Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/9 Letter from Philip & Judy DeAngeli " ~':.?,. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING RECEIVE,D JUN 0 9 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE DEAR COMMISSIONERS: We are adding this map with some notes to help explain our opposition to the proposed Napoli subdivision. Our home sits adjacent to the East border. The lot sizes proposed here are in the 9000 square foot range. The lot sizes on our North boundary were approved at approximately 16000 square feet (Kingsbridge subdivision). On the notes page, note 4 shows restrictions to simde story with 25 foot maximum roof height and no bonus rooms, on perimeter lots. Note 3 requires 25 foot rear setback. Just as important, but not shown is the approved 5 foot berm with 6 foot vinyl fence atop and 6 foot coniferous trees every 20 feet. All of these screening measures in the name of a fair transition between a concentrated subdivision and adjacent mu1tiple~ acre home sites. Thank you - . ~ J- Philip and Judy 3405 Zaldia Lane Meridian Id.. 83642 L? :J- ~O m :J (f) I W. II I ~ ..... S" 0) ~ , "'" ...J 0.. Z :J - ..... t") cxi I() CO ('\/ ~ (0 "- I t"'" CO I. 3= t"'" CO _ o(f) " t"'" ~ \-..... ~ Z t"'" , 0 ~ ~ ~ 3= t"'" ~ .~'~9 M.6s.r~.~... ~.. U -"v- UlL ~: ~ ~ " :al ~ .zs.te6~ (l T~ M::;s,IT.oos I ~ ~ ~ .~\t~: ~1~ ,5 m " ~~~ ) ~.:t ~ Z 10 a - m ... I (f) r 0) I '5 CD en - ,- w I~ 0 -.L _ w s:.. e,,J I\. ~ ~~~ 't!.. \,1 ~ <t: (f)lIlll "" I~, -I . A 13: ~~. 't :J ~ ~ ~ ~ \.... = to lr tJ '" ~ ~l " ~ ....,. .. ~ ~~~'"' ~\t'. 0) CX) 12 I 1 V lco I, t"'" cn_ _ _ Z .990099 -- -- -.S90099 3..r ~.L~.OON- - - "'-- , ~ '-.O~oLZrL 3..rL.Lr.00N-, _ , ----./ cO. Z W o ..J <( N l\ '-v ~ () CL () ~ ~ ~ to t"'" " ....,) ~ ~ ~ ....... ..~ \. . <') .... y........... "2 ~ -::~: . _. f.:) -.q. z Vl ro N . en 9roLZrL 3..B9.9r.OON (J) N I: d n~z n()~ .00.. CJ) ~ () N ""~ "-:".' "f4') . 0- . '''" - a I")~ ~,:-'. .'r!"" _I :. m I ra I 0 I 0 . i I I I 1/4 SECllON UNE 1/16 SECll0N UNE MATCH UNE ~lnT~~- ---------- ~ 1.DEVEJ..OPUENT IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHAlL CONFORM TO lHE APPUCABLE ZONING REGULAll0NS OF 1HE MERIDIAN IN EFFECT AT lHE liME OF ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. BUIlDING SETBACKS AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHAlL CONFORM TO lHE APPU ZONING REGULAl10NS OF lHE C1lY OF' MERIDIAN OR AS ALLOWED BY CONDlllONAL USE. 3. ALL PERIMETER LOTS IN lHlS SUBDIVISION HAVE A MINIMUM 25 FOOT REAR YARD SET-BACK. EXCEPT 1 LOTS WHICH BECOME IMlERIOR Af1ER FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT. 4. LOTS 3-5. BLOCK 1. L015 s-.e. BLOCK 3. LOT 21, BLOCK J. AND LOTS 2-5. BLOCK 7 SHAlL BE RESl TO A SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE Wl1HA MAXIMUM PEAK OF 25 FEET AND A 10:12 MAXIMUM PITCH. WllH N( ROOMS IN 1lIE AT11e SPACE. .' 5. lHE UINUJM HOUSE SIZE FOR SINGlE STORY DWEllJNGS IS 2.000 SQUARE FEET. 1HE MINIMUM HOUSE : TWO STORY DWELUNGS IS 2.400 SQUARE FEET. ) 6. DIRECT LOT'R-ACCESS TO EAGlE ROAD IS PROHIBITED. 7. LOTS 8. 9 AND 16 BLOCK 1. LOT 1 BLOCK 2. LOTS 1. 11, 12. 15-17. AND 25 BLOCK 3. LOT 1 BLOCK BLOCK 5. LOT l BLOa< 6. LOT 1 BlOCK 7, LOT 1 BLOCK a. LOT 1 BLOCK 9, LOT 1 BLOCK 10. AND LOT 1 C1/4 11. ARE LANDSCAPE LOTS TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY lHE KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA 11ON~ it) ..... .0 : ('II i'" .- ~ :3= . '('101 :('1 '0. - ~ VJ ~ ) ;, ',j, or- ,., ... ('II .., .... 1/4 8. LOT 9 BLoa< 1 AND LOT 16 BLOCK 3 WIlL BE ~ED AND MAINTAiNED BY lHE KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVlSk HOMEOWNERS ASSOaATION. 9. LOT 13. BLocK 1, IS A 'LANDSCAPE AND PARK LOT 10 BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY lHE K1NGSBRIDG SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATOIN 10. AMY RESUBDlVlSlON OF 1ltIS PLAT OR PORllONS lHEREOF SHALl. COMPLY \MlH lHE APPUCABLE ZONIt REGULA110NS IN EFFECT AT lHE TIME OF THE RESUBDlVlSlON. 11. THIS DE'JEl.OPMENT RECOGNIZES SECTION 22.4503 IDAHO CODE (lHE RIGHT TO FARM Ae1') WHICH STA" PART -NO AGRlCULlURAL OPERATION OR AN APPURlENANCE TO IT SHALL BE OR BECOME A NUISANCE. PR puauc. BY ANY CHANGED CONDllIONS IN OR ABOUT THE SURROUNDING NONAGRICUL lURAL ACTlVlllES AF1I SAM!:: HAS BEEN IN OPERAllON FOR MORE THAN ONE cn 'tEAR. WHEN lHE OPERATION WAS NOT A NUI~ lHE TIME lHE OPERA liON BEGAN: PROVIDED. lHA T lHE PROVISIONS OF lHlS SECTION SHAlL NOT APPLY ,. A NUISANCE RESULlS FROM THE IMPROPER OR NEGUGENT OPERAllON OF ANY AGRlaJLlURAL OPERAllON ( APPURTENANCE TO IT.. 12. ALL OF LOT 16 BLOCK 1. AU.. OF LOT 1 BLOCK 11. lHE WEST PORllON OF LOT 1 BLOCK 5 AND llE 11 PORTION OD LOT 1 BLOCK 6 AS SHOWN ARE S10RM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR lHE 8ENEF1T Of lliE ADA HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND SHALL REMAIN FREE OF AU.. ENCROAOiUENTS AND OBSlRUCl1ONS (INCLUDING FEN! lREES) WHICH MAY ADVERSEL. Y AFfECT DRAINAGE OR THE OPERATION AND MAIN"fENANCE OF lHE DRAlNAG FAClUTY. 