize in advance, okay? Frank and Connie Stotts. Phillip and Judy DeAngely. Michael and Paula Reedy. Robert Burns. Tim and Renee Ruhl. Gordon Bates. Tom Smith. Rick and Brenda Schultsmeier. Sherry Lewis. Troy Quick. Chantelle Krasinski. Greg and Bev Vertel. Rex and Tammy Cook. Jeff and Sharon McKee. Lisa Job. Michael and Donna Rich. George Hicks. Jeff and Virginia Walkersein. Tim and Lori Wallace. Ronald Patton. Bob and Lisa Becker. Brady and Theresa Turner. David and Valerie LaVigne. Edward Miller. And Rick Scott. Stott. Sorry. Council, have you read all the testimony that's been provided? Councilman Wardle? Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell? Donnell: Yes, I have. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Mr. Bird? Bird: Yes, ma'am. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 24 of 71 De Weerd: Do you have any questions at this point? Bird: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. As you can see, Council has read all of the testimony, so we do want to assure you that that testimony has been read. At this time I would also, since we have a full house -- and I know you have been in front of us several occasions, but haven't been allowed to speak, but if I can have a show of hands those that were in support of this application, if you could, please, indicate your support by raising your hand. Thank you very much. Okay. And those in opposition of this application, if you will raise your hands. Okay. Thank you. With that said, I would like to invite the applicant forward. We have a time limit on the applicant's part of 15 minutes. Elliott: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm resident legal Council for the applicant Vision First, LLC. My address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I'd like to quickly introduce our team with me here tonight. The senior partner of Vision First is Randy Cuarno, seated in the back row. Directly in front of him our legal counsel Ed Miller from the Givens Pursley law firm. Both of them will be available to answer the Council's questions on any specific matters later and Mr. Cuarno would like to make some closing comments at the conclusion of the -- of the comments. Vision First is an experienced developer of residential communities. We have offices in Eagle and in Vancouver, Washington, although Kingsbridge is our first project in Meridian, the company has developed literally thousands of residential lots over the past several years, in Oregon, Washington, and now Idaho. We take pride in the neighborhood amenities that we put into our projects, the landscaping, streetscape, and architectural controls. We are confident that Kingsbridge will be developed at a standard that is at least as high or higher than other projects that you have seen in the City of Meridian. Our notice of appeal to the City Council, my letter, details the case background and the staff has discussed the ways in which we have revised our plat to address the concerns of Planning and Zoning, as well as the neighbors who testified at the September hearing. We reduced our density from 237 residential lots to 219, reducing the average gross density to 2.86 dwelling units per acre, which puts it in compliance with the maximum for the R-4 low-density zone. We eliminated all lots of less than 8,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for R-4 without a planned development. We increased the size of all lots on the project perimeter. We obtained, after Planning and Zoning's hearing, a favorable recommendation from ACHD. That recommendation was conditioned on the cul-de-sac that you see at the end of Dartmoor Drive and the addition of the two stub streets at the northwest and the northeast corners of the project. We did not reduce our open space at all, so the expansion in lot sizes was not at the expense of open space or amenities, we still have 11 percent of the site maintained as open space. And, finally, we have a letter from our legal counsel Ed Miller addressing the Dartmoor covenant. We would urge the City Council tonight to follow the guidance of the city attorney, the comments made both at the November 3rd hearing and, again, tonight, that the issue of the covenant should not be a ground for a finding that annexation is not in the public Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 25 of 71 interest, that it, indeed, is beyond the City Council's jurisdiction and is a private real estate matter to be resolved by Kingsbridge and the Dartmoor neighbors in court if necessary. Kingsbridge meets the criteria for annexation and annexation is in the public interest. The site is within the area of city impact, the urban service planning area. Our property is contiguous at the southeast corner of Messina Village at the centerline of Eagle Road. There are sewer and water mains in Eagle Road adjacent to the site and adequate sewer and water capacity is available to serve our project. With respect to zoning, the future land map shows that our site is split between two residential densities. The 56 acres north of the Ten Mile canal are planned for three units per acre. The 28 acres south of the Ten Mile canal are designated for medium density at four to eight units per acre. Our overall project density on the revised plat, though, complies with the more strict low-density limit at 2.86 units per acre. By comparison, our previous plat with 237 lots had a density of 3.09 units per acre, slightly above the R-4 maximum. It relied on a blending of densities between the low and the medium, but that issue is now gone, as the staff report pointed out, we are no longer seeking the one zone density step up. Kingsbridge provides a transition from the medium density residential areas shown on the future land use map to the south and to the west and, then, to the rural existing subdivisions to the east and the north outside the city boundary. A straight subdivision of these two sites would have allowed either 17 -- or four lots per acre on the 17 acres south of the canal, up to eight lots per acre. So, between 68 and 136 lots and 168 lots on the north 56 acres at the three units per acre density. So with just two straight subdivisions, without seeking any planned development, we could have developed between 236 and 304 residential units without any relaxation of the density standard, compared with the 219 units that we are proposing on our revised plat. All lots on our revised plat comply with the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-4 zone, even though the medium density residential tract south of the canal would have allowed lots of only 6,500 square feet in size. Our previous plat had a total 110 lots of less than 8,000 square feet in size, as shown in yellow on this site plan. There are none in our revised plat. We reduced that number of substandard lots to zero. Our average lot size has been correspondingly increased from 8,526 square feet, based on the 237 lots, to 9,730 square feet now. Kingsbridge exceeds the approval standards for a Conditional Use Permit for this residential planned development. Our revised plat contains the same amount of open space as the previous plat, 11 percent. The 11 percent qualifies as one of the two required amenities for a planned development. Additional project amenities are shown on this diagram of the main park. They include the park, clubhouse, swimming pool, basketball court, tot lot, picnic tables, barbecues. We have an entry monument at the Kingsbridge Drive entry off of Eagle Road leading to a landscaped median, a tree lined boulevard extends to the landmark Kingsbridge that crosses the Ten Mile canal. Throughout the project we have street lined tree -- street lined -- or tree lined streets with eight foot planter strips between the sidewalk and the streets, so we have detached sidewalks and landscaping throughout the project. In the northeast area we have a pocket park with a gazebo. There will be ornamental street lights throughout. And as mentioned in the staff report, pedestrian paths connecting the two parks. This compares very favorably with the two standard subdivisions which could have otherwise been approved on these .sites with as many as 304 lots and no project amenities. The Kingsbridge preliminary plat conforms to the Comprehensive Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 26 of 71 Plan. We have public service available in Eagle Road. We will be extending all of the public utilities into the project site and build the Eagle Road frontage improvements that are shown on ACHD's plan for widening of the road. And there will be no required expenditure of public funds as a result of extending the utilities into the site. As to compatibility with the Dartmoor rural subdivision, this has been a contentious matter. We met on two occasions with the Dartmoor neighbors. We submitted all of our revised plat and supporting documents for their review and discussion after the Planning and Zoning Hearing. We have attempted to address their concerns in several ways. First by expanding even further the area of the adjacent lots. We have the lots shown there in dark that abut the eastern boundary of Dartmoor, we have eliminated one lot there, so the average size now is up in the range 16,500 square feet. We have also taken out a lot there on the cul-de-sac, so that you see the lots 36, 35 and 34 that adjoin Dartmoor are -- two of them well over 17,000 and one about 16,000 square feet in size. We are proposing and the previous recommendation of staff recommended privacy fencing, vinyl fencing, throughout the project perimeter and with the police department standard for security where it adjoins the buffer areas, we would have that at four feet high solid fence and, then, a two foot lattice above that. And we also have proposed -- and this is the question raised by staff that this design did not get incorporated into our revised landscape plan, but we are committed to abiding by this detailed cross-section for the berm and fence along Zaldia Lane. We are prepared to following the city's guidance on this. We could either plant trees, one on each lot inside the fenceline as shown on this diagram, or expand the width of the buffer strip and have the trees planted within a common area tract, but outside the area of the irrigation easement. So, the fence -- in that scenario we would have the fence moved further to the north and the tree would be on the south side of the fence on each lot. So, we have two strips south of the fenceline, both the irrigation easement and, then, a common area tract. Either of those conditions would be acceptable to us. As I mentioned, we have detached sidewalks and street trees throughout the project, 11 percent open space, all of the amenities that you have seen and we have also agreed with the Dartmoor residents that we would improve the tail water, which now runs from the field along the south side of Dartmoor in an open ditch that's prone to lots of weeds and makes it difficult for the adjoining yards to be maintained. We would put that in a pipe and route it along the south side of Dartmoor to Eagle Road northerly along Eagle Road to the Dartmoor irrigation pond, which is just north of their entry. Traffic mitigation, we -- as I mentioned, the ACHD has recommended approval of this project. We felt attempted early on to convince ACHD to allow the termination of Dartmoor Drive at the boundary of the project. They declined, they said it was against their policy. The recommendation they made in lieu of that was to create the cul-de-sac, which we have incorporated into our design. By doing that we -- our traffic engineer concluded that the trips going through Dartmoor would be cut in half from an estimated 800 vehicle trips per day to 400. And you see the cul-de-sac there adjoining the park, which Dartmoor Drive used to connect through sbridge Drive. The traffic circulation is designed to minimize the trips going through the Dartmoor neighborhood. We are building a very prominent entry at Kingsbridge Drive with the monument signage, with the median landscaped. We will be directing vehicle trips to the Kingsbridge entry on and off of Eagle Road and in order to help with that we will be widening Eagle, adjoining our project to include decel and accellanes northbound and a Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 27 of 71 left turn pocket southbound. This diagram shows the traffic calming measures that we will be implementing where our Dartmoor Court connects into the existing Dartmoor Drive bulb. We will be narrowing down the street, having the sidewalk taper into the bulb and, then, continuing with a stripped pedestrian path on the existing Dartmoor Drive. This particular design has been approved by ACHD on other projects and they have found that it works very well to make the transition between an urban and a rural subdivision. Much of the neighborhood opposition and the discussions at Planning and Zoning focused on the characterization of our site as being in a rural area and, thus, this urban low density subdivision is incompatible with its surroundings. I'd like to ask Heather if you could put the larger map up in front in case some people can't see the screen, but -- or over here on the easel. Sorry about that. De Weerd: Sir, I might tell you your time is up. Elliott: Okay. We will save it for rebuttal. Thank you. De Weerd: And you will have ten minutes then. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Not at this point. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, I wanted to make a quick clarification on something the applicant presented regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The low density allows for density of three dwelling units or less per acre. The medium density -- there is a tiny bit of overlap. It says three to eight dwelling units per acre. Staff has always taken that to mean 3.01. The applicant's testimony said four to eight, so I just wanted to make it clear that it was just 3.01 to eight units per acre. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions at this point? Okay. I guess I would ask is if there is a spokesperson for any of the groups that are here tonight and that way I can allow that spokesperson more time if there are people willing to give their time to that spokesperson. So, are there any designated spokespersons in this room? Okay. If you will, please, come and speak into the mike. Were you sworn in? Burns: I was, indeed. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 28 of 71 De Weerd: Okay. If you will state your name and address. Burns: Yes. My name is Robert Burns, I am the attorney for Dartmoor Subdivision and my address 101 South Capital Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Okay. At this point you have three minutes. Is there anyone in the audience who you are speaking on behalf of, if you will, please, raise your hands. Burns: Dartmoor Subdivision. De Weerd: Are you willing to give your time to your spokesperson? Burns: When you ask are you willing to give your time, are you asking them to give up all their time or just a portion of their time? Because I don't think -- De Weerd: That will be very hard to track. Burns: I only intend to speak for a few minutes, but I wanted to speak before most of them got up. De Weerd: Okay. If you can speak in your three minutes time it's not an issue. Burns: Great. De Weerd: Okay. Burns: I wanted to address, as an initial matter, a comment that's made in this staff report update, because I'm not exactly certain what the update means when it reports that -- back in the second to the last paragraph on the first page the update states: When granting the appeal, the Council found that one of the primary reasons for denial, legal issues surrounding the developability of the land based on prior Ada County action was invalid and should not have been considered as a reason for denial. I'm afraid that that statement is misleading and let me tell you why. It is just absolutely clear that when this City Councilor any other city annexes property into the city it's a legislative action and as a legislative action, as the city attorney indicated just a few minutes ago, this body has discretion to do as it pleases and because it has discretion to do as it pleases, it can consider any matter that it believes is relevant to the decision pending in the annexation. It's not held to firm standards, because it is a legislative matter and, therefore, this City Council can absolutely consider the private zoning restrictions or the plat restrictions, CC&R restrictions in connection with deciding whether or not it wants to exercise its discretion in annexing this property. So, I think that's an important point that I wanted to clarify, is that although you are not bound by private restrictions, CC&Rs, plat restrictions necessarily, you can consider them in connection with exercising your discretion this evening, because you have the absolute right to do as you feel it's the appropriate thing to do for the benefit of the citizens of this community. Now, I provided the City Council with a letter, which you have made reference to, at least by citing my Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 29 of 71 name earlier, and the letter is dated October 11 th of this year and in this letter I explain why concerns with equity, fairness, good government and prudence should prevail over the given fact that the City Council does have the discretion to annex into this city the property at issue should it want to. And I don't want to restate and go over what I stated in my letter, because I know that you have read it, you made that clear at the beginning of the evening. I would offer to answer any questions should anybody have questions with what I stated in my letter. But if there are no questions, let me just get to the point. At the time my clients, the residents of the Dartmoor Subdivision, bought their property, there was a recorded plat and CC&R in place on their property, as well as the bulk of the Kingsbridge Subdivision, that promised that there would be no development in that property until 2009. De Weerd: Your time is up. Burns: And there is the deed restriction. I would simply ask the City Council members to read that deed restriction and see if there is any question as to the promises that were made to these residents with respect to the use of the property. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people signed up to testify and what I'll do is I'll read off your name and indicate the support for or against. If you would like to provide testimony, I will ask you to come forward at that time. Rick Anderson, against. Okay. Do you wish to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you. And your wife also Delphia. Okay. Is also against. Bradford Deadman. Okay. Against. Deadman: Hello. My name is Bradford Deadman. I reside at 3644 East Zaldia Lane, which is on the southern border there of the proposed subdivision. De Weerd: Were you sworn in? Deadman: Yes, I was. De Weerd: Thank you. Deadman: Of course, again, I prepared something that I really wanted to say and had to change it as a result of listening to some of the initial comments here tonight. The main thing that I'm very interested in is the recent comparison of this subdivision to being broken down into two parts, one addressing the large neighborhood proposed north of the Ten Mile feeder, as well as looking at a portion of the subdivision south of it. My idea here is that the proposal is -- that the whole is far greater than the sum of these two parts that we are looking at and to portray low density, excuse me, on the slides as Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 30 of 71 individuals doesn't seem like a very bad thing, but to take them both together, we are clearly looking at an area that is going to have high density. I am still very adamant about my interest in my five acres of property being bordered by very small lots versus larger ones where the homes compliment each other and there is a smooth transition from neighborhood to neighborhood. I am very adamant in my desires to see a balance of density in the form of a harmonious blending, which is something that I know is a target. My -- forgive me for hemming and hawing here. I'm so passionate about this. I have attended every meeting, I have been very involved and very interested. I'm not a direct -- as you can tell, I am not neighboring Dartmoor, but I have met all of these neighbors, we share the same concerns, I have a border property that I have approximately 950 feet of frontage that will be affected by this proposal. I'm very curious what it would be like for emergency services or anybody to reach the portion of this neighborhood in the very far northeast corner of this neighborhood should there be an accident or something in someone's home. I'm very protective of my six-year-old daughter and my wife. I'm glad to know that I'm just 30 seconds off of Eagle Road, if I have to get either an ambulance to my home or directly shoot down toward -- across the freeway to St. Luke's. I sure hope that this is not a direction that the neighborhood is going. I was also one of many people that was told by my realtor, when considering the purchase of my land, that, indeed, our neighborhood would be bordered by a neighborhood that has the 15 year moratorium, I guess is the -- is that the proper term? On development. So, I was definitely led to believe that that would, indeed, be the case and that that would give me a chance to grow some trees. So, that is a big interest of me, considering the representation of my property and the representation of the property directly north of me. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Donnell: Madam Mayor-- De Weerd: Can you tell me-- Donnell: I was just going to ask the same thing. De Weerd: -- where your lot is? Donnell: Yeah. Can you point that out? Deadman: I'm going to do my best here. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, can you move that -- the board? Deadman: I am right here. My wife and I and my daughter, we have -- our building envelope places our home right toward the back of this property. Of course, here is Zaldia Lane and here is five-acre plats all the way across the board. So, we are toward the back end. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 31 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any other questions? Thank you so much. A p.o. Angel is against. Okay. When we get to him we will call him up. Thank you. He was tardy? What happens when you're tardy? I guess we will ask Mr. Shoemaker to go ahead and speak. I guess I will also have to swear you in. Is the testimony that you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Shoemaker: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Shoemaker: Okay. Thank you. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I currently own five acres on Zaldia Lane, currently building a house there. The address is 3497 Zaldia Lane on a five-acre parcel of land that abuts the south end of the proposed project. I have been a real estate appraiser in the Boise valley since 1977, so I think I have a good understanding of what creates values. Obviously, I don't disagree with development, as a share of my income comes from the end result, appraising residential homes for lending and mortgaging purposes. However, as Kingsbridge as proposed, I do not think that is the best interest for my neighborhood. From my view point I see Kingsbridge as a typical tract development that exists throughout the Meridian area. We -- typically the development puts up some berm and landscaping as a buffer zone on the street areas and, then, they do some little calming area to appease the appropriate parties, sometimes they donate a school site or whatever and everything looks the same when you drive down the rows. Their intent is to sell the lots, not to develop them with improved -- improvements on them. So, consequently, what we end up with are developers selling lots to several builders, most of them just mirror each other in their construction techniques, so we see a lot of houses that mirror each other. In my opinion that is what Kingsbridge is at this point in time. I purchased the four acres -- I purchased the five-acre parcel four years ago and I'm just now starting construction there. If Kingsbridge would have existed when I was looking to buy the property, I would have not have purchased it. I was buying the five acres and the country environment and the close in proximity and location to services. The surrounding lots are larger lots than five acres on the majority of the property. And, then, we have the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is the nicer custom built homes on three-quarters, one acre lots, some of them are smaller, but the larger homes also exist. If I were to do an appraisal today on approved construction on five acres on Zaldia Lane, my comparable property would be the most similar properties I could find in the neighborhood. Obviously, I'm going to have to go out into the county for that and when I'm out in the county what I'm going to see is a county and the rural environment, whereas on Zaldia Lane what I'm going to see from my home and any property that borders that, particularly those on Zaldia, Terri, Selatir. De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time is up. Council, do you have any questions for -- thank you. Okay. Tim Wallace is against. Wallace: And I'm here a lot. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 32 of 71 De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Wallace: My name is Tim Wallace. I live at 3834 South Gideon in Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Wallace: We have been -- De We8rd: Your times up. I'm sorry. You stand up here way too much. I'm sorry. Wallace: One of the things that I hope you people consider -- I have heard the language both ways. If Meridian annexes our parcel into Meridian, that -- from the county, that our 15 year deed restriction goes away and at the time, as I wrote on my letters to the Council, ten years ago we paid a premium for that one acre that I particularly have. I was the first one to build there and with the idea that there would be no building on that 56 acres for 15 years and now we are in the ten year zone and not only do they want to put multiple houses from one to two acres that we were told that would be put there, now they want to put a multitude of houses and, then, the street is going to be considerably busier with traffic than it is right now. I just hope that you consider the thought and what we bought into was that for 15 years we did not have to deal with any type of housing or anything going in behind us and as the gentleman stated before us, is I have done research on the property and what my property values will be after this development goes in and it will be 10 to 20 percent below what it is appraised for right now. I guess being in the car business I could say it's like buying a brand new car with a five year warranty and you move to Meridian and, then, that goes away. I don't feel that that's right. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Lori Wallace has signed up against. Only if they are a spokesperson for many, other than for each individual. L.Wallace: I'm Lori Wallace and I live at 3834 South Gideon and I just wanted to say that we purchased our house knowing this 15 year deed restriction was going to allow us to have 15 years and you're going to turn it all away? De Weerd: Thank you. Ron Patton. Against. Patton: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Ron Patton, I reside at 385 South Gideon Place in the Dartmoor Subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Patton: I wanted to just touch on the traffic issue that's been brought up before. I appreciate the attempts that have been made to limit the traffic flowing through Dartmoor. You know, unfortunately, Kingsbridge has got a problem, you know, the location they are putting the subdivision is very land locked. Their only access is the two points out to Eagle Road and, unfortunately, one of those being through my Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 33 of 71 subdivision. I don't really want to argue the numbers, whether it's 800, 400 cars, I don't really know, but you can look at that picture and see that the majority of the traffic is going to flow north, people are going to head north. So, a large portion of that upper half, that northern half is -- they are going to want to go down Dartmoor. It's going to be more convenient for them. And, unfortunately, unlike their main entrance, we have no traffic buffers, we have no privacy fencing. Our houses on the street, all open fencing. Our children walk and wait for the bus on that road. This is, to me, the largest concern. I would be -- feel much better if they had a different access off to another main road that would severely limit the traffic driving onto Dartmoor. It kind of seems like we are kind of getting hit double here. Not only do we have this high density subdivision getting put in right next to us, we also have the burden of the traffic flowing through our subdivision to that -- to that high density subdivision. So, I hope you consider that in making your decision. You know, this is -- this is maybe a very nice subdivision. The problem I see is the placement. This seems like the wrong place to try to fit it in. It's kind of shoe horned in, you know, where they could put it, land locked all the way around. I just don't feel that it's right to have us -- that traffic flow right through our subdivision. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Mr. George Hicks. Against. Does Mr. Hicks wish to provide testimony? Hicks: Thank you, Your Honor. De Weerd: Were you sworn in? Hicks: I am not sworn in, so I will do that. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Hicks: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Hicks: My name is George Hicks. My office address is 1471 Shoreline Drive in Boise, Idaho. Suite 100. I'm here this evening on behalf of folks who have some interest in this open space that was promised to them until the year 2009. They are members of the Bridlewood Subdivision and Bremerton Subdivision. There is a letter that I wrote to Your Honor and members of the Council in the record already. I wanted to augment the record just briefly and point out a few things in my short time. Back in the time when these subdivisions were approved in the county, Bremerton Subdivision and Dartmoor Subdivision had provisions in them that didn't just magically appear out of the whole thought. They were placed in these -- on these plats under a county code provision 8- 4B-7 under nonfarm development, under subsection F in that particular ordinance. There are open space requirements and there were four options and it appears that the developers at that time chose option number four, deed restricted private ownership for Meridian City Council December 14,2004 Page 34 of 71 a period of not less than 15 years, which shall prevent development and/or subsequent subdivision of the open space area and provide the maintenance responsibility, including the payment of all taxes and charges. This, I guess, was a promise made in an ordinance, it was made by public officials in open meetings like this, to people who spent a lot of money to buy lots and to build homes in this area, because it was a rural area. And this particular development -- and I must congratulate the developer, the applicant, I think they are very organized and they make a great presentation, but it's not for now and it's not for here. I think a couple of things that you should look at and, with all due respect, I wonder where Mr. Nary got his idea that this 15 year restriction was just kind of a guesstimate of maybe when the various city services might reach the area. It's really real to these people. It's really real. And that's one of the things they counted on when they bought the land and they built their houses. Please look to your own ordinances with regard to what conditions are placed upon development and I quote from Meridian City Code. There are three very -- three ordinances, 11-1-6 is the one that's pertinent here, where the conditions imposed by any provision herein upon the use of land or buildings or upon the bulk of the building are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision herein or any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation of any kind, regulations are more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall govern. Thank you very much for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Robert Burns. We have a letter or -- has provided testimony. Is against. Have new testimony to offer? Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't check you off. Lori Allen. Against. Allen: I'm Lori Allen, I live on 3550 Terri Drive adjacent to the subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Allen: It's a pretty lousy copy and she said she would put it up anyway, but if you can see by the highlighted yellow, that is what the one-acre area looks like. She has it turned around sideways, but Victory is north, if you wouldn't mind. Canning: I can do that. Allen: Thank you. I thought the developer had been quite careful to show you a view that was favorable of his presentation, rather than showing you all these single family acreages in the rural setting and, then, all of a sudden this mass of housing in the center of it, it just doesn't seem to be necessary to me and that was one of your statements, that it needed to be necessary to the development to the city plan. I don't think it's necessary in that place. Probably it will be a nice subdivision, but I don't think it needs to be there and I have a very small voice, I haven't got an attorney, but I have one of the largest contiguous lot lines and I will have probably seven or eight more homes adjacent to me and that's certainly not what I bought into and I thought I had at least 15 years because of that 15 year clause or I would have fought the original Dartmoor Subdivision a little harder, but they implied -- told me that we would have 15 Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 35 of 71 years at least and it would be rural when it did come. It would be more acre subdivisions, so I just hope you will stick with that. Thank you. De Weerd: Mrs. Allen, can you point out where your lot is? Kind of the northeast corner? Allen: Yeah. It's -- there it is. De Weerd: Right there. Okay. Allen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Phil Allen is also signed in opposition. And, sir, were you sworn in? Thank you. P.Allen: Phil Allen, 3350 South Terri. On the same northeast lot. And I just wanted to say that I agree with everybody here. When we went there we understood the 15 years when they approved the Dartmoor and, furthermore, it was to be -- when it was approved development it was going to be larger lots and , guess my biggest problem is is that when we were told something, what are we supposed to believe and who are we supposed to listen to and if you tell us something here today or tonight, what are we suppose to get out of that? Will it change tomorrow or next month? I mean this is the public out here and we are here and we are saying what's out here to protect us? What's exactly legal or what's right? That's about alii got to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I would like to remind everyone, if we could bring in new testimony. We have seen that most everyone in this room is in opposition and we have been able to look at the record as stated. So, if you have new testimony -- because there is a lot of new detail in front of us that you haven't been able to comment on. I would ask that you limit those comments to that. Lee Moncar is signed up against. Thank you, Anna. Moncar: My name is Lee Moncar. I live at 3415 South Terri Drive, right on that lot right there, and I'm going to have about nine houses backing up to me right there. De Weerd: Thank you. Moncar: I'm the second owner of this house. It was built in '75 and the man that I bought it from originally was a good friend of mine and a builder in this valley and this was his original place. He just -- they got to be too elderly to take care of it and it was getting run down and I ended up buying, but that was the same thing I was told by him, this moratorium for Dartmoor being started, he was one of the first five or six houses around there that had a say in Ada County to the development of Dartmoor. So, when that came through and he explained that to me, that was the only reason why we bought the property, too. And I spent over a year and a half remodeling and adding on and this and that to our house to get it where we wanted to live there. It would just be a Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 36 of 71 real shame to have a development -- a small city stuck right into this rural area that probably doesn't even have a hundred homes in that square mile, to put two hundred and some right there for monetary gain for somebody else or just because the sewer and water is right there, that makes it okay just to make this all right now is just not right and that's alii have to say. De Weerd: Thank you. And Sandy Moncar is also against. Thank you. Brady Turner. We also have testimony on file. Is in opposition. Thank you. Turner: My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I was sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: In the initial meeting between Vision First and Dartmoor resident subdivision back in February, the plat that was presented to the Dartmoor residents was 222 homes. When the Vision First filed for the P&Z they presented a plat of 237 homes. Now, they have reduced the current plan down to 219 homes. The overall reduction from what was originally presented to the Dartmoor homeowners association is a total of three homes net. I suppose that a reduction of 1.4 percent of the homes is supposed to address the homeowners' concerns about the density being too high in the Kingsbridge Subdivision. I don't believe it does. There were a number of other secondary concerns that were expressed at the meeting. These were all affects of the higher density. Several of the neighbors have expressed concerns about the increased traffic and pedestrian safety when walking along Dartmoor Drive, which does not have sidewalks, it has borrow ditches. I echo their comments and add that the residents in Kingsbridge will also be at risk when the elementary school is built in Tuscany Lakes there will be a significant increase of traffic -- pedestrian traffic along Dartmoor Drive from the Kingsbridge residents walking to and from the elementary school. Unlike cars, which, according to the traffic study, will be discouraged from using Dartmoor Drive, in theory at least, pedestrians will take the shortest route from Kingsbridge over to Tuscany Lakes along Dartmoor Drive. In a November 22nd e-mail message to the president of the homeowners association in Dartmoor, Kingsbridge offered to build sidewalks along Dartmoor Drive. However, that proposal was contingent not only on all Oartmoor residents supporting this proposal, but also all surrounding property owners supporting this proposal. I can see from the testimony and the sign-in sheets that at least one surrounding property owner has opposed this development. We, therefore, must conclude that Vision First will not build these sidewalks, disregarding the safety of the Oartmoor residents, as well as the residents of their own Kingsbridge Subdivision. Another issue addressed was the need for irrigation tail water being piped from Palfreyman land. The Vision First application to the P&Z states that they will, quote, connect the tail water from Palfreyman land in a pipe to Dartmoor irrigation subdivision. However, in the same e-mail message to the Dartmoor president, Vision First reiterates this promise: However, again, it is contingent upon not only all Dartmoor residents supporting the Kingsbridge proposal, but also all surrounding property owners, quote, standing down from their opposition. Again, at least one surrounding property owner Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 37 of 71 has opposed Kingsbridge. This promise made to the City of Meridian, the Planning and Zoning board, and the Oartmoor residents is now, apparently, null and void. Also in the same e-mail to the Oartmoor president, Vision First proposed to implement a 25-foot rear yard setback on Kingsbridge lots abutting Dartmoor Subdivision. Again, this was contingent upon all surrounding property owners not opposing Kingsbridge. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Do you have something in writing you can give to the clerk? Turner: Yes. I have a copy of the e-mail report. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Theresa Turner is signed up in opposition. Chantelle Kransinski. Thank you. Against. Kransinski: My name is Chantelle Kransinski and I reside at 3475 East Falcon Drive. That's the corner property at the end of Falcon Drive there. Right -- right there. And you do have my testimony to Planning and Zoning on record and I had talked about schools. I will be brief. I just -- just this week, from Lake Hazel Elementary we got a notice saying that they are over capacity on their first grade classes and they are going to have to add another one. So, they are trying to figure out how to reorganize the kids to do that. Today when I called them their capacity is 460 and they are at 588 currently. There are no more elementary schools currently in bond issues and Eric Exline had indicated at the last redrawing of the boundary that if there is another elementary school built it will be in northern Meridian and so we don't have anything coming down the pipes to alleviate and to take on the extra capacity of this high density subdivision. The only other thing I'd like to mention is the four way stop at Victory Road and Eagle. That's a two-lane intersection, with a four way stop that is already backed up. Ada County currently plans to widen that intersection and put in lights in 2008 and so up until that time all that traffic of that high-density subdivision is going to be backing up and we are just right off that intersection. It's already very difficult to get out. It seems like the 2009 planned building of this property would fit in very well with the 2008 widening of that intersection. And I would just close with that infrastructure doesn't necessarily always have to mean that water and sewer lines connect across a road, it also has to be schools and roadways to make it easy for us to get home and our kids to go to school. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And Harold also signed up against. Okay. Lisa Becker also against. L.Becker: Let me give you my presentation. I'm sure you're quite anxious to see what it's going to look like. Rountree: Deaf by technology. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 38 of 71 De Weerd: Maybe we should have taken our break. Rountree: Why don't we until we get it up and running? De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you want to take a break? We will take a five-minute break. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. Lisa. L.Becker: Okay. Hit it, Anna. Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker, I live at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian, Idaho. I wanted to compliment you on your Comprehensive Plan. I feel it's well written, it shows your vision, and it helps us understand as citizens the decisions that you will make. I wanted to focus on my comments about the Comprehensive Plan and whether this development meets that or not. One of the quotes in the Comprehensive Plan: Existing land use development patterns provide the basis for future land use development. The proposed development, the surrounding area is surrounded by five to ten acre estates ranging in value from 350 to 500 thousand dollars. I wanted to give you a sense for the character of the area. This is our house. We live on five acres. Our neighbors house to the right. Our other neighbor on the left. And our neighbor across the street. So, this is the character of the area that we are talking about. The Comprehensive Plan also states that it's important for the citizens of the area to determine how they want development to occur in order to preserve the city's character. The developer has not planned any transition lots to the east of the development. They have actually clustered the highest density lots along our property line. We will show you a picture of that in a minute. The developer also did not seek our opinion how the area should be developed. When I contacted Vision First's CEO, he indicated that while he attempted to work with Dartmoor, he had no legal obligation to meet with any of the neighbors prior to establishing plans for this development. The Comprehensive Plan also states that within rural areas it requires new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lots to buffer the interface between urban level and rural densities. The plat is coming up. Our property is right here. The lots that they have placed along our property line are the 8,000 square foot lots. We have houses in our neighborhood that are almost that big. We have several concerns about this plot. Also we have a concern about the stub road here that's supposedly accessing Selatir Place. We have an agreement with the -- on the Ada County recorder on September 10th, we made an agreement and recorded it that says the developer shall extend South Selatir place as a dead end cul-de-sac within the interior of the residential lots with no reservation of right of way over residential lots. So, we have a real concern about that stub road and their intent to access Selatir Road. We did attend the Ada County commissioners' hearing when Dartmoor was approved. Dartmoor was approved contingent upon the property owner and developer agreeing to the 15-year deed restriction. They did that, because Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 39 of 71 Dartmoor's one-acre lots were at a higher density than the zoning allowed. Vern Bisterfelt was the author of the cluster development. He took great extent to explain to us the purpose of cluster developments and the 15-year moratorium. De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time's up, but thank you. Jeff Walkersein. Walkersein: Close. I don't think anybody's ever pronounced it right. De Weerd: That's all right. I have one of those names, too. Usually no one will even attempt to say it. Were you sworn in? Walkersein: Yes, I was. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Walkersein: My name is Jeff Walkersein. I live on 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Walkersein: And in light of the testimony that I have heard tonight, if I understood it correctly, Mr. Nary indicated that regardless of all these legal issues that everybody is talking about, the bottom line is the Council discretion. The letter Mr. Siddoway wrote indicates the key issues are the density and the traffic concerns and I might add also that schools overcrowded. The applicant has said that annexation is in the public interest and in my opinion, with the increased traffic and the density concerns with placing the subdivision in the middle of all these, you know, more rural setting houses and all the property owner concerns, I, myself, have not seen how this annexation is in the public interest. So, those are just comments I had. De Weerd: Thank you. Walkersein: Thank you. De Weerd: And do you -- your wife, she also signed against. Canning: Madam Mayor, I have that letter, if you'd like me to read it. De Weerd: Okay. I have asked staff to read the letter from the school district that we received. Canning: I apologize, Madam Mayor, I thought I found it. It's for Silverleaf Subdivision, apparently. De Weerd: Okay. We will get back to you. Okay. Bob Becker. Against. Okay. And I cannot read the next printed name. Troy something. Okay. Signed up against. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 40 of 71 Quick: My name is Troy Quick. I reside at 3677 South Caleb Place inside the Dartmoor Subdivision and I'd like to make three points tonight and, first of all, I'd like to let the City Council know that -- that I am a builder and so build homes as a profession and so I am, obviously, not against development, but I am against the way this development is proposed because of the way it sits. And the reason that I am opposed to that is for these points. The first point is is that, obviously, if we only took into account the surrounding properties, this is not now, you know, compatible. What they are using as compatibility is the Tuscany Subdivision. However, the Tuscany Subdivision is at 2.4 gross density homes per acre, whereas Kingsbridge is proposing 2.86. Though that seems like a small increase, if you do the percentage of that, that is a 20 percent increase in density from what Tuscany is proposed -- or what Tuscany is doing currently. The other thing that makes Tuscany much different than Kingsbridge is that Tuscany, basically, has bought almost half of that entire one mile block there, whereas the Kingsbridge Subdivision is, basically, just a land locked piece of property that is surrounded completely by all of these larger parcels, so that makes our subdivision much different. The second point is is that the due diligence that the developer has not really shown towards us -- or I guess I should say has made a very token effort at showing towards us. We have concerns of the safety of our children with the traffic flow down Dartmoor. The way he addresses that is by saying that he will paint white lines on our road for us. Actually, I should -- actually, according to his own thing, Ada County will paint white lines on the road and that's supposed to protect our children from all these -- from the traffic flow. We told him up front that we had a problem with all the number of homes that he was proposing. The original one was 222. The way he addressed that concern was to increase the lot count to 237 homes. The other thing, as you saw tonight, he was asked for, basically, larger transitional lots, so his way that he addressed this was basically by approximately removing one lot on each boundary. I don't really consider that much in the way of due diligence. I consider that much of a token effort. The other point that I'd like to make is that if City Council does choose to approve this subdivision as proposed, that you're going to be forcing the voting, tax paying citizens of this small community and these small surrounding areas to go into litigation against this developer in court and I don't feel like that that would be right in your case to do that. I feel like it would be in the best interest of the citizens, the people that live in this area, that once we are annexed into Meridian we will be voting for your offices and paying taxes to your city, that you need to pay attention to maybe our voice, rather than the voice of this developer. Thank you. De Weerd: Maybe even running for them. Look at how much fun you will have. Mr. Dan Johnson signed up against. Were you sworn in? Johnson: I was not. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Johnson: Yes, it is. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 41 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson, I reside at 3501 South Selatir Place. I have been following this with a lot of great advice from some excellent legal advisors and I guess the thing that bothers me is I'm kind of wondering why this application ever made it past the pre-app with this deed restriction on it. I think that's something that staff should know and understand what that means. A lot of comments have been made about the inappropriate densities and the fact the developer didn't work with the perimeter property owners. I have six acres to the east of this property and I was never contacted and I -- you know, it's a nice subdivision, but does not fit here. I think you heard that. The thing I'm wondering about, since I did attend Ada County council hearings, their commissioners hearings ten years ago on two different cluster developments, they indicated that this 15 year moratorium was a minimum fixed term, it would go with the land, it was part of a legal record of plat and it would survive any annexation process that was done by any municipality. That's what we were told, that's what we believe is true, and that I think is the law and I think Mr. Nary was correct in saying that the City Council tonight can annex this property, because there is no law against that, but if you approve the development, we believe you will be violating that law and I don't think there would have been any reason for that 15 years minimum moratorium to have existed to any benefit if it wouldn't survive annexation. So, I think the fellows or the people that think that there is going to be a litigation between the neighboring property owners and Vision First, they are wrong. If the city approves this, I think the city is vulnerable. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And David -- I'm really not even going to try your last name. LaVigne: Come on. Give it a shot. De Weerd: LaVigne. There you go. LaVigne: She's going to load a presentation for me. Hopefully we won't have to take another five-minute break. De Weerd: And did we swear you in? LaVigne: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Well, while she does that I will swear you in. LaVigne: Okay. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? LaVigne: Yes, it is. . ._--..~ Meridian City Council December 14,2004 Page 42 of 71 De Weerd: Now, I will stress to our attorney, it will be nice to get this thing out of that ordinance. Nary: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: We all trust that everything you say to us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth without you swearing at us. LaVigne: I would never do that. Maybe under my breath. De Weerd: Almost like the hearing impaired, we need to have advance notice and have our computer guy here. Canning: It doesn't like your CD. LaVigne: It doesn't like my CD? Canning: No. Oh, there you are. LaVigne: Yeah. That's it. That's a good CD. Canning: Have you got a lot of photos on here or something? David, have you got a lot of photos on here? LaVigne: A few. I figured you guys would have pretty fast computers over here. Canning: This is a reject computer. It's not very good, so -- Madam Mayor, with the indulgence, if I move it onto the hard drive it might be better, but I will have to -- it will take another -- LaVigne: Does somebody want to go and, then, I can come back up here once she gets it? Canning: That will work. LaVigne: Okay. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Tim O'Brien is signed up against. Were you sworn in? O'Brien: I was not. De Weerd: Maybe as I swear in Tim, anyone else who hasn't been sworn in, if you will raise your right hand, if you will be providing testimony. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? (Affirmative answers.) Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 43 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. O'Brien: Okay. My name is Tim O'Brien and I live at 3873 South Gideon Place in the Dartmoor Subdivision and just real briefly, my biggest concern is that the density really doesn't fit I think the whole flavor of that block and I think in terms of fitting in and approving it, I think that needs to be considered, along with resources, such as sewer and all that. It needs to really fit the flavor of the area and it doesn't. That's all. De Weerd: Thank you. Christie Quick against. Okay. Rick Stott against. Please state your name and address. Stott: Rick Stott, 3684 South Caleb Place, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Stott: You have heard a lot of testimony about the lack of consistency in the area with this subdivision. Maybe we could talk a little bit about what it can be. There is an opportunity here to set up a -- as all the neighbors have said, they are not against dividing or subdividing this land. It's a valuable piece of land. We are within a mile of one of the best business developments that's going into Meridian. We are within a mile and a half of a freeway. We have homes surrounded that range anywhere from 400,000 to a million dollars in value. We have an environment that is rural in nature, as Mr. Elliott said, rural Dartmoor and that's what it is and the surrounding area. What we can do with that land is develop it into something that is consistent with that area in half acre or one acre parcels and it gives an opportunity for executive homes, large homes, that adds value to this entire area, not just Dartmoor, not just the surrounding area, but also the subdivisions that are higher density that are across Eagle. What a great opportunity that you have as a visionary Council to send that message to developers in the long run. We have horses; we have cows that surround that. I work for a company called Agri Beef and we fight every day for freedom of farm, freedom of ranch, the freedom of farming act and it's being eroded on a constant basis. I had a steer in the backyard. My wife said it smelled. I disagreed. But she won and it's no longer there. but I do have a horse and the neighbors around the area have horses as well. What happens when you have high density houses that are inside of a city that doesn't like the smell, doesn't like the flies, the freedom of farm act goes out the window. DEQ comes and says it's a nuisance. That's what happens. I know from personal experience with our properties in rural areas that that's what happens. It's a big concern. The traffic is a big concern. My daughter is deaf, she's going blind. No sidewalks. Rural area. Walking to school in the dark is a grave concern. The calculations that they have made in the traffic study are flawed. As an accountant I like numbers. Calculating the numbers that they use at 200 trips today out of Dartmoor -- there is only 15 homes there. Add that up. That's 13 trips per day, yet they calculate their own calculations with only eight trips out of the Kingsbridge calculation. In addition to cutting from 400 to 200, that means only 50 homes. If you look at that map -- I mean I know how I drive, I find the shortest way. It doesn't make any sense just because you Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 44 of 71 cut off one little part that half of the people are not going to go that direction. It makes no sense. There is no street lights, no sidewalk, and the legal issues are -- that have been spoken of well and -- but we were committed to in the deed to 15 years and with a rural development and that's what we committed to. Thank you. De Weerd: How are we doing, Anna? Canning: Not quite there yet, Mayor. Sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Susan Brenden signed up against. Okay. Ralph Tipton signed up against. Donna Rich signed up against. Thank you, Donna. Okay. Those are the people who have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Please come forward. Were you sworn in? Smith: I was. Just come in. I was tardy also. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Please state your name and address. Smith: Tom Smith. I live at 3300 East Oartmoor in the Dartmoor Subdivision. We have -- we are the first lot as you come in the left on the north side of Dartmoor as you come in, so have a lot of exposure and a lot of people that will be walking and driving down, as has been said. I think this, you know, has been said that I don't feel like this subdivision fits very well either. Everything has its place and everything has a feel to it and this is kind of like me taking my car and parking it in the family room, my wife really wouldn't find it very -- a very good fit, so -- but the one thing that hasn't been brought up -- I agree with Rick Stott that it has -- has a chance to be something really good here. I'm a businessman and I understand that everybody is out to make a profit, but the difference, if you run the numbers -- and I'm also not a realtor and I just go by what I see the market has done out there and we have looked at other properties, but Dartmoor is such a nice home country feel and we like the people there and the feel of it, which will totally change with this subdivision. But if you run the numbers, the difference between the lots -- as I said, I'm all about them making money, but if they were to go with one acre lots and get say a hundred to a hundred twenty thousand apiece out of them, they would be in the five to six million dollar range that they would be getting when they were done as far as total return on investment. I don't know what their costs will be in that, but if you look at it with their 219 lots at an average of say 60,000 dollars that they will get per lot, some of the bigger lots and some of the smaller lots, they are almost 15 million. So, I understand that they are trying to make money at this. The thing is, you know, trying to shove a square peg in a round hole just to make the extra cash, you know, is not -- not what I think Meridian wants to -- we are all -- I think everybody wants to see them make some money, but more than that, we want it to be the right fit and do what the city wants it to do and what we would like to -- we would like to have good neighbors and good relations with these people, not have it be a fight from the beginning and have to deal with that clear through. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 45 of 71 Canning: Madam Mayor, we are ready. De Weerd: All right. David, come on up. Okay. If you will just restate your name and address. LaVigne: My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. LaVigne: And as you can see, we had a few dates that we had kind of gone through, but I have three primary concerns that I want to talk about. Proposed stub streets, the Meridian traffic, and no transition lots. All the proposed stub streets attempt to access rural roads with no sidewalks, some with open borrow pits for drainage. And as you can see, the proposed stubs streets on Falcon Drive, Terri Lane, and Selatir Place, this is kind of what they look like. Selatir Place is 22 feet wide with open borrow pits. Terri Lane is 20 wide with no sidewalks. Falcon Drive is 22 feet wide with open ditches. If you look at Tuscany across the street from Dartmoor on Roam Drive it's 30 feet wide, plus it has sidewalks. It's pretty safe walking around in there. Vision First's proposal for Dartmoor Orive is to have a four-foot wide stripe on each side of the road, as they had proposed earlier. What that really means is if you look at Oartmoor, Dartmoor Drive is 24 feet wide, if a four-foot wide stripe is painted on each side of the road that will leave a 16-foot wide road. That's like pulling in your garage at 25 miles an hour. Regarding the proposed stub streets, with the general standard applicable to all conditional uses, that proposed -- the proposal will not -- the proposal will not involve conditions of operation detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare or reasons, excess production of traffic. Kingsbridge doesn't meet that. Based on the November 14th news article that I think everybody here read regarding Meridian traffic, the planning agencies have miscalculated several key estimates of land that's being developed at fast -- pretty fast rates. Traffic is moving toward gridlock in the City of Meridian and there is not much can be done. Does the City of Meridian really need to annex anymore property in the city limits with current traffic and growth issues unresolved? I think a lot of people here would probably say no. With regard to transition lots. As stated in the City of Meridian, this is the same thing that Lisa had put up originally. The bottom line is traditional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes that buffer -- they need to buffer or interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities, which Kingsbridge isn't doing. So, as you will see, those are the transition lots. My property is in the upper right-hand corner that abuts the east thing and the transition lots on the east end of the development that abut the five acre parcels, Kingsbridge proposed 8,000 square foot lots, that's equivalent to 5.44 homes per acre. If I had 30 homes on my 5.5 acres, then, I would probably call that a transition. You know, if you look at a view from right there in that back east lot, wouldn't you think that that would demand a little better premium lot? As you can see, I'm asking you guys to deny the annexation into the city. We don't want to become looking like Seattle. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 46 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. LaVigne: Or Eagle. De Weerd: Okay. Other testimony? McKee: Madam Mayor, my name is Sharon McKee and I reside at 3891 -_ De Weerd: Sorry, your time is up. I'm sorry. McKee: I reside at 3891 South Gideon. At this time I have to say I'm so proud of everybody here. Mr. Turner presented some really good information and he said one perimeter lot stood in denial. He didn't recognize that everybody here is perimeter lots and they also stand in denial. Also Mrs. Becker, what she had done and what David LaVigne has done is really good. However, I don't have it computerized for you, but I did make you a storyboard and if you would allow me, I'd like to show it to you. De Weerd: Okay. Any ideas how best to accomplish that? Nary: Got to give that to the clerk when she's done. Canning: We may be able to do them one at a time, but the whole thing won't fit on there. McKee: Can I submit it as the record? De Weerd: Sure. McKee: Can I give it to him? I take it you will all see it. The board is broken up into three equal parts. The first section of pictures -- there is ten pictures on the first section. It shows you, as Lori did, the character of the neighborhood and the homes that are in the neighborhood. They are high-end homes and they have a lot of value. The second section of pictures -- I took pictures of our back yards and the acreages and as you can see by the pictures, we keep -- we take a lot of great pride in our land. The cost of keeping it nice is high. Our personal expenses in maintaining them has always been considered an investment into our property value. What I would like you to realize in this is that the urban development is smack dab in the middle of a rural area. The last section is what Kingsbridge is bringing to this lovely area of Meridian. As you can see, it is just rooftops, walls, and fences. If you turn the board over, which I encourage you to do, Madam Mayor, before you pass it on, we tried to illustrate what this development would really look like. The top picture shows our existing rural area and the bottom picture shows you that we inverted some roof tops in there and that is what Kingsbridge is donating to our urban backyards. Because everybody else has done a really good job, I'm going to try and keep it short and bypass my entire thing, but like they said, we are not here to stop the developer, we are here trying to protect our home values. We want to see the CC&Rs of the lot held. The 15-year deed restriction was a substantial Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 47 of 71 fact in everyone's decision to purchase their homes, let alone the commitment to develop it in the same manner as Dartmoor was developed. We love living in Meridian and better yet in the area because of its rural style. If this plan gets approved it will decrease our property values and that's not fair or just and I really hope that you don't put that burden on us that we would have to stand and fight and have some of these few homeowners fight that financial battle against a giant developer and I'm just asking you to, please, just say no. You have choices. We need a different development in here that is in like with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Canning: Madam Mayor, I do have the school district letter. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will go ahead and just finish the testimony. Canning: Oh, I didn't see any. I thought they were done. I'm sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Sir. If you will, please, state your name and address. J.McKee: Yes. My name is Jeff McKee. I live at 3891 South Gideon Place. And we talk about everybody's concerns and everything, but the way I see it, there is right and there is everything else. So, we can have lawyers, we can pay them to argue either side of this, I think, but what I really want to know is what's right. The current property owner he has a right to develop that property. I'm a property owner in Texas. I have the right to develop that property. I understand that. But he has the right to develop, based on what you have heard, on restrictions that were placed when Dartmoor went in. And he has also restrictions that they had when I bought the property that I'm currently at. And we were here many times in 15 years and it needs to be an extension of development of Dartmoor, so we both have rights. I think Meridian has .- as a body, as a governing body, should stick with putting in what fits. So, all I want to state is you can have right and everything else. So, what is right for this piece of property? And that's all. De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Yes, sir. Schultsmeier: Good evening. I haven't been sworn in yet. De Weerd: Okay. Schultsmeier: Okay. De Weerd: Are you sure? Weren't you here when we did the group thing? Schultsmeier: Sorry. No. Meridian City Council December 14,2004 Page 48 of 71 De Weerd: Another tardy guy. Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Schultsmeier: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Schultsmeier: Rick Schultsmeier, 3422 East Dartmoor. De We8rd: Thank you. Schultsmeier: I'd like to read an e-mail that was sent to Lisa Job from Ken Elliott and I'm going to read a portion of it. If the Dartmoor residents or neighbors challenge the City Council decision in court, we will fully prepare to litigate the matter to its final conclusion. Once a decision is made -- and we are reasonably certain the court will agree with our interpretation of the Dartmoor covenant as a matter of law, we will move ahead and develop the project as conditioned by the city approval, but without any of the benefits to Dartmoor listed above. The Dartmoor residents can cost Kingsbridge project time and money, but as you all may rest assured, we are not leaving. Just from that statement alone I'd like to appeal to the Council's sense of justice and realize that we do not want to go into this and get involved in a legal battle. All we are doing is asking for you to basically disapprove the Kingsbridge development and not allow us to get into a battle in court. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: He needs to give that e-mail to the clerk. Schultsmeier: It's the same letter. De Weerd: Oh, it's already been submitted? Sir, could you, please, on the record, tell us who these people are. You just read an e-mail and I'm not familiar -- you'll need to do it on the microphone. Schultsmeier: The e-mail is from Ken Elliott. De Weerd: And who is that? Schultsmeier: He's Vision First. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 49 of 71 Schultsmeier: And, then, it's to Lisa Job, which is the president of the Dartmoor-- De Weerd: Okay. Schultsmeier: Is that enough? De Weerd: Yes. Schultsmeier: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? B.Schultsmeier: Madam Mayor, my name is Brenda Schultsmeier. I haven't spoke in public in awhile. I reside at 3422 East Dartmoor Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. B.Schultsmeier: We bought our property about three years ago and we had looked for about a year trying to find property that had an acre that was close in proximity and that had the rural setting. We have lots of dogs. Knowing that we were going to start a family soon, we would have never bought this property had we known that this was going to be developed into an urban -- into an urban development. It was promised to us that this deed restriction would -- that it not be developed for 15 years and so we are relying on that and we are asking for you to stop this development -- that couldn't have been three minutes. De Weerd: No. Time flies when you're having fun. B.Schultsmeier: And, furthermore, the fact of the matter is it's going to cost all of us a lot of time and a lot of money to fight this battle, which we are prepared to do, as they are. So, we are just pleading with you to stop this development and look for something else to go into this property at a later date. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Ma'am. State your name and address. Bowden: I'm Sarah Bowden and I reside at 3515 South Eagle Road and I would be on the northwest -- De Weerd: There is a pointer up there. Bowden: Okay. Right there. De Weerd: Okay. Bowden: So, we would definitely be impacted by the additional number of cars coming out of Dartmoor, but I totally sympathize with Dartmoor, because the flavor has totally Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 50 of 71 changed in our neighborhood since Tuscany has moved in. When they were developers, sometimes they would just throw trash over the fence. They did put a five foot fence, but they didn't berm it, they -- they wanted to berm it on our side of the property, because -- you know, and they said, well, we will protect your view, but they haven't protected our view and I'm concerned that possibly Dartmoor's view may not be protected. They were only going to build like single layer homes around, you know, the property, but, no, there are two story homes and it's also -- I have lived in this home since 1985 and it was said back then that it was a natural migratory route and Tuscany was going to try and save the flavor of the wildlife that is out there, there is wonderful foxes out there in the area and geese and so much of that is leaving and I just hate to see it leave across the street. We, too, have horses and I feel sorry for those people that have horses for concern of, you know, all the little kids in the subdivision, they like to stick their hands in -- you know, over fencing and play with animals. Also, what was brought up when Tuscany was going through, I had objected to that as well, but they said -- someone spoke from the fire department and there was also a letter read about __ from the police department saying how it would tax that area -- I mean tax them with so many people just moving into that area. I do know that on the fire department it's a substation that's going to be built further north of us, but in the meantime, I'm concerned that, you know, the people that are there, you know, can they truly be totally protected by everyone and so I just kind of wondered that. I also object to the traffic. As it is now __ or to the number of homes coming in. The traffic is such a gridlock on Eagle Road, that there are times of the day when, between Overland and Victory is blocked, it is backed up. And in the mornings when we try and leave our home, it is totally backed up beyond Dartmoor. I can't imagine anymore homes on that double lane, but thank you so much for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Ruhl: I'm Renee Ruhl and I reside at 3886 South Gideon Place, also in the Dartmoor Subdivision. De Weerd: And that was Renee Ruhl? Ruhl: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Ruhl: And I guess I would think that the deed restriction would be the thing that I would want to stand on the most as well and I think about raising our four children and wanting to go home and explain to them that integrity is still a value of the Meridian city that we want to uphold and so I would hope that that would be the main reason that this would be denied. Also I wanted to talk about the traffic as well. We walk on the ditch bank that is currently right here and often at 7:45 in the morning this is backed up clear to here from Victory Road, which is way up here, at this point in time when Tuscany isn't even halfway down putting the homes in. They also have another proposed subdivision area down here and more back over in here and I can't imagine what the road's going to Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 51 of 71 be like just when Tuscany completes their homes, let alone Kingsbridge. I have a third child just getting her driver's license and I am fearful for her to turn on Eagle Road where it's 45 miles an hour, trying to take a left-hand turn there with cars going back and forth not stopping. I think it's already dangerous and I can't imagine what it will become. Also, if you have been out there on Saturdays during soccer season, the traffic is incredible heading out to the soccer fields down on Hubbard Road, which we are thrilled that those fields are down there, but traffic is often backed up clear from Overland all the way out. State soccer tournaments were out there this year. State soccer tournaments. There were buses, there were thousands of people on those roads and the fire station is not proposed to be put in until 2008, so we have got things way down the line. It's going to get much much worse at this point. Also the bridge that is pictured in the subdivision -- I don't know if you can put that up. I don't understand how that's going to work. That is Meridian-Nampa irrigation road that goes right there along the ditch and the bridge doesn't even show that the road even exists and that's like their key focal point of the subdivision. It's going to have to totally be changed. There is -- it's like obliterated the road. I don't know if we can see the picture, but it's not comprehensible how that's going to work in with the way the road is there and it's required, it's the only way to get in and out of the home back there, so thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Just for the record, the fire station will open about this time next year. So, we know we need to get service down there. Sir. T.Rohl: My name is Tim Ruhl. I reside at 3886 South Gideon Place and I'd just like to point out some obvious things with this new proposal, the new information. There are no significant changes in the number of homes going in their new proposal. There is no significant effort by the developer to meet any of our concerns or addresses any of our issues. However, if this development goes in, there will be a significant impact on us. Significant. There will be a significant impact on our way of life, on our schools that are -- as you probably already know, are overcrowded and that will impact our children. There will be a significant impact on our traffic, as was already stated. I think to appreciate our plight, just try to drive down Eagle Road between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock and you will fully appreciate what we go through on a daily basis trying to get home after work. And as what was already stated, I can't imagine what the traffic will look like if this development goes in. It's already very very bad. The traffic will have a significant effect on the safety of our children through that subdivision, as was already stated. It's obvious. There will be a significant change in our rural living. It will change our way of life. And we purchased these lots, as you well know, in good trust with the city planning that had already taken place and we trusted that that was going to stay the same. There will be a significant change on our views. It's -- if you look out our back lots right now, we enjoy rural living. We will be looking at hundreds of homes. It will significantly impact those. And it will significantly impact our property values. And so I'd just like to state, along with everyone else in the room, that I'm in opposition to this development. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? I thank you were the first one here and the last one to testify. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 52 of 71 B.Becker: Actually, I wasn't going to testify. My wife is the toastmaster in the family, so I defer to her, but -- De Weerd: If you will state your name and address. B.Becker: -- my name is Bob Becker, I live at 3421 South Selatir Place. I don't know if you can -- not the best map, but it's right in this area here. I wanted to address just one thing that Mr. Elliott said. He said that by increasing the lot size from 7,000 to a little over 8,000 square feet along the east side, that satisfied the Commission's concerns about transition lots and I don't think you can say that going from a 200,000 square foot lot, which is approximately what our lot is, to an 8,000 square foot lot, is a transition from low density to higher density. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony before I ask the applicant to come up for their closing remarks? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Canning: Madam Mayor, did you want the letter before-- De Weerd: Yes. Before we start the clock on the applicant, if you will read that letter into the record. Canning: This is a letter from Joint School No.2, which is the Meridian School District, dated August 19th, 2004. Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity. Approval of Kingsbridge Subdivision will have a significant impact on school enrollment at Lake Hazel Elementary, Lake Hazel Middle, and Mountain View High School. We can predict that these homes when completed will have eight elementary age children, seven middle school age child -- children it should be -- and six senior high age students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. Meridian School District is currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. If you have questions, please contact me. Signed Wendell Bigham. De Weerd: So, are they recommending denial? Canning: No, they are not. They never do. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record my name is Ken Elliott, speaking on behalf of the applicant Vision First, LLC. We have listened patiently, as the Council has, to the testimony. Many of the issues we have heard before presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We took the comments very seriously at that initial hearing and we do believe that we have made Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 53 of 71 significant changes to this project in response to the neighbors' concerns. We are in a developing area. We recognize that. We look at the city's Comprehensive Plan or the future land use map and we see that our tract is slated for low density residential at three lots per acre, except for 28 acres of the site, which is as the planning director pointed out, between three and eight lots per acre. We have attempted to address the transition from the existing rural development at our boundaries by going with the low density across the entire site, rather than mixing it with low and medium density. We are at 2.86 units, which is below the three unit per acre max for the city's R-4 low density zone. A couple of legal arguments have been made repeatedly tonight. We'd like to rely -- continue to rely on Mr. Miller's interpretation of the Oartmoor covenants and Mr. Nary's advice to the City Council about the impact of those covenants or the nonimpact on the City Council's decision tonight. Since every Oartmoor neighbor, though, has testified that he or she purchased their lot in the project in reliance on a 15 year covenant governing Lot 11 of Block 2 of Oartmoor, which is our 56 acres to the east, I would like to repeat a sentence that is in Mr. Miller's letter, which is an excerpt from the Oartmoor CC&Rs, which states that Lot 11 of Block 2 is excluded by the grantor from coverage of this declaration. By accepting a deed to a lot within Oartmoor Subdivision, each owner shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 1 and Lot 11 of Block 2 and consents to the resubdivision and development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 1 and 11 of Block 2, including such resubdividing and development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11 of Block 2 will be provided by the public rights of way within Oartmoor Subdivision. It is disingenuous of, in my biased view, for all these Oartmoor residents to say that they bought in reliance on a covenant, when this was in their title report at the time of every purchase of every lot that you have heard from tonight. We feel that our project addressed the city's Comprehensive Plan and future land use map. The exhibit that I just began to discuss in the main testimony shows the red tracts of land that are within the city's area of impact south of Overland Road. A total of 705 new lots have been approved by the city for preliminary plat. It is obvious that this entire area north of Amity is in a rapid state of change. We think that our project will help address the traffic on Eagle Road, rather than make it worse, because if you look at the northern part of that area that is shaded in brown, you see the Silverstone and EI Dorado employment centers. In the Mayor's State of the City address earlier this fall the study is referred to where we have projected by the end of 2005 there will be a total of 14,000 jobs created in those two projects. We are trying to create additional housing south of the freeway where people can live and take a short trip to work, rather than having to commute from north Meridian, where a lot of the housing to date has occurred, and go down Eagle Road to get to these employment centers south of the freeway. We think that Kingsbridge is precisely the right project in the right place at the right time to respond to this issue and to the growth of Meridian. We need to grow in concentric circles around the job centers. The air of impact was established with that in mind, it's established a quarter mile south of Amity, as shown on our red boundary on the exhibit, we are three-quarters of a mile south of that and about one mile south of those job centers where we are expecting 14,000 jobs. If we are wrong, we need -- and we would welcome guidance from the City Council tonight. We are trying to abide by the future land use map. We think that we have balanced the Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 54 of 71 city's goals for residential growth in this area in a way that is -- that addresses the transition from the existing rural development. Every lot on our perimeter exceeds the minimum lot size for the R-4 zone. What is not mentioned in any of the opposition testimony is that it says create large lots or landscape buffers. Well, we have a landscape buffer all the way around our project. On the south side it's 60 feet. On the east and north side it's 30 feet. So, we have both lots that comply with the zoning and the landscape buffer to transition from the five-acre lots to the east and north. With respect to the pedestrian safety improvements and my e-mail submitted to Lisa Job, when we revised our plat we invited discussions with the Dartmoor neighbors, they reviewed all of the compromises that we had proposed at that time and said, sorry, we don't want to talk unless you are willing to go to one acre lots. We proposed recently, about two weeks ago, a set of traffic safety improvements, because we had gotten information that, in fact, the neighborhood thought we had withdrawn those proposed compromises. We have never withdrawn them, it's just that they never responded to us. So, I restated in my e-mail all of the improvements that we were willing to make and, in fact, we hoped that we would reach an agreement with them and that's why it says if we are going to do all of these things, we would expect, as a quid quo pro, that you not oppose the project, because none of those enhancements are going to be made without the project. And to be -- to be chastised for offering to do off-site improvements that have never been made in their neighborhood to protect the safety of their children and the safety of the Kingsbridge children I think is not fair play. We are willing to make all of those improvements and we stand ready to accept that as a condition. We will put in the first sidewalk that's ever existed on Dartmoor Drive. We will create setbacks far beyond those that are required by the city's code. We will put privacy fencing all the way along their boundary. We will commit to single level houses on the lots that adjoin Dartmoor to preserve their views from their two story houses on their lots. We have never withdrawn those proposals, it's just that whenever we seek to have a discussion they say, sorry, one acre lots, we are going to hold out for a rural subdivision. Well, the intent of the county ordinance was to prevent urban sprawl, to prevent the proliferation of one acre lots in areas where urban services were expected to be extended in future years. We have now reached that future year, it's year 11, instead of the predicted 15, but Meridian has grown faster than anyone could have projected back in 1994. There are several examples on our map that show where one-acre lots are existing quite compatibly with 8,000 square foot lots on adjoining projects. Two examples are the Muirwood Subdivision at Cloverdale and Victory and the new Sutherland Farm where we have R-4 density lots abutting five-acre mansions on the north side of Overland. In response to Mrs. Becker's testimony on our stub street in Selatir Place, we have no intent or hope of ever connecting to Selatir, because of the strip of land that prevents that. Our hope is that we will connect to Bott Lane and, then, to Cloverdale to the east, which is in Ada County's traffic plan for an east-west connection between Cloverdale and Eagle. The difference in lot numbers, we have heard discussion about 222 in an earlier plan, then, 237, then 219. The initial plan included many 6,000 square foot patio home lots. We met with the Dartmoor neighbors, they said, please, don't put in any 6,000 square foot lots. We increased the -- all of them to above 7,000 square feet, the averaging created 237 lots. So, we have given up 19 lots. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 55 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have questions for the applicant? Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: For the public -- for public testimony. How many of your -- 219, I guess, lots you got now? Is that right? Elliott: Yes. Bird: How many of them is over 8,000 square feet? Elliott; Over 8,OOO? All of them. Bird: Everyone of them is over 8,000? Elliott: Every one exceeds. And the average is 9,700. May I introduce two exhibits at the very end of my testimony. I have a letter from Ed Miller in response to George Hicks' letter that was submitted into the record. I also have the detail on those red tracts of land showing the 304 lots, as well as the job centers. De Weerd: Yes. Council, do you have any other questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: May I ask the folks in the audience a couple of questions? Not for the applicant, no. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Thank you. Donnell: Now, I can go? De Weerd: Yes. Donnell: I'm curious as to how many of you are actually in Dartmoor. Can you raise your hands? And just one per family. Would you raise your hand? Just one, so not, you know, both of you. How many of you have been there since 1984? I said 1884 when that -- when the ordinance in regard to the 15 years -- 1984. If the 15 years -- okay. Fifteen years is going to be 2009. So 1994. How many of you have been there? My math is really good. So -- okay. And, then, how many of you are in the surrounding Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 56 of 71 other areas? Just one hand per family. And how many of you have been there since 1994? Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed? Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion to close the Public Hearing? Donnell: Madam Mayor, I would move to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Bird: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on 13, 14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Donnell: Oh, yeah. De Weerd: Was that a -- do you want to go first? Donnell: Oh, yeah. I have been listening for a long long time and I have some really conflicting concerns about this. I live in one of those subdivisions. I live in one of those Kingbridges. I'm one of those people who put those trips on the roads. I watch the children that are out there waiting for the bus every morning, so -- and I see the developments that have been approved all over everywhere. I also lived, prior to that, in an area that had big homes and big lots and I can remember talking to the builder when the home behind me was being proposed and I just said please don't build a two story home, you're going to ruin my view and he said I'll tell you how you can insure that it won't be, you buy the lot. And that was exactly right and a two-story home was built. It didn't make much difference. The trees grew up and blocked my view anyway. Didn't make any difference that the house was there after ten and a half years. So, I have great sympathy with those of you that have a particular -- not particular, that's a really bad choice of words, but a lifestyle that you enjoy and you love and you want to stop anything else from happening around you. I have a greater concern about the ability of the school district to provide services for a subdivision that is that big. But I also know that from years and years of experience with the school district that their role is to provide services, so when the developments are built, then, their role is to provide those services, to build the schools. And I -- Anna, I'd really like to talk about the numbers that were -- that you read into -- in the letter, because I don't think those were quite right. Canning: They would seem incorrect, but that was what was on the letter, so-- Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 57 of 71 Donnell: I think that must have been -- something must have happened there. Usually there is a little bit -- yeah, a little bit more children than that that would come out of 219 home lots. And would impact that. There is a school site that's proposed for Tuscany and that, of course, would serve the Kingsbridge Subdivision and the land has been purchased, it's just not yet gone before the public to provide a bond to support building a school there. Lake Hazel has gone back and forth being over capacity and under capacity. So, that is -- that happens all across the district. So, I'm -- I have a greater concern, I guess, about annexation, when the one little contiguous area is one little spot there. I assume across the road. Thank you, Anna. Going to put that up. Right there. So, that meets the legal requirements; is that right? Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it does. Donnell: Okay. That's enough from me for now. De Weerd: Is there any further comment? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: As Councilman Donnell indicated, we certainly have done a lot of listening tonight and I hope it's the right kind. First I want to thank everybody for taking the time to come and recognizing that a good share of you are not now -- and probably not going to be in the near term residents of the City of Meridian, but thank you for being here. We have had some interesting testimony this evening, some interesting legal concepts thrown at us. Quite honestly, the legal issues are not necessarily resonating with me in terms of a decision. I believe those are for lawyers to deal with and I don't think that either way somebody's not going to be happy with the decision. So, again, that's for the lawyers to resolve. We have a unique situation with this development in the existing condition and we have an interesting discussion in our Comprehensive Plan about what happens in these kinds of areas. Normally we do not have a situation where we have a residential development, which I will characterize as a -- anyway, it's an oddity, we haven't seen one like this before, where it's surrounded by large lots and a rural environment. Typically we will see a large lot on one side or one corner of a development. And when you factor in what it was we were trying to accomplish with the language within our Comprehensive Plan and what the character is of this particular piece of real estate, I'm not -- it doesn't resonate to me that the proposed development and/or annexation is consistent with what we are trying to accomplish. The word I was looking for is it appears to me is if we have on enclave, but a reverse of the kinds of enclaves that we typically deal with the city surrounding a rural area and in this case we have a rural area surrounding the city. My inclination at this point is to not look favorably upon the annexation. Some of the things we have learned tonight, before there was a decision, I think one that we hear continually is be careful who you listen to and when you listen to them when you buy property. I'm not sure what we heard this evening again resonates with me in that regard. There is not much we can do about Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 58 of 71 promises made to you when you buy property. But what we can do is look at this in the context of what we want the city to be and how we want the city to grow and given that I at this point can't take a favorable position. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I agree with some of the comments that Councilman Rountree has laid out for us and one of the words that I have heard tonight from the public and from our own plan is the word harmonious and one of the reasons that we have within our Comprehensive Plan a mixture of residential types is to be able to achieve those kinds of blends and to attempt, even some of the lots are much much larger, to attempt to transition from one style of either residential or one style of land use to the other style and I didn't see -- I saw an attempt made and I will -- I will say that there certainly was an attempt to do that in this application, but I don't think it goes far enough and that's why we have these subjective hearings, so that people can express their public opinion and bring those thoughts and attitudes forward and so I would agree with many of Councilman Rountree's statements about the annexation and its place within our city. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I, too, want to thank everybody for coming out and testifying and presenting your views before the deal. I, too, agree with Councilman Rountree to the point that I -- I don't feel this is a fit right now. I think -- and don't get me wrong, two rights don't -- you know, or two wrongs don't make a right and we have -- we have in the past probably made some bad decisions, but I think this is set in with rural around it and I just can't go for the density. Now, if it was an R-2 or something like that, I could probably support it. I'm not against development. But I just -- I just don't -- there is something I just don't feel that it's right in this area under these terms and I -- the developer has done a good job, he's changed some stuff, but I think it's just too high of density surrounding the other -- being surrounded by the acre and five acre lots and I think we need to be able to transition a little better on the skirts of our impact area. That's my viewpoint. De Weerd: Thank you, Council. I don't get to vote, but since I run the meeting, I get to talk. I'm sure you guys are shocked by that. I appreciate the comments from Council and, you know, in most circumstances this is a well designed subdivision, it has some great amenities, but as Councilman Rountree has stated, it is kind of reverse of what we normally see and we have had a similar situation in north Meridian that we asked the proposers of that subdivision to be conscientious of the lower density lots that surrounded it and they did a good job in transitioning in and I also agree with the testimony that this is an opportunity for the executive houses and I certainly don't propose to purchase this property and develop it myself. I know that they have to be certainly aware of what the market would bear, but those jobs coming in do provide some opportunity for some housing that currently doesn't exist and I know staff always cringes when I talk about lower density, but this is certainly an opportunity to provide Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 59 of 71 choices in our city for different housing stock and the type of housing that surrounds it in this rural area -- and it is a city area of impact, so it is supposed to be urban, but since the homes that surround this are very nice high quality homes, it doesn't make sense trying to urbanize this area that is very rural. I also would like to get on my soap box. It is an opportunity every time I hear schools and crowded and all of that -- right now we are getting ready to go into a new legislative session. Growth needs to start paying its way and schools are the only things that are exempted from impact fees and I have been suggesting to the school district, who has been beaten down every year in the legislature for even suggesting such a thing, but it is time that this community, this school district, steps up and says growth needs to start paying its way and impact fees should be allowed in this high area of growth. And sorry I took advantage of a full room to please challenge you all to call the school district and say we are on your side and what do you need us to do, because we definitely need the public's help on this, because we can get -- the development community has stepped up to the plate and they are offering property for development, now it's building the buildings and so, certainly, you can be of great assistance to the school district, but, yes, their job is to provide a service. We have been asking them to take a stand and say we cannot take another child, but I do understand what their charter is, it's a little bit different than that, but it makes it very difficult for us to turn down development, because of an authority that we don't have to interpret what they are telling us. With that said, I also am concerned with these rural subdivisions. There is two entrances onto Eagle Road and one of them is through a rural subdivision plat. They don't have sidewalks, they don't have road widths that are going to accommodate those things, and by using it as a second entrance, you do set up -- and we would prefer that in these county subs in our area of impact that they really do build it to our standards, because, then, you will see sidewalks and those kind of things, so when those open fields are not guaranteed for the fox and the geese and, you know what, that's why I got involved in city government, because I had open space behind me and I really liked that fox was behind there and now I have a whole big subdivision of higher density than what you see here and now I moved and I have a golf course behind me. But, you know, when you build those urban subdivisions around there and they are going to connect through a subdivision that's been built to county standards, it really provides a very difficult challenge and so I do agree with the neighbors in that that traffic going through there and that pedestrian traffic going through there, are a risk, because of how that was designed and I didn't want to disappoint Council by not saying just a few things. Rountree: Are you off that soapbox yet? De Weerd: So that soapbox is worn out. Bird: Hallelujah. De Weerd: Except for you can't gavel me down. And, again, I would say that it is a nice development. I wish you would find another part of our city, but you choose your first development in Idaho to build in, there is some work to be done and I would agree with the statements of Council. If there is no further comments, I would entertain a motion. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 60 of 71 Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to be sure -- we had a lot of testimony tonight and Mrs. Canning and her staff are going to have to help draft the findings, which ever way the Council's going, although I can kind of see where we are going. I didn't know, Mrs. Canning, if there would be some help that you would like to help craft the findings. I think Councilmember Rountree talked a lot about the compatibility and the fit and I think so did Councilmembers Donnell and Wardle, but I don't know whether or not there is enough. If you would like to have any input on that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you could, whoever makes the motion, if they could highlight some of those issues and, then, we will make sure we go back and hit them. Madam Mayor, with your permission, if I might converse with the city attorney. Do you think that we need to prepare new findings for them to look at before they address this or would -- do you feel comfortable -- we have -- Nary: I guess I'm not tracking. Canning: We have findings for approval based on a -- the staff recommendation without the P&Z and, then, we have findings for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Nary: I think we probably be best in crafting some new findings and getting them pretty clean. Canning: And, then, bringing them back for the final vote? Nary: Yes. Canning: That's what I was hoping. Nary: Yes. Canning: So, I don't know how that -- what kind of motion is made tonight. De Weerd: Do you really want these people to come back again? Canning: No, I do not. I think -- De Weerd: We love you all and we keep denying -- or keep continuing this. Is there any way we can do that -- Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 61 of 71 Canning: I think that the maker of the motion could make it clear what direction the City Council was going, but just direct staff to prepare findings for their review at the next hearing. Nary: Correct. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's all I was going to suggest, is that the maker of the motion just make it clear -- again, just for the benefit of the staff and especially on a lengthy hearing like this, it's very difficult to piece through an entire hearing to find your reasons to either grant or deny a particular motion. So, if you can at least condense that down somewhat, between the planning staff and myself we can certainly go through that to make sure we have got that correct, we will bring that back if it isn't, we can certainly take that again and make sure we get it crafted the way you're most comfortable with. But you can simply make that direction. These folks don't all have to come back. Those will be available as part of a packet before the next hearing, so -- Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Mr. Nary, at the beginning of this hearing you talked in regard to the three areas when we are looking at annexation, that it is appropriate and that's all the farther I got, because you went right on to contiguous to city property and city services being provided and, then, reasonably within the orderly growth pattern -- would you say those three again? Nary: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Donnell, I'm sorry if I spoke too quickly before. Donnell: You did. I can't write that fast. Nary: I'm so sorry. Basically, Idaho Code 50-222 talks about three particular areas that -- where the findings need to be addressed by the Council in making a decision on annexation. The first is whether or not the land is eligible to be annexed, whether it's contiguous, whether it's annexable. Secondarily, the second consideration would be whether or not it would be consistent with the public purposes addressed in your Comprehensive Plan, whether it has a consistency with the rest of your community and, lastly, the annexation is reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the city. And those are, again, both very discretionary decisions on the part of this Council, but, hopefully, that's of some assistance. I'll try to talk slower. I'm sorry. Donnell: That is. Thank you very much. That helps. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further information needed or discussion, I would entertain a motion on Item 13. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 62 of 71 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have one question for legal council. Does the motion need to reflect approval or denial? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- Rountree: And the necessary direction for preparation of the findings. Nary: Councilmember Rountree, yes, that would be our preference. Rountree: And our action would be after we review the findings? Nary: Correct. Right. You can make a motion just to prepare findings in one particular direction, we can do that, it will probably be -- it wouldn't be likely for your next meeting, it would probably be your first meeting in January we could bring those back. Your final action isn't completed until you have actually approved the findings. Rountree: And if I heard you right, you're more comfortable with that then -- Nary: I think just so we make sure that it's what you want it to be. I think you would be the safest to do that. Rountree: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'll attempt this. I move that City Council instruct the city staff to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law based on the request for annexation for Item No. 13, indicating denial of the request for annexation and that the basis for the denial be around consistency with the direction of the city Comprehensive Plan as it deals with transition between rural and urbanizing areas and the responsibility -- or the reasonableness, the necessity for orderly development about and around the city and that those findings be brought back to the Council for final action. Do I need a date certain? Nary: Yes. A date certain would probably be best. The January 4th meeting, Mrs. Canning, is that okay? Canning: That's fine. Rountree: We aren't having that -- that those findings be available at Council for final action on January 4th, 2005. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 63 of 71 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny Item 13 and to ask the city attorney to draw up findings. Nary: City staff, just to make it -- Canning: And, Madam Mayor, just to clarify. I believe you're not actually denying it, you're just asking staff to prepare the findings for denial. Rountree: For denial. De Weerd: For denial. Yes. Which seems kind of like the same thing, but-- Canning: Subtle differences. De Weerd: Okay. This must be a legal thing. Okay. Is there any further discussion or clarification needed? Staff? No? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary is -- would that be for the same on Items 14 and 15? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we could certainly prepare findings for all of those at once. The other ones normally our standard findings would be is if the property isn't annexed, then, we certainly don't have to make a decision -- we cannot make a decision on a plat or a CUP, so those are not very complicated and we can certainly make those as well at the same time. Canning: Madam Mayor, if -- if perhaps the city attorney could address, though, that we do have a permit -- we have a Conditional Use Permit and I believe we need some clarification on exactly what City Council would like for -- as how they can remedy the situation. Rountree: We didn't annex it. Bird: We didn't annex it. How can you have a permit? We can't issue a permit to the county. When they don't annex, those things go away. Canning: I just -- my limited understanding -- I'm going to shut up. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mrs. Canning is always good to remind me -- I mean statutorily it does require when you deny a permit, that you give some grounds as to what they could do to be approved. Certainly one of those is going to be that the property has to be within the city. If there is anything else you want us to Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 64 of 71 include, we can certainly look at that. There isn't any real specifics in the Idaho Code or case law that says what the depth of that recommendation needs to be, but there does need to be something. We can certainly -- we can try to craft what we can, based on the fact that we didn't annex the property, but if there is anything else, we can certainly add that. Rountree: Is that triggered with action on the finding on the annexation? Nary: It's triggered by the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. That's what is required by the state code, is that you give them reasons of what they could do, particular directions you could give them as to what they could do to be approved and at the moment I think all we are -- what we would be including is that they would have to be annexed into the city to be approved, but if there is anything else you would like us to add, we could do that. Rountree: That's fine with me. Do we need a motion? Nary: I think you probably should -- it would be best to have a motion to direct us to prepare the findings for the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit as well and anything else you want us to include in that. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we direct staff to prepare findings for denial, PP 04-030, preliminary plat for Kingsbridge Subdivision, utilizing the reason that the City Council did not act favorably upon the annexation, date certain to be January 4th, 2005. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion as stated was to ask the staff to draw up some findings. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we direct staff to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial for CUP 04-032, Conditional Use Permit for Kingsbridge Subdivision, Meridian City Council December 14, 2004 Page 65 of 71 utilizing the reasoning that City Council did not act favorably upon the request for annexation. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to ask staff to draw up findings for denial on Item 15. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. 04-1119 AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburah Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 04-1119 for AZ 04-025. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the City Council. Ordinance No. 04-1119, an Ordinance Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place Subdivisions for property located as described in the attachment A of this ordinance and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent to the -- and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands as R-4, medium to low density residential in the Meridian city code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County - recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and providing a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effect date. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Donnell: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Hearing none, Council, I would entertain a motion to approve this ordinance. Rountree: So moved. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 30 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item No.1 0, VAC 05-001, vacation in Tustin Subdivision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10. Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Mr. Attorney, one point of clarification. The applicant stated that they will be placing a five foot pathway in the open space. Do the findings need to reflect that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we prefer they did reflect that. You could direct the staff to simply include that in the findings, rather than setting it over for that, unless Mrs. Canning thinks she needs more than that. Canning: That would be fine. Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 10, PP 05-003, to include all staff and applicant comments and to also include in the findings the specific comment to the pathway within the open space of the subdivision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 12 with the clarification on the pathway. Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kinasbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 130 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 76.72 acres in Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 31 of 58 a proposed R-3 zone for Kinqsbridae Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 05-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots in a proposed R-3 zone with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for KinQsbridqe Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I will go ahead and open Items 13,14, and 15 on AZ 05- 003, PP 05-004, and CUP 05-004. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, this is Kingsbury Subdivision -- Kingsbridge. And it is located south of Victory on Eagle Road, about mid -- midway between Victory and Amity. And you may remember this as being here before you in previous version, so I'm going to summarize those very briefly. The first application was submitted in fall of 2004 and that was for annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for a planned development. The development proposed lot sizes around the 8,000 square foot minimum and it was for an R-4 zone and the gross density was 3.1 dwelling units per acre. Then, on September 16th, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the CUP to the Council and they voted to deny the preliminary plat. It was, then -- there had been a request for reconsideration of the revised plat. That was not acted on by the Planning and Zoning Commission and basically everything came up to Council on appeal. Then findings for denial were approved -- or the City Council heard the item December 14th and the findings were adopted on January 4th, 2005, that was for denial. The reasons that the Council stated for the denial were the amount of traffic that would use the existing street, that being Oartmoor Street in Oartmoor Subdivision. And there is Oartmoor Street, you may recall. That's Oartmoor Subdivision and its lots. The proposed density was too high and it was not in the best interest of the city at that time. In response to City Council's denial of the previous application, the applicant has significantly modified the -- their request. They have a lot of transitional lot sizes at the project perimeter and you can see these as we go through. The lot sizes here against Dartmoor and, then, up to the north are significantly larger and, then, as you go to the east you now have three very large lots and, then, those are the primary transitional lots. The gross density is now 1.69 dwelling units per acre. There was a net loss of 107 build-able lots from the original submittal. I think it would actually be 108 now, because they have lost one more lot. The requested R-3 zone is consistent with the existing character of the area, which is rural, and the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. The estimated additional traffic on the Oartmoor Street is less than 300 vehicle trips per day, based on the new layout. The staff report was originally written on a plan that showed 130 building lots. They are now down to 124 building lots. The area -- this is -- this is the plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission saw. I want to point out just some changes here. If you look on this edge here, you will see five lots and now they have gone to -- oops -- three since the Planning and Zoning Commission. The only other change is they have taken one of the -- the last two lots here, they have added one of them back in at the Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 32 of 58 end of this cul-de-sac street. So, again, this is ~- I do have the Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat if you'd like to look at it. But from now on I think I'm going to stick with the proposal that's before the Council. But those are the primary changes. There is one other big change and that's -- this was a stub street -- or I mean this was a connecting street when it went through the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has worked with the neighbors and one of the things they wanted to see was that this be a cul-de-sac street. So, that's the other primary change. Okay. As I mentioned before, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential on the entire project. You may recall that the north half is designated as low density residential, while the south half or south portion is, actually, designated as medium density residential and you will note that the lots are -- in general, are larger in this area, with the one exception being the existing home site and the lots on the -- consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the lots on the northern portion are larger. They have submitted a planned development request for the R-3 zone. The city requires a 90 foot minimum for non-cul-de-sac lots in the R-3 zone. They are asking for 60 feet minimum. And, then, for cul-de-sacs, our ordinance requires 40 feet and they are asking for 30 feet on the cul-de-sacs or curved lots. The block length requirement -- again, it is an issue here. We have the 1 ,OOO-foot maximum. They do have some that are up to 1,325 feet. So, that is part of their planned development request is modifications to frontage and to block length. They did not request a modification to the 12,000 square foot minimum for the R-3 district. They have proposed a number of amenities, including ten percent open space, a community park, in this location. It shows up a little better on the landscape plan. There we go. Community park, with a swimming pool, barbecue area, with picnic tables and a tot lot. There is another park that contains a water feature, benches, and walking path. You will see the walking path kind of loop through it and, then, it connects back up with the street pathway. And they have a landscape boulevard corridor between Kingsbridge Drive and it starts here, landscape corridor comes all the way through, crosses, and, then, continues on through the property. And there is a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile feeder, so down here. And a walking path along the north boundary and, then, smaller open space pockets, bridge and monument, and ornamental street trees. The Planning and Zoning Commission did hear this item on March 3rd, 2005. Mr. Ken Elliott spoke in favor of this application, as did Bob Kelse. In opposition were Brady Turner from the Oartmoor homeowners association. Rita Becker, Bob Becker, Frank Schumaker, David Levine, Bradford Deadman, Kava Rich, Lori Allen, Lou Moncar, David Seegmiller, and Chantelle Krazinski. Commenting was Julie Ann Hill. The key issues of discussion by the Commission focused on the proposed density of the development, the compatibility of the development with surrounding properties, the transitional lot size and estate lot size, and, then, limiting homes on the perimeter of the development to single story and the traffic. The key Commission changes to the staff's initial recommendation were that the applicant shall reduce the number of billable lots from 130 to 125 and they have actually reduced it one more, so they have gone to 124 now and they were to do that by removing an additional five lots from the southerly boundary of the development. The applicant shall limit 22 of the 44 perimeter lots to single story dwellings. The applicant shall -- and a lot of these were commitments made by the developer, particularly the off- site commitments were not required by staff, they were listed as commitments of the Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 33 of 58 developer. And so the applicant shall construct concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the north side of the existing Oartmoor Orive and, then, they would do a painted crosswalk from Oartmoor Orive from Gideon Place and they would do a painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway along the south side of the existing Oartmoor Orive. So, again, those were all site improvements proposed by the developer and they consented to those being placed in the development agreement. They also indicated that the applicant shall install vinyl privacy fencing extending along the north boundary line and, then, either a five foot wrought iron or six foot vinyl privacy fencing on all other perimeter boundaries. The applicant shall impose a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots and, then, along Zaldia Lane there was discussion about the landscape strip there and evergreen trees being planted, as well as constructing a berm. And, then, finally, the applicant was to pipe the tail ditch from the Oartmoor irrigation pond. Moving onto outstanding issues before Council. I'm going to start with the ones that were in the summary sheet and, then, I'm going to move to the letter that Vision First has provided regarding the agreements they have come up with with the neighbors and how -- if the Council is so inclined, how we would integrate those into findings for this project. The first outstanding issue noted by Mr. Hood is that -- that primarily that, really, the way the findings are written were what the P&Z had seen and had recommended up to you, but since that time there have been significant changes agreed to by the developer and the surrounding property owners. So, we would ask that if you are inclined to approve this subdivision tonight, that you give staff three weeks to come back to you with findings. That gives us time to get a complete copy of the minutes and to run the findings by Mr. Nary. The second one is there was -- there were a lot of conditions that referenced the southern property boundary line here along Zaldia and Zura Lane. Or Zaldia Lane. Excuse me. And they seem to conflict. So, staff is just asking that the applicant verify that this is, indeed, the proposed cross section, the landscape detail that's intended. This is Zaldia Lane. This is -- the buffer width is denoted here and, then, we have got the fence location, as well as the conifer trees. So, this was provided as a detail that we think it would be easier to reference this and there is some specific changes we would make to the conditions of approval. They just -- the existing conditions talk about a five foot buffer, in addition to a 20 foot buffer, so we are unclear as to what the applicant was proposing or had agreed to -- with the neighbors regarding that. Finally, there is -- okay. Finally, from the summary note -- summary sheet I want you to note that the revised plat date is March 2nd, 2005. Okay. That's it for the summary sheet. Now, moving on to the Vision First letter, dated April 6th, 2005. I'm going to run through as quickly as I can some of the items that are in that letter. I assume you have copies. Item number one is the definition of the single story homes. Those numbers do reflect the new -- or do reference the new plat. So, we could incorporate those into the condition of approval, although we would recommend that they not be notes on the plat. Regarding the fencing, we can add that as a condition of approval through the development agreement and the preliminary plat, which was number two. Number three, it states that Vision First shall impose a 25 foot rear yard setback. That is the prerogative of the developer to do that on the final plat if he chooses. We could look for that. That would not be a -- I would recommend that that not be our condition, but that they be required to do that through the CC&Rs or through the development agreement, rather than us requiring that on the plat. And Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 34 of 58 that's just John Priester with Ada County, discussion that we have had before and that's all. Regarding Item number four, this is the landscape strip that I had talked about. I have talked about that enough. Item number five references the same thing. Item number six regarding the South Spruce Way, shall be redesigned to terminate in a cul- de-sac and I mentioned that briefly before and that this is the new cul-de-sac lot. I did want to offer a suggestion to the developer and the Council that there is -- there is not much area here and I'm a bit concerned that people might decide to just go four wheeling over ten feet of grass and pop into the -- I don't think they would do it on a regular basis, but I think that the homeowners would find that a rambunctious teenager every once in awhile was doing that. What I would recommend is that they could pull this subdivision -- this cul-de-sac back to approximately here and, then, leave a pedestrian easement, a micro-path that connected to this common open space and on this second cul-de-sac I would recommend -- there is only three lots that take access from it. I would recommend that they actually use, instead -- use a common drive, so that the street would just kind of come like this and make a gO-degree turn and go up. So, I think that would be -- I think the way it's designed there is more asphalt there than we probably need and we could open that up for open space, rather than the roadway there. Regarding item number seven, it was -- we can add that. It's about additional landscaping along South Maryvale Way and we could modify preliminary plat condition number seven to accommodate that. I do believe they state something about that -- that it would be included in the development agreement, but it would only really need to be included in the preliminary plat. The landscape, specifically, for that. Regarding item number eight, which talks about a weed eradication and maintenance program, we could add that to the development agreement. We are not sure what we would do if they didn't meet it. It may be more appropriate in just the CC&Rs. On number nine it talks about entitling certain properties to re-subdivide, so that would not be appropriate for the city to include anything about those -- about those properties at this time. That would be a separate application before Council -- or Planning Commission and Council at a later date. Okay. And the other ones, I believe, have already been incorporated into our conditions, but they are asking that it be modified. So, these would be modifications to the existing commitments that I just spoke about before. The ones regarding Dartmoor Drive, it looks like they are getting sidewalks along both sides of Dartmoor Drive. And, then, there is clarifications about some of the -- some very -- it says that a vinyl fence would be constructed at the homeowners discretion. Just from a staff point of view, we need to know that we are looking for wrought iron, vinyl fence, and if we see wrought iron, we are not -- we don't want to be put in the position of going to have to ask the homeowner if it's the fence they wanted there. So, we are going to assume if there is a fence up, that -- that that meets that condition of approval. So, we would just ask to be allowed to word the condition of approval that way. We would basically take out at the homeowner's discretion. That would have to be done before the fence was built. And, then, on three, we could change the existing condition regarding the headgate on the new inlet to control water flow into the pond and on item number four we could add that to the development agreement, that the preliminary plat be included. I believe that that is a standard item that is placed in this development agreement is to have a copy of the preliminary plat, but we would do that. With that, I will answer any questions you may have. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 35 of 58 De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I don't think so, Mayor. Canning: And, of course, I forgot something. These are the -- the applicant has proposed four elevations for homes in the area. These are three of the homes and, then, this is the kind of look that they want to achieve in the open space area. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: I do have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I didn't hear you clearly when you was saying about you didn't want the lots that were going to have one story on -- noted on the plat -- on the final plat. Is that right or did you say they would be noted on the final plat? Canning: We have been trying to trim down final plats to surveying items, rather than trying to put planning items on there. However, if it's a commitment by the developer, which it is in this case, as would be the 25-foot setback, then, that's certainly a mechanism for him to use to meet his -- meet his commitment with the neighbors. Bird: Madam Mayor, I'm one person that believes the more we get on the final plat, the better we are. We have been hung out to dry two or three times, because of stuff not being on the final plat. Mr. Watson knows this, that -- and we have been out -- so, I believe anything when you got exceptions and stipulations that they should be on a final plat, so that everybody can see them and there is no excuse for going against the will of the final plat. If they are not on there, if they are a note or something somewhere, they might -- the builder -- the owner might never see it and when the thing is built, then, we wind up buying something, so I -- I'm one that thinks that the final plat -- all those exceptions and stuff should be marked right on the final plat, so they are not missed. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Elliott: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm the representative for the applicant Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120 in Eagle. Just one typo that I noted on the agenda packet. In the staff summary it discusses three common area lots. There are, actually, 35 common area lots in the project, rather than three. So, I wanted to point that out. It's good to be back here this evening and I'm particularly gratified, because we have good Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 36 of 58 news to report to the City Council and we would -- we would hope that you would be pleased with the efforts that the developer and the neighbors have made to resolve some pretty thorny issues that had us far apart at previous hearings before the city. I want to say that we have learned a lot through this process, beginning last September with the Planning and Zoning Commission, particularly through meetings with the neighbors and the comments that we received from the Mayor and the City Council at our appeal hearing in December. As a result that input and follow-up meetings with the neighbors, the project has dramatically changed as the staff report notes from the preliminary plat presented to the Council on appeal in December and as a result of these changes I'm happy to report that we have reached an agreement with adjoining property owners, representatives of basically all the adjoining subdivisions. We have a settlement agreement with the Dartmoor homeowners association and with the designated representatives of the Golden Eagle Estates, which is the property to the north, the Bridlewood Subdivision, which is the property to the east, and the Coons Hollow and Zaldia and Zura Subdivisions to the south. We have just literally right before the hearing signed the final version of the settlement agreement and presented it to the clerk and I believe that you may have copies of that in front of you now. You will see the agreement is signed. It's, essentially, the same agreement that was submitted to you last week as part of the agenda packet, with the exception of the items that are referenced in my letter dated today that's in this little supplemental packet that I have distributed. In response to concerns raised by the neighbors, we added the clarifying language to paragraph eight of the settlement agreement and, then, paragraph four of the proposed provisions of the development agreement to clarify that the perimeter lots that you see on the plat will remain, essentially, as is, except for minor lot size adjustments as may be needed as we build out the project. We will not be doing anything to increase the density from what is now shown or increase trips -- as a result of the project vehicle trips and we are prepared to note these provisions on the plat and in a set of record covenants and in a development agreement with the city. So, we are really looking at the settlement agreement that you have before you tonight signed for the first time for a lot of additional conditions of approval. I want you to know the applicant has agreed to all of those conditions of approval and we would ask the City Council to approve the settlement agreement terms and conditions and to the extent that staff and the city attorney recommend, we would like to have those incorporated both as conditions of approval for the orders adopted by the City Council in a development agreement between the developer and the Council -- or and the city. I have also given the City Council two charts in this follow-up packet tonight that we also presented the first chart, which is the second to the last page of your packet, to Planning and Zoning just to show how dramatically the project has changed since the original submittal last September. We have, basically, cut it in half from 237 lots down to 125 at P&Z, now we are down to 124. We have more than doubled the average lot size from 8,400 to 17,200 square feet. We have increased the minimum lot size from 7,000 up to 12,000, which puts all the lots in compliance with the R-3, the medium density rural residential zone in the city code. The range of lot sizes has increased from a low of 7,000 up to that low of 12,000 and at the top end they have gone up from 19 plus to 33,000 plus before the Planning and Zoning Commission. If -- Craig, if we could switch to the next chart. We have a few additional changes that reflect the terms of the Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 37 of 58 settlement agreement entered into last week with the neighbors. As Director Canning mentioned, we are down to 124 lots now. That gives us a slightly higher average lot size, a slightly lower gross density per acre, we are down to 1.62 dwelling units per acre now, which is well within the lowest zone called for in the city code, which is R-2. Our high end lots at the very top along the northeast boundary are 36,414 square feet, over three-quarters of an acre. Our trips are -- we just estimated with the loss of one more lot ten fewer trips, we are saying less than 300 will go through Dartmoor and we have particularly paid attention to the -- both the neighbors and the City Council's comments on dealing with the transition from the perimeter rural residential lots. If you could go back to the previous chart, Craig. You see we have cut the lots along the north boundary from 22 down to ten. Lots on the eastern boundary from 16, now that's down to nine -- or, rather, six. I'm sorry. Lots on the south boundary are just up one, because we added the one lot on the southeast cul-de-sac. So, that's nine. And the ones along Zaldia Lane have been cut in half from 12 to six. So, it's a dramatically different project than the one both Planning and Zoning and the City Council rejected last year. And we are very happy to report that we feel we have reached an agreement with the neighboring property owners and we can all get behind. Several of the Councilors at the December hearing mentioned that you view our property more as an island of potential urban use surrounded by rural development, in contrast to the more typical situation of small pockets of rural development that get swallowed up by the city as it grows out and we have certainly come to appreciate that our site is uniquely situated, because of the large number of cluster rural residential lots on all the boundaries and as a result of the Council's direction, that's the development that you see before you tonight. I just would like to address just a couple of specific design items. We have -- we have provided for the landscape buffer that was shown in the staff report. We are committed to that cross-section. I believe the confusion that staff saw in our discussion was that we are suggesting that the utility easement for the clay pipe that we are going to install along the north edge of Zaldia Lane be reduced to 15 feet with the pipe centered -- or off-centered there where the circle is shown, five feet north of the right of way boundary, so that we can maintain the five feet on the north side of the 20 foot buffer to put the conifer trees in without having trees planted within the actual Nampa- Meridian district easement. We understand that -- from our discussions with the irrigation districts that no one really wants to do much with this water, other than to make sure it collects from three existing open ditches on properties to the south, they just want to make sure that it gets back into their system and we are going to do that through the use of an underground pipe that will connect northerly, then, into the main line in the middle of our property. So, we are quite confident that they will agree with this concept of a 15 foot easement with the trees installed on the north five feet. That was at the request of the neighbors to the south, so that we would have a better landscape buffer outside of our vinyl fence, so that we'd have additional screening for those folks to the south, rather than having trees installed on the inside of the backyards. We are also putting them a lot closer together. They will be 20 feet on center, rather one three per lot as we had proposed originally. We are maintaining a very very shallow grade at a four-to-one slope up to the top of the berm. We will get up to five feet there and, then, have the six foot vinyl fence on top of the berm and a somewhat steeper three-to-one slope on the inside of the backyards for the -- the six Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 38 of 58 lots that are on our project. Secondly, we are in agreement for the single story lots around the perimeter of our project. The blue houses illustrate the existing houses in the close proximity and, then, we have the 22 lots noted there with the red squares, with one exception and that is the very southerly line of our project along Zaldia Lane you see the four blocks, we have agreed to move that -- that row of four one lot to the east in response to the Schumakers and the DeAngeles concerns for maintaining a view corridor to the northeast up to Bogus Basin. So, rather than lots four through seven as shown on this diagram, the lots five through eight will be restricted to single story homes. Just a final comment that we have made before and that is we think this -- despite the surrounding constraints with the rural development and the need to respect that and make a good transition, we do feel that this is the right project in the right place at the right time. The map you see there was current as of last December. At that time 705 new lots had been approved south of Overland in the pink areas by the city. The brown area is the boundary of Silverstone and EI Dorado, the two business parks that front on Eagle Road and Overland Road. And we really think that that location is in the process of becoming a major employment center, a dynamic job center, probably will become the greatest one in the whole Treasure Valley and we think that will create need for more housing south of the freeway, rather than having all the new housing north of the freeway and that's why we want to be where we are. With that said, I would just request the Council's consideration of the applications. Maybe I can point out just one more quick item. We have got that color board diagram just for clarity on the lot sizes. The very darkest gray are over 21,000 square feet. So, we, essentially, have half-acre lots on the perimeters of the Palfreyman tract, the north. The darker greenish gray that you see at the southeast corner and, then, on several lots on the land south of the canal, are between 18,000 and 21,000. The yet lighter gray that is most of the lots adjoining land to the south are all over 15,000 square feet, they are between 15 and 18 and only in the interior of the project do we get down to the 12,000 square footers, which are the minimum permitted by the R-3 zone. So, we feel we have done an effective job of creating that transition, particularly, as the staff pointed out, you will note that the rectangular block on our far northeast corner has been converted from five lots down to three lots. So, we thank you for your consideration and I'm prepared to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. Elliott, you provided us I think the most recent copy of what's called a Settlement Agreement dated the 12th and you indicated it had been signed by all of the homeowners' representatives. The copy I have is not executed by the Golden Eagle Estates folks. Elliott: Right. Golden Eagle -- Lori Allen signed the previous version and she's out of town tonight, so we will follow up, get that signature, and submit it. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 39 of 58 Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, could you put up the landscape plan? Canning: Yes, but it will take a moment. I need a keyboard, too. Wardle: Mr. Elliott, my question is specifically related to a staff comment and that is about the cul-de-sacs and I'm wondering your thoughts on the changes that staff has made and, then, I notice in item number eight in your agreement that you have agreed not to make any changes to the final plat dated April 5th and so, not being an attorney, I wouldn't want to make a determination as to whether that constituted a change or not, so if you could comment on that. Elliott: The language in the settlement agreement is directed to the number of lots and, then, also the size and configuration of all the perimeter lots, which would not be affected by staffs recommendation. I did think of just one more point in response to that staff report. In paragraph nine Director Canning mentioned that it relates to really subdividing the lots and so it wouldn't be appropriate to impose such a condition now. The re-subdividing we are talking about are the changes that we have already made to the easterly lots and that are reflected on the April 5th preliminary plat. So, the -- we have added one lot at the southeast corner and taken away two at the northeast corner. So, that's -- that's the only re-subdividing. And we would -- we would be certainly interested in exploring the conversion of part of those cul-de-sacs to a narrower pavement width to create more open space, as long as we still have good access to all those lots. I think it's a great idea. It will allow us to make the park a little bigger. Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Well, since I didn't hear anyone else say it, I have the sign-up sheet in front of me and I'm amazed at how many moved from the middle column to the first column in support of and I would commend the neighbors and the developers to working together and finding a compromise. This just really slows you the value of working with the neighbors and creating something that is going to be an asset to that area. So, I would like to commend all of you for working together and finding something that you could all agree on. It's very impressive. Elliott: We are very pleased as well. De Weerd: And, you know, we sawall the people and until I saw the sign-up sheet I wasn't quite sure what we were going to experience tonight, so -- Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 40 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to commend the developers. I mean they have went back and everything we asked them to do, they went back and they got together with all the neighbors and they come back with a plan with the density that we had basically told them we wanted and I commend you for doing that. Elliott: Thank you very much. Bird: And I appreciate that and I think the whole Council and the Mayor just stated how she felt, that -- and this is something that really helps when you're going into development in tough areas and I thank you very much for doing that. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I did need to point out a couple things. Just one. Mr. Inselman just notified me -- he was looking at that condition about the changes to Dartmoor Drive. That is a public street, so he would ask that if we are considering those, we need to keep in mind that those would be subject to approval by ACHD, those roadway changes for Dartmoor Drive. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We do have a list here. If you would desire to provide testimony when I call your name, certainly you're welcome to come up and speak your mind. I will indicate whether you're for or against and so when I read your name if you would like to provide testimony, please, come forward. We have Bob Becker for. Okay. Tim Wallace for. Sharon and Jeff McKee for. I'm sorry, I can't read the other -- it begins with a Band -- he mentioned for. And Mr. Johnson. Daniel. Daniel Johnson signed up for. Brady Turner for. Okay. If you, will, please, state your name and address. Turner: Yes. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Brady Turner, I reside at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I have been asked to speak on behalf of all but one of the Dartmoor homeowners this evening and that one homeowner will speak on their own behalf tonight. As I was preparing to speak this evening I was reflecting back over the last year of all that the homeowners have been through. I realize that there is a loss to some degree of the rural feeling of our neighborhood. However, growth in the Treasure Valley seems to be inevitable and if we thought otherwise, we are either very naive or we haven't been paying attention and observant of all the development that's going on in the past several years. We have enjoyed a rural lifestyle now for the past ten years and, like many people, we wanted to retain that for as long as possible. But, you know, as the song goes, you can't always Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 41 of 58 get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need. With your help we have reduced the density of the development to be more compatible with the surrounding properties. We have been working very hard behind the scenes to reach a workable compromise with Vision First and we believe we have been successful. If the Council agrees tonight to incorporate the terms of the -- that the homeowners and Vision First have negotiated in our settlement agreement into the applicant's conditions of approval, development agreement, and final plat, our most important needs will have been met, including giving the homeowners transition between our lower density and Kingsbridge's higher density, protecting our views of the surrounding mountains and maintaining a more open feel by limiting some perimeter lots to single story homes and I would echo Councilman Bird's comments about placing those notes on the plat. Our intention there was to make that -- those restrictions as clearly visible to potential buyers and developers as possible. Getting the homeowners of the Dartmoor and Kingsbridge homeowners needed safety for pedestrians walking along both sides of the existing Dartmoor Drive, protecting the quality and quantity of our irrigation water for the Dartmoor homeowners. Significantly reducing traffic along Dartmoor Drive with the addition of the cul-de-sac on South Ivy Bridge Way and we also are willing to explore the recommendations from staff in modifying those cul-de-sacs. And hoping to insure the valuation of our homes will not be adversely impacted by increasing the minimum square footage of the homes from Kingsbridge. The original plat called for minimum square footage of 1,800 square feet. That has now been increased to 2,000 square feet for single story homes and I believe 2,400 square feet for two story homes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's now up to you. If you choose not to incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, as both Vision First and we have asked, then, we feel we must continue to oppose the development. However, we truly hope that this will not be the case, that you will incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, then, 14 out of the 15 homeowners in Dartmoor will either support or no longer oppose the Kingsbridge development. I thank you for your time and consideration. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: No. De Weerd: Thank you. Bev Bertell. Okay. For. She stated for. Troy Quick for. Ron and Jean Marie Patton. For. Okay. Thank you. Christy Quick for. Renee Rule for. Tammy Cook did not indicate. For. Okay. Rick Stott. Against. Would you like to provide testimony? Stott: I'd like to -- Rick Stott, 3604 Caleb Place. If we could get the plat -- either that nice pretty graphic one that Mr. Elliott had up or the total plat, that would be great. There you go. Canning: This one? Will that one work for you, sir? Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 42 of 58 Stott: Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. You bet. I hate to be a fly in the ointment to this lovefest, but there is a couple of issues that have been a concern on my mind and have been largely ignored in this process and both of which I expressed my concerns in the original meeting, some of which -- some of the concerns I expressed previously have been addressed through single story homes, but just kind of a summary and a reminder, my property is this right here and there is probably no other property owner that has anymore of a problem with this subdivision as far as impeding potentially views of beautiful mountains and taking away just openness of it, because of the elevation. This right here where my back porch is is at least six feet lower than this point right here and in the original -- in the original proposal -- and I have it right here, but in the original proposal -- De Weerd: Do you want to give it to staff, so they can put that up on the screen? Stott: As you can see on the original proposal, my property is right here. The original proposal had an open area in that back corner, which allowed for some access or some open vistas from my property from my backyard across there. More importantly -- and maybe equally important, is the fact that currently there is an irrigation canal that farmers had put in place that runs kind of through this area through here and those of you that have been farming, like I have for -- since I was a kid, knows that a farmer is going to put it on the very highest point of that irrigation canal and so the ridge of this property -- entire property starts back over here, comes through the middle of the property, he irrigates on both sides, and, then, comes down, because this point right here is the very lowest part of the entire property and the original plat put that retention pond in the right place. The concern that I have is that all of these properties -- there is -- the irrigation canal comes here and the current property owner has allowed me to rent this property through this area here for quite a number of years, because they can't farm that without flooding my property. They can't irrigate it, they can't do anything with it. And so all of these properties on the original -- now, if you would go back to the original -- the current property. All of these properties right here, the natural flow is this way. De Weerd: Mr. Stott, can you, please, summarize. Stott: Oh. Yes. The point being is that the appropriate place for that irrigation or that catch basin is here. It not only opens up the views, but it also is an appropriate place. This is where it is right now, a higher place in the total property. And by switching, which I proposed and the Dartmoor -- most recently in the last couple days, has proposed, which was rejected by Mr. Elliott, to move this open area, which is their catch basin, to here to the lowest place of the property, serves two purposes. The second issue is that all around this perimeter, on 90 percent of the perimeter, except for right here, there is a buffer zone and there is no buffer zone here at all. And it's a -- and so a combination of those two things make it pretty onerous and so -- anyway, that's -- other than that, I compliment all of the organizations and the progress they have made. It's been terrific. They have done a great job at putting together and trying to accomplish, but as the -- one of the board members of Dartmoor Subdivision told me last night, they Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 43 of 58 negotiated this deal not based upon individual needs, but for the multiple good. I understand that. But I also understand that the government is for -- to be ruled by majority, but also protect the rights of individuals. So, I'm coming before you this day to ask for some consideration in this matter in that particular one instance. With that I would support the subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Stott. Any questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Michelle Stott. Okay. Rex Cook also for. Okay. If someone didn't sign up on that sheet, rather than compare, is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Becker: My name is Lisa Becker, I live at 3421 South Zelatir on the eastern side of the property. I personally wanted to thank Wayne Henkleberg for coming in at the last minute to mediate this agreement. We really do appreciate the efforts that the developers have made. They have been able to give us three transition lots along our five-acre property, which made all the difference in the world in our ability to support this development and we understand that there is no ability to re-subdivide those lots, so we do appreciate that. The only comment I have is the fencing. I talked with our neighbor Daniel Johnson and we believe that on the eastern side there we'd like the iron fencing to preserve the rural character of the area, rather than vinyl. So, we will just let the developer know that. And the only thing -- we have one more request and that's that we would like a key to the pool. De Weerd: I think I would, too. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to provide testimony? Schumaker: Yes. Frank Schumaker, 3497 Zaldia Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Schumaker: I would like to ask the developer if he could, please, define a one level house. Does this include living area over the garage or does this include just living area on the main level only? Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. That's a good question. Is there any further testimony before I ask the applicant to have the final remarks? Canning: Madam Mayor, if the applicant is on his way up, I just wanted to comment -- because of the comments that Brady -- and, I'm sorry, I forgot your last name -- made with regard to them only supporting this if the city adopted all the agreement -- or terms of the settlement agreement, I did want to point out staff was proposing that we not implement a couple portions. One was the weed eradication and, then, one regarding the fencing, that we would look for wrought iron or vinyl fencing, but that we may not Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 44 of 58 know what the homeowner's discretion was in that matter. So, those were just -- I just wanted to make sure that the applicant could address those and -- and I had one final thing and I don't mean to confuse the issue, but I did want to point out that the unified development code that's coming before you soon, presumably, is not proposing an R-3 district. The standards that this subdivision has been designed to are the R-2 standards for the future ones. I would like a statement from the applicant that he understood that and they have, but I would just like to get on the record that he's aware that we will be proposing to change the zoning from R-3 to R-2 and if Council decides to approve this plan, this would be far more R-3 lots than we have anywhere else in the city. So, I just - - I just wanted to get it on the record was all. And I'm sorry to confuse things. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Yes, sir. If you will, please, come and state your name and address. Deadman: Bradford Deadman and my wife and I reside at 3644 Zaldia Lane. The main thing that I popped up for after saying that I was already in agreement with what you said early by complimenting the developer was working with the neighborhood, that still holds true. That's the most important thing that I think has been said tonight. The only thing that I think repeatedly came up among the Zaldia folks with regard to our discretion on fence preference, regards whether or not the common area identified by the Ten Mile feeder canal is -- if the developer is required to put perimeter fencing on the southerly border of that canal, we would prefer wrought iron, so that we are not looking at a vinyl fence right at the base of our -- at the end of our properties. However, if they are not required to fence the southerly side of that canal and they are only required to fence behind their properties, that's a little bit different and that's where opinions vary. So, a lot of it has to do with what the city determines to be the proper placement of that fence, whether it's dead on the perimeter of what they are counting as their common area or if it's only on the northerly bank of that canal. De Weerd: It's on top of that berm. Deadman: No, it's got nothing to do with the berm. I'm addressing the canal, please. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Canning: It's that the same detail? De Weerd: I thought that was the south side. Deadman: That's the south side of Zaldia Lane, but I'm referring to the main feeder canal that's -- I'm not seeing a picture of the whole subdivision here. De Weerd: No. One more. Deadman: Go up to -- do you have the color one? The color diagram? There was a picture with a full color detail -- there we go. Okay. The canal is the southerly edge Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 45 of 58 here with these four or five acre plats. Now, if the developer is required to fence on the southern border of that canal, we would prefer wrought iron. If they are required to fence only the base of each of their individual identified home sites, that is the northerly border of that canal and, then, that's where opinions vary, because that fencing probably should be a private type of fence and be, you know, a vinyl, but none of the property owners along Zaldia would like to look at a vinyl fence right on the back of their property line, between them and the water feature that we all bought into by bordering our properties on the canal. That's my main point. De Weerd: Anna, why is this -- while he's up here, do you want to say what our ordinance suggests? And that's on the property line. Canning: I think the issue here is that they have both sides of the property -- or my understanding is they would just fence the back of their lots, that they wouldn't have to be required to do another fence on the south side of the -- but there seems to have been discussions that might have gone on already with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so -- Mr. Elliott is looking at me like there might have already been discussions regarding this, so I'm going to let him give more definite -- De Weerd: Okay. Since you have not testified, yes. Boy, we got through that list really quick, now we are just going at it again. Please state your name and address. McKee: My name is Sharon McKee. I live at 3895 South Gideon in the Dartmoor neighborhood. De Weerd: Thank you. McKee: I have been a primary negotiator with Vision First in making this agreement happen and I hear Anna discuss two things and I understand their concerns, because it's about them going to the neighbors and finding out what the neighbor wants. I would like to ask you that we are kind of in a gentlemen's agreement at this point that I can go to all the neighbors and find out and help Vision First conclude, so that Planning and Zoning and staff have the finality of what the fences are, so it's not so abstract in their actual agreement and we can get it definitive and I'm sure Mr. Wayne Hinkleberg will agree to me accomplishing that task for him, won't you? And, then, the other condition I heard her say was the weed eradication program. I have to say that's a great passion of mine, because my property is consistently destroyed by those noxious weeds behind my house and I guess I would like to suggest that weed eradication program, how would they enforce it? While I don't necessarily expect them to enforce it, but I think all we can expect from the developer is to put a system in place, say like a contract, this is our weed eradication program and hand it over to the homeowners association and, then, that can be, again, defined as being a definitive parameter that they just have to check off their list. So, it's -- what she's objecting to, if I heard her right, is things that are obscure in our contract and, believe me, this has been a -- not an easy process and there are some things that need further clarification and I'm quite sure, even if you choose to approve this tonight, that myself and a few of the key people can continue to Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 46 of 58 work those issues out with Vision First in terms who wants what fence, where, and what type. If that's okay with you. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I have a question for the young lady. Can I get an answer? McKee: I'm sorry. Bird: Maybe the gentleman before, but -- that lives up next to that. Do you have fencing now, other than just agricultural fencing along the -- just barbed wire? I can't -- I don't know why we would want to require them to fence the south side over there. You wouldn't want -- I don't think you want two fences. I don't know if Nampa-Meridian will let you have two fences like that and I certainly wouldn't want my backyard fenced into the canal. So, I think it's going to have to be the fencing on the north of each place and just leave the -- but I don't think Nampa-Meridian is going to let you fence both sides. De Weerd: We can't -- Mr. Bird, don't talk to the audience. Bird: I was talking to her. McKee: I found a pair of glasses, if that helps. Did you have a question for me? Bird: I was just asking about the fencing and I got my answer. McKee: Thank you. De Weerd: Yeah. Thank you for providing him that answer. Bird: I appreciate that. Rountree: What was it? Bird: Barbed wire. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and respond to a couple of these items and -- Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record, I'm Ken Elliott on behalf of the applicant. A couple of quick responses and, then, I'd like to also have our engineer respond to the drainage question that Mr. Stott raised. I would like to point out to the Council, though, that Mr. Stott's correct, we originally did have our Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 47 of 58 storm detention basin in the northwest corner. We moved it after the Planning and Zoning hearing last fall in response to Mr. Stott's testimony in opposition to having it against his back fence. He said there would be mosquitoes, there would be stench, there would be the possibility of it overflowing in a hundred year flood event and flooding onto his property. So, we intentionally moved it to the interior of our site. As we have now reconfigured the streets, it turns out it's in a much better location for engineering and storm detention and control reasons and Gordon Bates, our project engineer, will address those. But we are retaining all of our storm drainage on site, as required by the code. We will be grading the perimeter lots in a way that they drain to our streets and, then, the storm water is picked up in our streets and retained on site. So, the reason for no buffer on the west side abutting Dartmoor as this project has evolved, those were originally the largest -- and still are among the largest lots in the entire project. So, we agreed to the single story houses and a 25 foot rear yard setback to accommodate the views that the Dartmoor neighbors wanted to preserve and, then, a solid fence, so that they wouldn't have to look into our backyards. So, we think that we have -- we have done what we can. We have reduced the number of residential lots along that boundary from six down to four. So, we now have four half-acre lots abutting against three one acre lots and we think that's a fairly good transition. Again, I'll let Gordon Bates address the engineering reasons for having the storm retention on the interior of our project. On the fencing there are some perimeters that haven't been settled and we are -- as Sharon McKee suggested, we will work that out with the adjoining property owners. We have a general statement in the settlement agreement that we will -- we will abide by a consensus of the wishes of those owners. We don't particularly want to put two fences up along the canal. We own the canal. That's part of the fee ownership that we purchased. It's subject to the Nampa-Meridian easement, but the 60 foot strip along the south part of the Palfreyman field is part our land. So, we'd like to do something that meets the requirements of Nampa-Meridian, while also abiding by a consensus of the adjoining owners. That's all. If I could invite Mr. Bates to talk quickly about storm runoff, I'd like to -- Bird: I want to ask him a question. De Weerd: Mr. Bird has a question. Bird: Okay. Let's get the height on these single story houses -- Elliott: Oh. Bird: -- settled right now, because that has -- the city has ran into problems with that before. Do we -- you know, what is the height with a bonus room? A bonus room, in my interpretation, is that it's -- with a bonus room it's still a single story, but you get the heights up, so what kind of height do we want to settle on? I think that's only fair for these people around -- for the neighbors. Let's get a height settlement as to what a single story on the exterior is. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 48 of 58 Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Bird, we are prepared to stipulate to no bonus rooms. We meant what we said when we said single level and we are prepared to say that there won't be any bonus rooms over the garages. We would like to preserve the right to have the tall type cathedral ceilings and roof lines the way other single story houses in the area have, but we can add to the provision in our CC&Rs where we talk about single story saying -- and that means no bonus rooms on a second level. Bird: But these are -- excuse me. Go ahead. You can take -- without a bonus room you can be taller by the pitch of your roof. Elliott: That's correct. Bird: So, you have got to have a roof height, a maximum roof height on a single story. don't know what it is. Rountree: It's in our ordinance. Bird: It's in -- our ordinance -- it isn't in our ordinance. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, could you see if there is any mention to roof height on our ordinance? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our building height for -- is measured differently for different types of roofs. For a standard pitched roof it's measured midway between the peak and the eaves. Our standard for the zone is 35 feet, though, so -- Bird: Is what? Canning: Thirty-five feet. It's the standard height. Bird: For a single story? Canning: No. That's just for the zone. That's all we have, is what I was trying to say. Bird: Well, see, that's what I thought. You know, 35 feet, that can be two stories easy. De Weerd: Quit talking to the audience. Dean is going crazy over there. Bird: But you got -- you got a 35-foot max in our zone. We need to set something on a -- what kind of pitch, how big -- the pitch makes -- I mean you can have a single story house and I suppose you could get -- there is -- you know, there is cabins and stuff up where there is a lot of snow, it's probably 35-foot tall, because of the pitch they have and the open ceiling. I don't want to have a problem like we had a couple years ago. I want -- if this is a big problem with the neighbors -- and I think it is -- I want a height set on what a one story building on the exterior can be. And that's from grade to top of roof. Top of pitch of roof. Of the crown. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 49 of 58 De Weerd: I guess the problem we had before was not necessarily the pitch, it was the bonus room, so -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Elliott, could you just real quickly address the pitch of the roof within your CC&Rs. Maybe that will help. Elliott: We have a minimum pitch, I believe, rather than a maximum, because, generally, the idea is to -- that the more dramatic the pitch, the more desirable the houses and the neighborhoods are. So, I think we have a minimum of six to 12. I think we could stipulate to a -- I'm thinking of Two Rivers, I believe, has an eight to 12 or a -- if that would be acceptable, plus a -- say a 12-foot maximum ceiling, I think that would keep it well under -- somewhere between 20 to 25 feet, which would be well below the -_ any sort of a level that two stories would contemplate. And, again, that would be4 the top of the pitch, so you only have maybe a quarter to a third of the overall expanse of the house getting up to that height the more dramatic the pitch is. De Weerd: Councilman Wardle, did you have anything further? Wardle: That satisfies my concerns, Mr. Bird. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah. As long as -- as long as it is known, you know, that there is a certain -- I think you got to have a height. I just -- we have had two problems in the city since I have been on the Council and both of them have -- I know one was supposedly the bonus room, but it was also a height. And it was a window. But it was -- and both of them was from lacking not getting stuff on the final plat. De Weerd: Did you want your engineer to -- Elliott: Yes, please. Bates: My name is Gordon Bates. I work for the Land Group. Address is 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I'd like to address Councilman Bird's concern on final plat notes and as Anna stated, the Ada County surveyor John Priester, routinely strikes, at his discretion, planning and zoning notes, as he calls them. It puts the city and requirements they would like to see on property in a difficult situation. I'm not sure that myself or anybody besides Mr. Priester and perhaps a large consortium of city officials could come to an agreement on that. But I do know that he will stop a plat in its tracks at his desk until it changes. And it appears he has sole discretion on that, much to several people's chagrin. On the drainage, actually, Kirby Kirkham is a professional Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 50 of 58 engineer in our office, as am I. He was not at the Public Hearing. He was informed as to the changes on the plats and the why's and the neighborhood concerns, and et cetera. He did the professional engineering on the slopes of the roads, the sewers, et cetera. The road to the east is up on a ridge and as this road comes towards the northwest, it drops off of that ridge, that is why there is a swell at this location to capture the runoff coming off these streets that comes down to this point. It effectively stops runoff from this higher ridge from continuing westward. The streets that are on the westerly side of this portion, there is a low point down here where we connect to Dartmoor Drive, we have got a storm swale here to collect that. I believe it's roughly these streets here. There will be another storm swale within this common area, exact location is yet to be determined, that will catch the majority of the street runoff coming this direction. The swale that we had in this corner is no longer receiving a large amount of water. These other streets have cut that water off and -- rather than to other locations. Therefore, our underground seepage bed in this common lot underneath the pathway, subject to ACHD approval, ACHD easements and license agreements, how that storm water will be handled for the streets that break this direction, roughly like this. /, unfortunately, do have to correct my client slightly. Ken Elliott stated that the back of these lots up here would be graded to slope into these streets and drain this direction. I believe that the back portions of these, as stated, are significantly lower than this street could possibly be, so you will have some grassy areas behind the houses in that 25-foot setback that's been agreed to that will naturally percolate their own water, very similar to existing pasture land or anything like that would do. As a professional engineer, I don't see that small of an area creating any type of flood hazard for the adjacent neighbors any different than any existing open field would do. Actually, having perennial grasses in that area will help attenuate getting the storm water to percolate, rather than sayan open field in the middle of winter that doesn't have any -- any plant growth on it yet. So, I think that we are addressing the city and the Ada County Highway District concerns regarding drainage, we will meet their requirements, and that's how the drainage in that area is addressed. If there is any other questions from the Council, I would be available to answer those. De Weerd: Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Final remarks, Mr. Elliott? Elliott: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ken Elliott again. We are trying to come up with some guidance to address Councilor Bird's remarks about the building height. In fact, Mr. Kell is out in his car trying to get some building plans for us, if -- maybe we could even take a two minute recess for him to return. But what we'd like to recommend, subject to the Council's approval, is that there would be an absolute maximum of 25 feet for a peak and that no more than one-third of any elevation, any Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 51 of 58 side view, would reach that, so that that would be the very top and most of it would be well below that and we would have a maximum pitch of eight to 12. De Weerd: Council, I think I'll just call a ten-minute recess and reconvene. Bird: That's fine with me, Mayor. I just think this is very important to get it settled. De Weerd: My prerogative. So, we will reconvene in ten. (Recess. ) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and reconvene the Council meeting. Hello? Mr. Elliott? Mr. Elliott? Would someone like to get the developer's attention back there? I know, you guys would like to go home, but so would we. Elliott: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- after discussing and looking at plans and talking about pitches, we have -- we are prepared to put in all of our CC&Rs and in the conditions of approval that there would be a 25 foot maximum peak and, then, a ten to 12 maximum pitch. The thought from a couple of builders here tonight is that that gives us a chance to create some more dramatic roof lines and that eight to 12 makes it a little too shallow as a cap. So, that's the recommendation. So, that would be a full story below the 35 feet, which would contemplate a two story house, we are saying we will keep it ten feet below that -- any peak would be that far below it and, then, most of the roof is going to be much further below it than that. De Weerd: Council? Elliott: And also no -- no bonus rooms. We are talking about a single level. So, we are not adding rooms on top of garages and having pop-outs. Bird: And that's just these -- excuse me. Just the ones on the exterior lots? Elliott: Correct. Yes. This would be on the 22 perimeter lots that we have designated for single story. De Weerd: Okay. Council, did you have any further questions or information needed? Thank you. Staff, did you have anything further? Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Seeing nothing else, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 13,14 and 15. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 52 of 58 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 13 through 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I'd first like to take a moment to say, not prematurely like others did, but it seems like we are close to success, if not at success, and I'd like to take an opportunity to thank the public that was involved and the folks that took the time out of your evening to come here and sit through this process, even though we thought and have resolved your issues and thank you to the developer for taking the time and the effort -- and I know it's a large effort, to coordinate with this many individuals and come to a group consensus. Having said that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item 13, AZ 05-003, for Kingsbridge Subdivision -- and I need some help from counsel. Do we have all of the stipulations with the annexation or with the preliminary plat? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Rountree, I think we are probably going to need a few weeks to get the findings put together with the minutes. There has been a number of different concessions where, obviously -- or part of the annexation is going to be this development agreement that will incorporate the settlement agreement, as well as some of the other issues raised as to building height limitations and the like. So, it would be my preference if you gave us a few weeks to get those processed and returned. At least three weeks. Rountree: To continue with my motion -- Nary: Mrs. Canning had something else to add, if you don't mind, Councilman Rountree. Canning: I'm sorry, Councilmember Rountree. Rountree: It's about time. Canning: I just wanted to say if you're in disagreement with anything you heard tonight, your motion would be the time to let us know that. Otherwise, we will just go based on what we have heard tonight. Rountree: Continuing with the motion. That we incorporate the items from First Vision in their April 6th letter, as it relates to the annexation, having staff direct those Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 53 of 58 comments to the appropriate conditions of approval, the final plat conditions, and CC&Rs. Also incorporating the most recent comments from First Vision of April 12th, directing staff to do as previously stated with conditions of approval, final plat, CC&Rs. Also incorporating -- excuse me. Also having a recommendation to provide a maximum peak height of 25 feet and allowing pitches of 10-12 on the single story houses on lots so designated. Directing the developer to develop a weed control and maintenance plan for the undeveloped areas of the subdivision. Incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, minus the provision for the weed control and with the understanding that the developer, through his representatives, will work out fencing types with adjacent neighbors and that settlement agreement is as of -- dated April 12th. Further question for council. I have a stipulation I'd like to have on the final plat as it relates to drainage. Do I do that with the annexation as well? Nary: To be safe, Councilmember Rountree, yeah, I would include that in your motion for both. Rountree: And I would also further direct the developer to develop a grading and drainage plan for the lots on the northwest corner of the subdivision. Is there anything I have left out? De Weerd: On those four lots. Rountree: Four-- De Weerd: Five. Rountree: Five lots in the northwest corner. Yes. Wardle: I'd like to second that motion, Madam Mayor, and -- very thorough motion and I also appreciate the efforts that the developer has gone to and the public input and the neighborly conduct that we have seen and heard and that even have in writing here this evening. So, I appreciate everyone's efforts. De Weerd: Thank you. So, the motion is to approve. Is there any further discussion? Staff, did we cover all the elements? Good job, Mr. Rountree. Okay. Ms. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council April 12, 2005 Page 54 of 58 Rountree: I move that we approve Item 14 for PP 05-004, preliminary plat, subject to the conditions outlined for the annexation and zoning and including the comments from the staff and the developer. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14. If there is no further discussion, Ms. Clerk? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 15. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 15 for Conditional Use Permit 05-004, for Kingsbridge Subdivision, subject to staff comments and developer's comments at the hearing this evening. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: The motion is approve Item 15. Ms. Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Again, I would like to congratulate the neighbors and the developer to -- working together you really set a great model and I know we didn't address every single concern, but appreciate the willingness to work together, compromise, and find a middle ground. Thank you. Item 16: Ordinance No. 05-1141 Licensed Alcohol Establishments and ProhibitinQ Two License Establishments within the Same Premise: (First Reading - Public Comment will be Accepted) De Weerd: Items 16, 17 and 18 are ordinances 05-1139, 1140, 1141 and 1142. Ms. Clerk, will you, please, read these ordinances. Wardle: Madam Mayor? CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: ., ern' r" ~ ~rich:n~'t, IIl,\Un f' /p' ?" Hearing Date: 6/15/2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Jenny Veatch Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 '~Jf>~~Y;"!!~"!.' lI'W:4 l~HI. SUBJECT: Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024 Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R.4 (Medium Low-Density Residential). PP-06-023 Preliminary Plat approval of29 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone, by Kevin Harris. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant Kevin Harris, representing F&C Development Inc., has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for 10.17 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located on the east side of Eagle Road and south of Zaldia Lane. The existing structures on this site will be removed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (AZ and PP) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending approval of the prooosed Naooli Subdivision (AZ-06-024 and PP-06-023) with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Recommend Approval After considering all stan: applicant and public testimony, 1 move to recommend approval to the City Council ofFiJe Numbers AZ-06-024 and PP-06-023 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of June IS, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications. ) Recommend Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Nwnbers AZ-06-024 and PP-06-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June IS, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-024 and PP-06-023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason( s): (You should state specific reason( s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS Napoli Subdivision AZ-06~24/PP-06-023 PAGE 1 RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2006 City of Meridian City Clerk Office CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 a, Site Address/Location: 4280 S. Eagle Road; on the east side of Eagle Road and south of Zaidi a Lane in Section 28, Township 3 North, Range I East b. Owners: F&C Development Inc. 4280 S. Eagle Road Meridian, 10 83642 c. Applicant: Kevin Harris Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, 10 83705 d. Representative: Kevin Harris, Briggs Engineering, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for Annexation and Zoning of the subject 10.17 acres to R-4 and Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family buildable lots and 3 common lots. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single-family detached. The average lot size in the proposed development is 9,493 square feet. The gross density of the project is 3.07 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 10.61 pcrcent of the site is being set aside for open space. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 3/24/06 2. Date oflandscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 3/24/06 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application wi\1 in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title II Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application wi II in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofthe Meridian City Code Title II Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: May 29th and June 12th, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to propcrties within 300 feet on: May 19th, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 5th, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): All existing structures are to be removed prior to construction. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area contains low and medium low- density residential developments, a proposed medium density subdivision, and a mix of rural parcels in Ada County,. Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024/PP-06-023 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE IS, 2006 c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: I. North: Kingsbridge Subdivision phases #1-2, zoned R-2 2. South: Martine! Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. East: Zaldien Zerua Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Future phases of Messina Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8 d. History of Previous Actions: None e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: This property would sewer to mains extended in S. Eagle Road by Kingsbridge Subdivision to the north. Location of water: This property would extend water service from mains in S. Eagle Road extended by Kingsbridge Subdivision to the north. Issues or concems: The need for an off-peak pumping station. 2. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are a few irrigation ditches and drains that traverse through this site. All open irrigation ditches, laterals and canals, shall be tiled when this property develops. 3. Hazards: No hazards have been identified on this site. 4. Proposed Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) 5. Size of Property: 9.44 acres f. Subdivision Plat Infonnation: 1. Residential Lots: 29 2. Non-residential Lots: 0 3, Total Building Lots: 29 3 4. Common Lots: 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Lots: 32 Other Lots: o Gross Density: 3.07 units per acre (net density is 4.22 d.u./acre) Minimum House Size: single-story: 1,600 square feet two-story: 2,200 square feet g. Landscaping I. Width of street huffer(s): 25 feet 2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: 1.00 acresll 0.61 % 4. Other landscaping standards: Parkway areas are to be 8-feet wide and contain Class II trees to be counted as common open space (UDC 11-3A-17E). h. Amenities: Parkways with detached sidewalks. Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024/PP-06-023 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 i. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached dwellings to have 2 enclosed parking spaces (a garage) and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. J. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: R-4 Setbacks (in feet) Proposed Front Living Area (to sidewalk) 15 Front Accessed Garage (to sidewalk) 20 Side 5 R~r 15 Frontage 60 Lot Size 8,250 k Proposed and Required Non-Residential; N/A Required 15 20 5 15 60 8,000 1. SUlIllIlary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: The applicant is proposing to construct public streets, S. Palatino Avenue, E. Tindaris Street and S_ Martino Avenue. The applicant is converting a private street (E. Zaidi a Drive) to a public street by constructing a 50-foot wide section of roadway and dedicating it to ACHD. The applicant is stubbing east along their northern property line, parallel to Kingsbridge Subdivision. The applicant is also proposing to provide a public street stub (S, Palatino Avenue) to the Martine! Subdivision to the south. All of the internal streets (excluding Zaldia Lane extended) are local streets with 36-feet wide street sections (measured back of concrete ribbon curb to back of concrete ribbon curb) and contain 4-foot wide detached sidewalks within 6O-feet of right-of-way. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system. ACHD has submitted comments and conditions back to the City for this project. ACHD's conditions are included in Exhibit B. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On May 26, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company, Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas arc anticipated to contain three to eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes 29 single-family lots on 9.44 acres for a gross density of 3.07 dwelling units/acre. The proposed density complies substantially with the anticipated density for this area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024IPP-06-023 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: . Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). . The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. . The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. . The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department. the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department. Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3 + Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedeshian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use decisions, This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new constnlction and reconstntction projects, in a manner that is sqfe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the subject applications comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 . Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to extend the one stub street currently provided to this property from the east. In addition. one stub street is being proposed to the south parcel that is currently zoned in Ada County RUT, which staff anticipates will re-develop in the near filtl/re. Staffbelieves that the applicant has done a nice job of connecting and extending the existing private lane by converting it to a public street as well as providing for fitture connectivity to the east and west. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. See analysis above, Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9 . Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain constmction debris on site and prevent windblown debris Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024/PP-06-023 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDlAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15.2006 from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. The applicant is proposing to construct afour-foottallfence around the_northern and western sides of the development, along the street buffers and a six~root tall c/osedfence around the eastern and southern boundaries of this development. Prior to hOllse constnlction, fencing should be constnlcted arollnd the perimeter of this site. See Analysis below and Exhibit Bfor more iriformation. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5 - Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. The applicant is proposing to constnlct four-foot wide, detached sidewalks adjacent to all of the proposed streets, which connect to adjacent properties. Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connections, Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6 - Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See above. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action I - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the existing single-family residential properties to the north, south, east and west, are compatible with the proposed development. Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8 - Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. Sta}frecognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses to the north, east and south. The applicant is proposing to construct a six-foot tall privacy fence around this development to screen this subdivision from the larger parcels. Further, the larger lots in the subdivision are on the perimeter of the development, providing a transition from the large county parcels to the internal smaller lots, Staff finds that the proposed fencing should provide enough screening between the proposed urban development and the Mlral residences surrounding it. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony providedfrom neighbors when determining if additional screening or more transition in density is appropriate. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property, 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2-1 lists single-family detached homes as pennitted uses in the R-4 zoning district. Napoli Subdivision AZ-06..Q24/PP-06-023 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-4 Medium Low-Density Residential: The purpose ofthe residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. c. General Standards: All of the proposed lots comply with the standard street frontage and lot size requirements ofthe R-4 zone established in the UDC. No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: I. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the requested R-4 zone is appropriate for this property. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for annexation. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on March 23, 2006 by Wayne K. Barber, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. 2. PP Application: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Unified Development Code. Special Considerations: Density/Open Space: As noted previously in this report, this area is designated for medium density residential uses. Medium density residential areas are defined as three to eight dwellings per acre The submitted plat has a gross density of 3.07 dwelling units per acre. There are existing rural lots to the east and south of this site. UDC 11-3G-3AI requires at least 5% of the total land area to be set aside for common open space in single-family developments. Parkways and street buffers as designed by the applicant do count towards the open space requirement. Landscaoing: The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, Associates, on 3/24/06, is approved with the following modifications/notes: · Per UDC 11-3G-3A, set aside at least 10.61% (1.00 acres) of the site for useable open space, as proposed. . Per UDC 11-3B-1O, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. . A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit copies of a revised landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the final plat application(s). Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024/PP-06-023 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 Stub Streets: The applicant should be required to extend a public stub street east (currently a private street, E. Zaldia Lane), and provide a public stub street to the Martinel Subdivision to the south as proposed. Existing Residences/Buildings: The site currently contains residential and out- buildings. All existing buildings shall be removed as proposed. Fencing: The applicant is proposing to construct four-foot fence along the entire perimeter of the site. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat. If pennanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path /multi-use fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Common Areas: Maintenance of all conunon areas shall be the responsibility of the Napoli Home Owners' Association. Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC ll-3A- IS and MCC 9-1-28. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subiect aoolications AZ-06- 024 and PP-06-023. with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Reoort for the hearing date of June 15.2006. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 3/24/06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 3/24/06) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024IPP-06-023 PAGE 8 CTTY Of" MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Napoli Subdivision AZ-06-024IPP-06-023 PAGE 9 [~~i;'~!!~....... CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 A Drawings J. Preliminary Plat (dated: 3/24/06) --~~-- --------------._'----~-- ~---~~ i I ! i I i /.. . . . r. ; :-+-. . , J . I -;r- . i Iii.. .\- t -.~. i:f ./" >;:! :if 11 ~~~i, -~1I1 .0 ~..;, '? 1.kS e f~~; !qi - -.. l! ~~;~I ' !i! i i~ i;if. I ; ll,g ~ n~! ~2U! i" '~ii~i ff~Ui , fi~~.~ ....!!!:':'!! I Exhibit A . Page ,I tlAPDIJ: 5USOIVIsION I'..'l'u.............. "\,.I,T -~------ : .--...--11 -.. ~.~jI:. ..'! i'If : i: ; Ir li"'\, H [~~";;~~~~~i=~p~-~~~==:.J CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 Landscape Plan (dated 3/24/06) I Exhibit A - Page) 1110 I:tl'!i f il ' r, , Iii; f'I . II" ~,.,., Hrlj~ II ~~ :J: Z m ::: )> 0 :; ""0 !- 0 - 0 )> r- :I; 0 j . I f t ~ _' I ., 'I .". -. ,.Y.-.. .--... ~"';.J <-- ~. !,f,pF~;f~.~~ ,', 11i! Ii IIi ~ 'hll' 1~5 ,; l I ~ iI, ". ~ I!i I:~ Ii ! :'! 1~ J ::, ij ~ (\ II ; ::: ~ \ 1-. 11"1' +'lli I II If Ijl~ 'II lr ' i I i I q " dJiO ~ , (i)~IIl!m! JUIII/li/llllr : I ,ll!1 11,111 r 1 ~ I I r. ! I, J,ll'I i,',',!fil II ! ~ I i II t " ! ! B I imll 11!~li II ~ ~ !Ei;!i !!!~i; !! I IJ t-- J II ;II I "' i ! ~ I if:j ""- n~t ! C~~~III!~~~~~~t:..-iE~==_-:. --, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIfIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-023) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet I of I, prepared by Briggs Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2006 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-06-024) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-023) 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, Associates on 3/24/06, is approved with the toll owing modifications/notes: · Per UDC 11-3G-3A, set aside at least 10.61% (1.00 acres) of the site for useable open space, as proposed. · Per UOC 11-3B-IO, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff: on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site, · A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. The proceeding moditications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application(s). 1.1.3 Extend E. Zaldia Lane east as a public street, and provide a public stub street to the Martinel Subdivision to the south as proposed. 1.1.4 All buildings that span across proposed lot lines, or do not conform to the dimensional standards (setbacks, height, etc.) of the UDC shall be removed, relocated or made to conform to city code, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 1.1.5 Provide a four-foot tall fence around the perimeter of the development, as proposed. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UOC 11-3A-7. 1.1.6 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Napoli Home Owners' Association. 1.1.7 Per UOC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, but exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered, Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to construction plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Exhibit B - Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 1.1.8 Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. 1,2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-023) 1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s). 1.2.2 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UOC 11-3A-17. 1.2.3 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All storm water detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated sutfacc materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B, Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction, 1.2.4 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.5 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-68-7. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains planned with Kingsbridge Subdivision, The applicant shall install mains to and through this proposed development; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service, Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications, 2,2 The applicant shall be responsible to install a temporary off-peak pumping station in a location coordinated with the Public Works Department. The station design and capacity shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. The design shall include communication capabilities that are consistent with the City of Meridian's SCAOA system. If new information arises from ongoing modeling exercises or other subsequent sources, then this condition may be rescinded by the City Engineer. 