13. ALL LOlS \\'IlHlN lH::: SUBlVlSlON HAVE A unuTY. DRAINAGE AND IRRlGAllON EASEMENT AS FOlJ.OWS: \\'IDE ALONG lHE SUBDIVISION. BOUNDARY AND Snct.t.1 RlGHlS-OF-WAY; "fEN FOOT WIDE. CENTERED ON 1 INlERIOR LOT UNES. lHOSE LOTS ABUTnNG lHE SUBDIVISION PHASE UNE HAW: A 1EN FOOT WIDE UllU1Y. AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT ALONG THE PHASE UNE UN11L SUCH liME AS THE ADJOINING PHASE IS RECORI THE 1EN FOOT WIDE EASEMENT WILL BE CENlERED UPON 1HE PHASE UNE. 14. TliERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 13 AND 14 BLOQ( 3 FOR lHE BENEFIT Of SAID LOlS ' THERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 19. 20 AND 21 BLOCK 1 FOR 1HE BENEflT OF SAID LOlS . AND 21. THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHAll. REMAIN FREE OF IMPROvEMENlS THAT INHIBIT ACCESS AND SHAL MAINTAINED BY 1HE KlNGSBRIOOE SUBDIVISION HOME~ERS ASSOCIAlION. . BASIS OF BEAR.INGS lHE BASIS Of BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS BETWEEN THE FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT MARKING THE NORlHWEST CORNER OF SECllON 28. TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH. RANGE 1 EAST. BOISE MERIDIAN. AND lHE FOUND BRASS C~ MONUMENT MARKING lHE 14 CORNER COMMON TO SECllONS 21 AND 28' WHI BEARS SOUTH 89.36.03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2.657.34 FEET. CERTlFICA TE NOTE CERllF1CA llON AND CERllFY AS USED HEREIN MEAN TO STATE OR DECLARE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF CONDITIONS REGARDING lHOSE I:'A"'~ nD I:INnIN~ w,..un-t ARF THF SlJRJFCT OF THE: CERllF1CAllON. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 43 of 72 0vtcLudJ iJJI NfLPVU SvJ:J pac to-t fhl 'P ht. ( /)~ 6i..nc;-L<. . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of a school lot and single family residential lots, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include staff comments from their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 17: 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 Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 18: 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 Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that application. Our next item is our final project for the evening, Public Hearing P\Z. 04-023, a request for annexation and zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the propose Kingsbridge Subdivision by Visions First, LLC. And Public Hearing PP 04-030, request for preliminary plat approval of 237 single family residential lots and 21 common lots by proposed -- well, is that correct? R-8? Get some clarification on that. And Public Hearing CUP 04-032, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions in the minimum requirement for lot size, street frontage, and block length. Again, we will open all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It appears to be a typo on the agenda. Borup: On the preliminary plat? Siddoway: Yes. The requested zone is R-4. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 44 of 72 Borup: That's -- that was what my understanding was. Siddoway: I'd also point out that there is a correction to the acreage. It's very slight, but the agenda shows 76.72, which was their original stated acreage, but we had them submit revised legal descriptions that changed it to 76.777. So, it's just slightly larger. But the 76.777 is the acreage shown on the revised legal description, just for the record. Location of the subject property is on the east side of Eagle Road, about halfway between Victory and Amity Roads. You can see the surrounding subdivisions. They include Dartmoor Subdivision to the immediate west. To the north is Golden Eagle Estates. To the east is Bridlewood Subdivision. To the south is Koontz Hollow, and Zaldia's Ruwa Subdivision is to the south. All the property within this square mile is currently in the county. Their point of contiguity with the city is right at this corner. They are touching the corner of the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision project and that is what gives them their path for annexation. This is the aerial photo view. You can see the subdivision at Tuscany Lakes across the street. Dartmoor Subdivision immediately to the west. And, then, the surrounding lots, which are roughly five acres in size, mostly one to five acre lots surrounding the property. This is the Comprehensive Plan. Again, to orient you, the subject property is in this area. The northern two-thirds of the project is shown as low density residential. The southern third of the project is shown as medium density residential. There are 237 proposed building lots and 23 common lots. The gross density of the proposed project is 3.09 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 3.88. And I'll follow up on that in just a moment when I get into some of the findings. The project is a planned development. They are requesting reductions to the minimum lot size for the R-4 zone. The minimum lot size for R-4 is 8,000 square feet. They are requesting a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Minimum lot frontage is 80 feet. They are proposing a minimum of 70 feet. And, then, block length, they are proposing to exceed the minimum -- or the maximum 1,000 foot block length within the subdivision to allow for the streets as proposed, their longest being approximately 1,300 feet. In the past the Commission has asked for a breakdown of how many of the lots are being reduced and by how much and on page two of the staff report there is a breakdown, which I don't need to read the entire thing, but roughly half of the lots are smaller than the 8,000 square foot lot size and the other half are larger than. The average lot size is just over 8,500 square feet for the subdivision. They do have a mix of lot sizes, many of the smaller lots internal and some of the larger lots on the west and north side of their project. Going to the landscape plan. They are proposing several amenities with their project, including ten percent open space, a swimming pool, clubhouse, basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, and barbecue stands in a central community park. There is also a second park connected by a micro-path up in this location pictured here. That's difficult to see, but it includes a gazebo in it as well. As I mentioned, the micro-paths connect them. The Ten Mile feeder canal runs along the -- about the midpoint of the project in this location and they are proposing to improve that with landscaping and a pathway. They do have a boulevard entry with no lots that front on it. There is a landscaped entry with a bridge that crosses the Ten Mile feeder canal and, then, runs into the open space park just above it. They are proposing ornamental streetlights, detached sidewalks, street trees, and they are proposing to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 45 of 72 increase the minimum house size from the standard 1,400 square foot of the zone to 1,600 square feet. One of the main issues or legal questions associated with this project has to do with the fact that this property is part of a non-farm development that was done in Ada County. The property for the Dartmoor Subdivision was originally platted in 1994. As part of that subdivision these acre lots were platted. The remainder was dedicated as open space at that time, with a 15-year open space restriction. It has been staff's understanding of Ada County code that if property is annexed or urban services are made available, the open space restriction is no longer in force and the city's conditions take effect. Now, that point is disputed and there are -- this is the first time a non-farm subdivision has come to the city. So, this is a new issue for us. I did speak with city attorney Bill Nichols about this issue and he suggested that we add the condition of approval to the plat. I'm going to skip forward and reference that for you right now, It's on page eight of the staff report at the bottom. It's site-specific condition number two. He did make the determination that the city could move ahead on the annexation if the Commission and Council so choose, but he recommended conditioning any approval such that they have to either have written approval by a majority of the Dartmoor Subdivision homeowners or a favorable decision by the district court saying that they have a developable lot prior to submitting a final plat. I believe that is the one condition that the applicant has the biggest issue with and wishes to discuss tonight. So, I point out that one in particular. Any questions on that before I go on? Zaremba: Yeah. I had -- I was going to ask for a clarification on just exactly what's included in the non-build agreement. Is it this entire upper area? Siddoway: The entire upper area, yes. The lower two parcels are separate from that. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Staff does agree that they -- there are many things that make this a quality subdivision, which you will see tonight. They have one of the largest list of amenities that I have seen and I believe the major issue tonight is not necessarily the quality, but the quantity or the density that is being proposed and that's one of the issues we have to wrestle with tonight. I will go through some of the findings, beginning on page four, item A, this one deals with the Comprehensive Plan and just point out that they are requesting the one step density increase for about two-thirds of the project. That would be the area currently shown as low density, that they would propose to be a medium density per the Comprehensive Plan. Our definition in the Comprehensive Plan is that medium density is three to eight dwelling