2.3 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains planned by Kingsbridge Subdivision, The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works_ 2.4 As part of the City of Meridian's "to and through" policy the applicant shall be required to install water and sewer mains along their frontage in S. Eagle Road if at the time of their construction Exhibit B - Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 plan submittal is has not been installed by other developments. 2.5 The applicant shall be required to upgrade the water line in Zaidi a Drive to 12-inch to comply with the City of Meridian's master water plan. 2.6 Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13 and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature. 2.7 The applicant has indicated Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. Therefore a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting. 2.8 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not availablc, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point conncction is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.9 All existing structures spanning lot lines or not meeting the dimensional standards ofthe UDC shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation, 2.12 Per UOC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusi ve of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered, Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2,13 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.14 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.15 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.16 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the tinal plat. 2.17 It shall be the responsibility ofthe applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.18 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that Exhibit B - Page 3 CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.20 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.21 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.22 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above. 2.23 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Height for 100 watt fixtures is 25-feet; height for 250 watt fixtures is 30-feet. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or tire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company, The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to conunencing installations. 3. Fire Department 3.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3600 square feet will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. One and two story family dwellings will require a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of500 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 y," outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade, g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.6 The proposed 29-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 84.1 residents at build out. Exhibit B - Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 3.7 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code officiaL For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. Police Department 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. 5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Soecific Conditions of Approval I. Construct E. Zaldia Drive as a 36-foot street section to align with E. Mona Lisa Drive to the west, within 50-feet of right-of-way as a residential collector with vertical curb, gutter, and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk. Parking is not allowed on E. Zaldia Drive, and the applicant should provide a sidewalk easement for any sidewalk located outside of the right-of-way. 2. Construct a 5-foot detached meandering sidewalk along Eagle Road to be located no closer than 41-feet from centerline. Provide ACHD with a sidewalk easement tor the sidewalk ifit is located outside ofthe right-of-way. 3. Construct the site's internal streets (5. Palatino Avenue, S. Martino Avenue, and E. Tindaris Street) as 36.foot street sections with roller curb, gutter, 4-foot detached sidewalks, and 8-foot planter strips within 60-feet of right. of. way. 4. Construct the stub street to the east, E. Zaldia Drive, as proposed 5. Construct the stub to the south, S. Palatino Avenue, as proposed. Exhibit B - Page 5 CIIT OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 6. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval I. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of-way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State ofIdaho shall prepare and certifY all improvement plans. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DlGLlNE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless Exhibit B - Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. Central District Health Department 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off' is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. Exhibit B - Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINO DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 C. Legal Description 1/16 Rtvl5l0N : r1f_ SHEET: 1 or 1 EXH \8t'l1.t:z ,Annp.OWG Exhibit C - Page 1 N t 1/4 CORNER -29 1:~8 i" " in :: l I I! <0 III I .....'-- I, I Cl II I " /r.... I I' / J J ~ l ~: J // I : :: ,/ / / '" II ----4 II L____:__ I I ,,(,' // . ~~ ---- _-=L_~';':"'::~-;::--;::;:::;;-~--'::_'--':-_-~--------.j I ~~<.' 0") I t ""t :...o'______I:::=_-~~-~- =--1 -,.r-.-'~ ~ . ll--r:-=-~: [~-;----.~---~--~--=--7--::=------~~-:'~:' r r~'" 1-- ~~------- b :: 1 J It I I r I III I ol'! I \'.! I I I J1l: 'I I I' ..1____~-- L ,.' r,rl (: :--...l,'''r:'==::~:~:=~::~=':/ ./),___i II I I I j l r t ~ 1" I I, " -~~L2~~;.-f~:;i'~i~-=-~':.~~~--~:~~~--- --- ----1 ljg "',:! I!i! a':' ::: ~ ~I_.._~ i 19 q ~,~: Ii;; :;E I' : ~ $: 1% ::: I ~ , ""'t., I CORN~!.:'!l!.~-~_.J_-------_-L_---- -- IMIHI. S\BlMSlON o <( o ~ ~ MIa (!) IlESSII/, l8llClIS "" Sl.8IMDI UJ vi L.ltGEND o 150 300 I I I SCALE IN FEEl' .-.------- BQU"dory une $fl'diol"\ lin~e Right of Way Lin. El(i=-ting PQl'(:el U". NAPOIJ SUBDMSION ANNEXATION EXHIBIT BRIGGS ENGINeERING. INC. ~~ ( !(!~:' ) ENGINEERS PUNNERs $IJ<oiE\'GRS 1100 W. (M!lINtl ROO> . 110&. UWIllll70:; , ~'"lJ'4-'700 ~;. do"ll.;~1. or d.ny ~(J(I, fhlflCIl, MlQ" l'IC\ be u~ on IJn~ PrOJ.~t CI( ~rllllltiO/j~ ot tk,a PrOj~ct ~~t;ep\ by wntttn ogrllemtll! fl"Dlfl Bfiau5 F;;II4)IPI4Ii!II'lng. "c, l-OCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, T.3N., R.1 E., 8.M. o-.rc QATE' I DWG "10. I SC'.AL(: 03/23/06 DPMI 60212 I ,". 300' THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15,2006 CITY OFMERlDlAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR . . DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION NAPOLI SUBDIVISION March 23. 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH EAGLE ROAD, AND ALL OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, OF ZAlDIEN ZERUA SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED AT BOOK 81 OF PLATS, PAGES 8183 - 8184, ADA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH. RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28. T.3N.. R.1E, B.M.. THENCE S 00'37'09" W 660.65 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION; THENCE 8 89021 '56" E 669.79 fEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1. OF ZALOIEN ZERUA SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED AT BOOK 81 OF PLATS. PAGES 8183 - 8184, ADA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE S 00"34'03" W 661.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE N 89019'35" W 670.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SW 1/4 (8 1/16 CORNER); THENCE N 00037'09" E 66065 FEET ALONG THE WE8T LINE OF SAID SW 1/4 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 10.17 ACRES. MORE OR. LESS. WAYNE K. BARBER. ~.<~;\~:~~-~~;;) ':;:.... /:1f;;.';;iit;T ;, <<' \ 'W~ -'~\ (~I 8'44 . ~) \ \",r4piA~ ! \. -!i~ I; (), \~;'fo<t;' ~SK.~~~J:/ "_-...~._.',r' P.L.S.8444 ... " , . ~ ,- ., Exhibit C - Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code I. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions ofthe comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all ofthe subject property to R-4. Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that future development of this property will comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the R-4 zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest ofthe City (UDC 1l-SB-3.E). The R-4 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity, and transitions well to the existing rural lots in the vicinity. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that Annexation and Zonin2 of this propertY to R-4 would be in the best interest of the Citv. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit D - Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF ruNE 15,2006 Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, and Analysis, Section 10 of the Staff Report. 2. Public: services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B ofthe Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, tire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature{s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D - Page 2 ~/I'f Joint School District No.2 911 Meridian Road · Meridian, Idaho 83642 · (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700 SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Linda Clark City of Meridian -'- ----~"--.:--6(){rK 'watertOwerTane~" Suite 202 Meridian. ID 83642 RECEIVED MAY i 8 2006 CiTY OF MERIDIAN ...----....--- --C!-T_YCLERK.D_FFICE__~__ May 12. 2006 Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools. middle schools. and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity. Approval of the Napoli Subdivision will have an impact on school enrollments at Pepper Ridge/Lake Hazel Elementary. Lewis & Clark/Lake Hazel Middle and Mountain View High School. We can predict that these homes. when completed. will house nine elementary aged children. eight (8) middle school aged children. and six (6) senior high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school. as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. If you have any questions. please contact me at 855-4500. Sincerely. ~-f:'~ ~ Building & Construction Manager ..~. ~ '(" ~\) ~p~ 'I.~~'i> ~ ~ ~ 1,~~~~O ~ ~" ~<V . ....1 0 .(;. v\"\:~~\~ ~\)S' A';'~it,,- AC~ Co~ut1f., ~oe. John S. Franden, President Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner May 23, 2006 Owner: F & C Development 4280 S. Eagle Road Meridian, ID 83642 RECEIVED MAY 26 2006 C~ty Of Meridian CIty Clerk Office Representative: Briggs Engineering Kevin Harris 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, ID 83705 Subject: Napoli/MAZ-06-024/MPP-06-023 4280 S. Eagle Road 29-lot Residential On May 23, 2006 the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and street improvements, which are required. Sincerely, Andrew Mentzer Planner I Right-of-way & Development Services CC: Project file, Construction Services, Utilities, Meridian Ada County Highway District · 3775 Adams Street · Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 208 3B7 6100 . FX 345-7650 . www.achd.ada.id.us Right-of- Way & Development Services Department _~;f~it,,- ACHD ~ ~rwnWtrd1;, ~ Project/File: Napoli/SUB-06-023/MAZ-06-024/MPP-06-023 lead Agency: City of Meridian Site address: 4280 S. Eagle Road Staff level Approval: May 23, 2006 Owner: F & C Development 4280 S. Eagle Road Meridian, 10 83642 Representative: Briggs Engineering Kevin Harris 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, 10 83705 Staff Contact: Andrew Mentzer Phone: 387-6187 E-mail: amentzer@achd.ada.id.us Tech Review: May 19, 2006 Application I "formation: Acreage: 10 Current Zoning: RUT Proposed Zoning: R-4 Residential lots: 29 A. Findings of Fact Existing Conditions 1. Site Information: The site is currently occupied by a rural single family dwelling. 2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction land Use Zoning North Kingsbridge R-2 South Rural Residential RUT East Rural Residential RUT West Messina Meadows R-4 1 3. Existing Roadway Improvements & Right-ot-Way Eagle Road is currently improved with 2 traffic lanes, paved shoulders, and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Eagle Road currently has 74-feet of right-of-way (48-feet from centerline). 4. Existing Access: There is currently one rural approach accessing the site from Eagle Road approximately 131-feet south of the north property line. 5. Site History: ACHD has not previously reviewed this site for a development application. Development Impacts 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate approximately 280 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Single Family Dwelling land use designation. 2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application. 4. Impacted Roadways: Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Level ot Speed Classification Service* Limit Eagle Road 660' Principal 7,666 north of Better 30 MPH Arterial Amity on than "C" 02/21/2006 *Acceptable level ot service for a 2-lane principal arterial is "0" (14,000 VTD). 5. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are currently in the Five Year Work Program. Eagle Road is slated to be widened to 5-lanes in the Capital Improvements Plan. B. Findinqs for Consideration 1 . Eagle Road Right-ot-Way Policy: District policy requires 96-feet of right-ot-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes. Street Section Policy: District policy 72-F3 requires arterial roadways to be constructed as a 72- foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk within 96-feet of right-of-way with parking prohibited on both sides of the roadway. 2 Applicant Proposal: Eagle Road is not improved, and currently has 48-feet of right-of-way from centerline. The applicant has proposed to construct a 5-foot meandering detached concrete sidewalk outside of the right-of-way in an easement abutting the site. Staff Recommendation: The applicant's proposal for Eagle Road meets District policy, and should be approved. 2. Internal Streets Right-ot-Way Policy: District policy 7204.4.1 and Figure 72-F1A requires 50-feet of right-of-way on local streets. This right-of-way allows for the construction of a 2-lane roadway with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks. 36.toot Street Section POlicy: District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size will typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32- feet with curb, gutter and sidewalks. The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated from the curb 5-feet or more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width. Applicant Proposal (Internal streets): The applicant is proposing to construct the internal streets (S. Palatino Avenue, E. Tindaris Street, and S. Martino Avenue) as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter, 4-foot detached concrete sidewalks, and 8-foot planter strips within 60-feet of right-of- way. The primary access road to the site (E. Zeldia Drive) is to be constructed as a 36-foot street section with rolled curb, gutter, and an attached 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of- way. A portion of this sidewalk will lie outside of the right-of-way. Staff Comment/Recommendation: The applicant's proposals meet District policy and should be approved; however E. Zeldia Drive should be constructed as a residential collector roadway, with restricted parking on both sides, and vertical curb. Any sidewalk located outside of the right-of-way for E. Zeldia Drive should be constructed with a sidewalk access easement. 3. Tree Planters Tree Planter Policy: The District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy prohibits all trees in planters less than 6-feet in width. In addition to prohibiting trees in planters less than 6-feet in width, the policy requires a minimum planter width of 6-feet for class II tress with the installation of root barriers on both sides of the planter strip or a minimum planter width of 8-feet without the installation of a root barrier. The policy also requires Class I and Class III trees to provide a minimum planter width of 10-feet. 4. Stub Streets Stub Street Policy: District policy 7203.5.1 states that the street design in a proposed development shall cause no undue hardship to adjoining property. An adequate and convenient access to adjoining property for use in future development may be required. If a street ends at the development boundary, it shall meet the requirements of sub section 7205, "non-continuous streets." District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements described in Section 7204.5, 7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed two stub streets with this application: · The first stub street, E. Zeldia Drive, is located along the north property line stubbing to the east property line. 3 · The second stub street, S, Palatino Avenue, stubs to the south property line approximately 140- feet east of the west property line. Staff Comment/Recommendation: Both proposed stub streets meet District policy requirements, and should be approved. Each proposed stub street is less than 150-feet in length and will not require a temporary turnaround. 5. Roadway Offsets Roadway Offset POlicy: District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum ot 300-feet from an arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline). District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline). Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed one roadway to intersect Eagle Road, E. Zeldia Drive, located along the north property line, to align with E. Mona Lisa Drive to the west. Staff Comment/Recommendation: The applicant's proposals meet District policy. C. Site Specific Conditions of ARProval 1 . Construct E. Zeldia Drive as a 36-toot street section to align with E. Mona Lisa Drive to the west, within 50-feet of right-ot-way as a residential collector with vertical curb, gutter, and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk. Parking is not allowed on E. Zeldia Drive, and the applicant should provide a sidewalk easement for any sidewalk located outside of the right-ot-way. 2. Construct a 5-foot detached meandering sidewalk along Eagle Road to be located no closer than 41-teet from centerline. Provide ACHD with a sidewalk easement for the sidewalk if it is located outside ot the right-of-way. 3. Construct the site's internal streets (S. Palatino Avenue, S. Martino Avenue, and E. Tindaris Street) as 36-foot street sections with roller curb, gutter, 4-foot detached sidewalks, and 8-foot planter strips within 60-feet of right-at-way. 4. Construct the stub street to the east, E. Zeldia Drive, as proposed 5. Construct the stub to the south, S. Palatino Avenue, as proposed. 6. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. D. Standard Conditions of ARJ)roval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-ot-way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLlNE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances. plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. E. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. 5 Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Appeal Guidelines 4. Development Process Checklist c :z Z '" ;:D )> - c - > ." z . 0 - c > r :r 0 - en C o:J 0 - < - ... en Jlt - n 0 c '" < Z m r-- 0 " :r m Z -i - Z n 1110 P.I 11 /I , 'i JI · I. In, L ill: IIff 7 Ii i", / ...~~.-" .~ / J;.-' ~""'\l" '" .......,.,:..- " /i:-~'" .. ,;, 'I n ~ j ~ I i Z ,~ I I ~ ~i' -' - ~ 'I. r1J J'l (\ ,: ! m ~ I ~ ~!~ g b..... ~ !I ::! " "'0 ..,- -I." ~ i . i" ,p I I, r '! i i I : I I i ~ CO -: . i~ /rm"", I! i I r, lliJ'i" I ~ d r~II~~rl , ,"f fir] I mm iiim H q i r mm !11m !! 8 Request for Appeal of Staff Decision 1. Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. 9 II Development Process Checklist II I2ISubmit a development application to a City or to the County I2IThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD I2IThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review l8]The Planning Review Division will do one of the following: DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time. DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also apply to this development application. l8JWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal tor its conformance to District Policy. DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. DThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports. DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter: · The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.) · The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID yau REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) D Driveway or Property Approach(s) · Submit a "Driveway Approach Requesf' form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. D Working in the ACHD Right-ot-Way · Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction ~ Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) D Sediment & Erosion Submittal · At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction ~ Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage Division. D Idaho Power Company · Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPca approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled. D Final Approval from Development SelVices ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con. 10 y,/~ ~""'In CHDD~E~FTATR~~T~Ml-JN~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT .... L Environmental Health Division Return to: o Boise o Eagle o Garden City ~ridian o Kuna vC Rezone # 4 z... IJt -0.2 Y Conditional Use # Preliminary / Final/Short Plat Ob -0.2 3 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. We have No Objections to this Proposal. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE We recommend Denial of this Proposal. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: o high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics o or bedrock from original grade 0 other This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. After wri~approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: . E;t"eentralsewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well o interim sewage ~entral water o individual sewage 0 individual water ~. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of ;,ovironmental Quality: C3-eentral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water o sewage dry lines )ilc.entral water ~ Q. Run-off is not to create a- mosquito breeding problem. o 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ~8. o 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. o 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: o food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas o beverage establishment 0 grocery store o child care center Date: ..s-- / /2.-. / o/.. Reviewed By:--- #-~ o 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations o 15. 15726.001 EH0904 Review Sheet ~I 'Ji/ \ ') ~ & ~ 1~ 'Dl4t1Uct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 RE C E 1V~f)0092 J ..4hones: Area Code 208 22 May 2006 Mr::.'i:i -, }nl)jf~ OFFICE: "''''\! 1,.1 CITY OF MERIDIAN SHOP: CITY Ct_ERK OFFICE Nampa 466-7861 Nampa 466-0663 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 . Mendum.~lD;t83M2" ----"-..---.- RE: AZ 06--024 & PP 06.023/Napoli Dear Anna: If all stonn drainage is retained on-site there will be no impact on Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required. However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application is filed for review prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further infonnation. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is reconunended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely, ~~~~ Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg c: File. Office/Shop , - '" ";'-',' APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 ~&~14~~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 26 May 2006 Kevin Harris Briggs Engineering 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, ID 83705 phones: Areo Code 208 OFFICE: Nompa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 RE: Land Use Change Application - NaDoli Subdivision Please note the District now reauires three (3) sets of plans Dear Mr. Harris: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop. Sincerely, ~ Yt. 77z~ Donna N. Moore, Asst. SeeretaryfTreasurer NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DNM/smc cc: File Water Superintendent Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission F + C Development, 4280 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, 10 83642 ene. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS" 23,000 BOISE PROJEG RIGHTS. 40,000 COMMITMENT OF PROPERTY POSTING Per Unified Development Code (lJOC) II-SA-50, the upplicant for afl applications requiring a public hearin!; (ex.ce~')t for a UOC text amendment, a Comprehensive Plan lex! amendment and/or vacations) shall post the subject properly not less than ten (10) days prior to the heating. The applicant shall post a copy of the public bearing notice of the llppIication(s) on the property under consideration. The llPplicant shall submit proof or properly posting in the form of a notarized slalcmCnl and a phOtOgraph of the posting. LO me CllY no laler than seven 0) days prior to the publill' hearing ItU;cl)ting to where and when the sig:n(s) were posted.. Un/ells such Ccrtilicat.c is rccciwd by the' required dmc, the hearing will be continued. The llign(s) shall be rcmov\;d no later than three (3) days after the end of the public hearing for which the sign(s) had been posted.. [ llItI aware of the above requirements and will comply wiLh the posting rcquircmr,;nL:; tl~ staled in UDC I)-SA-S. ~ .. ...... /,.1 ___ _"' _ ,..___ Appli~M~!!:I~igiUllurc ..n- 7f:.V& Pf.vftt>~t!" I ._~,. 0-0 ~,~__. Date 2'd O-CX-BBB-B02 "l1:'lP.,lng eUJ,l d20~SO 90 90 unc RECEIVED JUN 0 7 200ti City of Meridian City Clerk Office RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2006 City of Meridian City Clerk Office CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE June 15,2006 ITEM # 6&7 PROJECT NUMBER AZ. 06-024 and PP 06-023 PROJECT NAME Napoli Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT) /{5,-;tJ. o,...{) 1)etf~;;3K- Do"'-. \.Iv\.. ev- ../:/ / /} ,..........~.,.? FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL X K ~ RECEI D q.ty of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE June 15, 2006 ITEM # 6&7 PROJECT NUMBER AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023 PROJECT NAME Napoli Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL -;?r3'd/d;,.-cl 9e?'dac 3d- )C RECEIVEl) JUN 1 5 ~/! 2f~eridian -" . - ..-- ..:....:....... ". :M' ..'::: 'CK-}i':'''co, ()-..:; =,~.,J ,I;7:}:~l1J~r~~, . .'J!.~ :: i ~:l!,.>)l '''~' · ";i~ i' o({;~?dl:ii!.S\ TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FO; coaJ.PJ&l . IDAHO ~ DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THEIOIf't((jf MaiUifAk'\i'l ~. F' ',-.'"'' ("......,"':"71-...... -\ "I"E"":-' D" TY"''''c(1 c0vr ,v '~'~! ,".;~~/.i ~~\ .t/:,. rt ' ~ ,ll, ~i~Jl a e"o/<l,TRIOAsuReY,,",-,-,,' ""co To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by 1903 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph w. Borton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888~3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678 / fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898~5500 / fax 895~9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/ fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242/ fax 884-1159 AUn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by; Transmittal Date: May 9, 2006 Hearing Date: June 15, 2006 Request: Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone; Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision By: Briggs Engineering, Inc. Location of Property or Project: east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane June 8, 2006 File No.: AZ. 06-024 & PP 06~023 David Zaremba (no FP) _DaVid Moe (noFP) _ Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP) Michael Rohm (NO FP) = Keith Borup (No FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor - Charlie Rountree, CtC Joe Borton, CtC Keith Bird, C/C _ Shaun Wardle, CtC Water Department X: Sewer Department _ Sanitary ServiceS(No VAR, VAC, FP) _ Building Department / Rich Greene _ Fire Department _ Police Department City Attorney = City Engineer City Planner Parks Department Meridian School District (No Fp) Meridian Post Office(FPIPP only) =:Ada County Highway District _ Ada County Development Services Central District Health - Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrig. District Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,CUP) Owest (FP/PP only) Intermountain Gas (FPIPP only) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) _Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP) Ada County Ass. Land Records - Meridian Development Corp. - Historical Preservation Comm. RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2006 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Your Concise Remarks; CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887,,4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884..8119 Printed on recycled paper