units per acre. They are just over three. So, they are at the low end of medium density, but, nonetheless, a medium density. There is also, I would point out, a note on the Comprehensive Plan that allows an applicant to request a one step change in density without requiring a Camp Plan amendment, but it does have to be justified and considered by the Commission. Next I will skip to item D. The finding D asks has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. I note that this may be one of the most difficult findings as the property is surrounded by one to five acre lots. I did note that Tuscany Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 46 of 72 Lakes just to the west is platted at about 2.4 dwelling units per acre at a gross density and that the density that they are proposing, which is 3.09, is just slightly higher than that, but quite a bit lower than the surrounding properties. However, as a medium density project, it's clearly within the range for a medium density project and moving back to the Comprehensive Plan -- where did that go? Right here. Additional medium density in this yellow is anticipated by the plan to the south. Next I would skip over to page six on Finding I, which asks if there is any uses that may be detrimental. I think that the traffic impacts on Dartmoor Drive, which goes through the existing Dartmoor Subdivision, is likely to be one of the major issues for tonight. The applicant has done a traffic impact study, which I have asked that they review the findings of tonight. I also believe they have come with a proposed change to this layout that would reduce the number of vehicle trips. I would point out in item G I did say that ACHD staff report has not been received yet. It still has not been received. I did talk with ACHD yesterday, but they have not held their tech review, they have not written a staff report, and it has not gone to the ACHD commission. So, I would request that the -- we should go ahead and have the hearing tonight, but I believe that the issue should at least be continued until we are in receipt of ACHD's final findings. Going over just a couple of the conditions of approval. Number six on page nine asks that a -- it goes over the fencing plan and I would point out that they are proposing a 20 foot wide common lot along the north boundary to provide a buffer between these lots and the larger lots to the north. That 20 foot buffer also continues along the east boundary down to the stub street and we -- at the request of the police department, we have requested that the fencing along the back of those lots adjacent to the common lot be restricted to four feet in height, solid, with the ability to do two feet of lattice on the top, so that the common lot doesn't become a no-man's land and can be -- have some natural surveillance from the surrounding properties. The plan also does not depict any fencing along the east boundary south of the stub and we have asked that they include that. And, then, there has been quite a few comments or questions that I'd just ask the applicant to respond to as part of their presentation about the proposed fencing along the south side. The landscape plan shows it as wrought iron. I know many of the homeowners wish to have it screened and would ask for solid fencing in that location. The last things I want to go over are the special considerations. There is only a few. There is four. And, then, I wanted to go over one condition of the fire departments. But on page 12 are the special considerations. The first one deals with the open space and lot removal. The large central park is in this location right here. There is two lots that front it right there that we have asked to be removed. We feel like it would open up that open space quite a bit as you come across the bridge and into the subdivision. Item number two deals with setbacks. There were no requested reductions to street side setbacks or rear setbacks, but the plat has a table on it that shows ten-foot street side setbacks and five foot rear setbacks, which is smaller than ordinance. So, we have asked the applicant to clarify whether they intend to abide by ordinance for those setbacks or they are requesting reductions and we can have them clarify that at the hearing tonight. Item number three deals with stub streets. Being surrounded by large lot subdivisions, there is not much opportunity for stub streets. They are proposing one to the west or -- sorry, to the east in this location. Generally, we would try to get stub streets in all directions and we have asked the Commission to consider and the applicant to talk about their investigation of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 47 of 72 opportunities for any additional stub streets or if any of the adjacent homeowners would want such a thing, but one potential location was to the north -- there is a stub street -- not a stub street, I'm sorry, there is a cul~de-sac to the north here that is Terry Drive, that if this area were to ever redevelop, it's conceivable that it could connect out that way as well. The last item deals with storm water pond design. Going to the landscape plan. Here. Okay. Yes. This is the northwest corner. Sorry, it's all -- it's broken up into pieces, but the northwest corner of the project includes a storm water lot. It shown with a gravel access drive and 40 feet of cobble and we would just ask that they comply with the landscape ordinance in that location and it also showed fencing cutting it off from the 20-foot landscape buffer and we have asked that they make sure that those are connected through. The only fire department condition that I wanted to point out that's kind of above and beyond standard is the first one that says that a fire flow analysis modeling will be required and that if any point, specifically Lot 11, Block 6, which is the far northeast corner of the property, if any of it's less than 1,000 gallons per minute for fire flow, then, that water will have to be looped through Dartmoor Subdivision and out to the water mains in Eagle Road to keep a consistent water -- fire flow available. That's alii have at this point. You have many letters, I count at least 23 from residents surrounding with concerns and, as you can see, the room's filled tonight, so I'll stand for any questions and move on with the hearing. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Zaremba: I have no questions. Borup: Okay. Maybe just a quick question on Dartmoor Drive. It appears that there is only one lot that would have access to Dartmoor? Is that your understanding or do you know? Siddoway: With a driveway? Borup: Right. Siddoway: I am -- well, I'm not sure. Most of them take access off of the cul-de-sacs, but -- Borup: That's what it looked like. Siddoway: We could ask the homeowners association, maybe, about that. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Elliott: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Elliott, E-I-I-i-o-t-t, I am legal counsel for Vision First, LLC, the applicant. I'd like to begin Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 48 of 72 tonight by putting a revised site plan in front of you that staff did not have the advantage of reviewing at the time the staff report was written and submitted, because it was -- the revision was made in response to ACHD's comments that we received on Friday. So, we have just drawn it up. We think that -- we hope that it will make the Dartmoor neighbors feel more comfortable about this project going in next to them, but I'd like to submit it to the clerk. Borup: Does staff have one that they can put on their overhead? Okay. Elliott: We will have it on Powerpoint, but I thought it would be helpful for each of you to have one in front of you. Just an introduction, because we are new to the community and to the state. Vision First was founded by Randy Quarno in 1998 after an 18 year career in city planning, project management with an engineering firm, and as CEO of a large residential development firm in Portland, Oregon. The company had its headquarters in Vancouver, Washington, until 2003, and we have opened an office in Eagle just about a year ago. We have two communities under construction in Nampa, Vista Ridge and Creekside Park. A third project in Caldwell that is just in final review prior to construction of phase one. I'd like to begin tonight by talking a bit about the non- farm use covenant, because I think that the record, we hope, includes two letters that were written, one by Robert Burns on behalf of the neighborhood, and a response written by Ed Miller of Given Pursley, that was submitted bye-mail this afternoon. Do the Commissioners, indeed, have both those letters in your packets? I guess I could ask the clerk if that got to you and whether it was -- the attachments were forwarded to the Commissioners. Zaremba: That doesn't sound familiar to me. Newton-Huckabay: No, it doesn't to me either. Zaremba: I have read the package thoroughly. I don't think those are there. Elliott: It would be an addendum that would have been added this afternoon, early afternoon, bye-mail from Givens Pursley. Johnson: I haven't seen anything come in. Elliott: Okay. Well, I have one original of it, I'll submit it at the conclusion of the hearing into the record, but the city attorney, we understand, has reviewed both letters and is ready to make a brief comment on it. I'd just like to say, though, that Mr. Nichols' initial recommendation of the condition of approval was based just on Mr. Burns' letter, which was written last May to one of the neighbors. We only received a copy of Mr. Burns' letter on Monday of this week. We looked carefully through the covenants of Dartmoor and determined that his letter and analysis left out a couple of critical points. There is specific language in the -- on page one of the declaration that's attached to the letter that we submitted that states each owner, which is talking about the Dartmoor -- the 15 Dartmoor owners, shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 49 of 72 exclusion of said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2. Our property is Lot 11 of Block 2. And consents to the re-subdivision and development of those two lots in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect, including such re-subdividing and development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, will be provided by the public rights of way within Dartmoor Subdivision. We submit that based on the waiver of each of those landowners when they purchased their lot and built their homes, we already have unanimous consent of Dartmoor for this project and with public access through Dartmoor. That being said -- that being said, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have attempted to design a project and redirect traffic in such a way that the impact on Dartmoor will be minimized. You will see a cul-de-sac just to the west of the park. Prior to last Friday when we met with ACHD, that street connected through to Kingsbridge Drive, the main entry boulevard along the southerly part of the project. We obtained the fire department's consent to limit Dartmoor Drive to an emergency only access cut through and had, in fact, drawn up a plan that had a gate and signage. ACHD reviewed that plan and said it does not comply with ACHD's code. If we had more than 100 lots, we have to have two public access points and so with the original plan of Dartmoor, the street was stubbed out and it contemplates connection into the back 56 acres of the project, that being Lot 11. So, we have connected it, but we have made a cul-de-sac and by doing that our traffic report establishes that the trips that otherwise would be going through Dartmoor are cut in half from 800 vehicle trips per day to 400. And I'd like to submit the design of the cul-de-sac and a traffic quieting bulb that we have created at the end of their -- Dartmoor cul-de-sac, along with the revised traffic study from Dolby Engineering based on that cul-de-sac. And I would hope the city attorney might chime in at anytime appropriate, but we'd like to continue now with our presentation. The site meets all criteria for annexation to the city. It is within the Meridian city impact area. It is within the urban service planning area, and as the staff report noted, it is contiguous point to point to the Meridian city limits. We are seeking a planned development and, as the staff report noted, there are many amenities. We have a split zone between these two portions of the project and by blending the density across the 76 acres and we can get down to an average density of just over the low rural density residential standard of three units per acre. We end up at 3.09, where if we did two straight subdivisions, we could have up to eight acres -- or eight units per acre on the south section and, then, three per acre on the north section. Let me try to get -- we will go back to -- to contiguity and the justification for annexation. We are contiguous to what I read on the map -- perhaps it's changed, but Messina Village Subdivision NO.1. We meet it at the center of Eagle Road. This discusses the split density in the future land use map between the two sections of the property. Again, the north portion is low density; the south portion is medium density. Where we are asking for a step up in zone on the north portion, we are, in effect, asking for a step down on the south, and blending density throughout the project to create a harmonious community. We think that that's far preferable than putting a medium density project, up to eight units per acre, out the south part that would, otherwise, be allowed by the plan. We also added the south 20 acres to the project, because it gives us that access point, so we don't have to take the bulk the traffic through Dartmoor. With the 20 acres to the south, we can -- we can build the Kingsbridge entryway. It meets ACHD spacing requirements and with the stop signage within the project we will be directing the lion's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 50 of 72 share of the trips out through that entryway. You can see here the figures that with two separate subdivisions under the present future land use map, we could have up to 160 lots on the south 20 acres, 168 lots on the north 56 acres, so a total of 328. With the planned development we hope the Commission will agree that blending the density across that line and ending up with a density that's far closer to the lower end than the high end, will meet our requirement under the Comp Plan to show compatibility and harmony with the neighboring property. As I mentioned, the step up zoning of the north 56 acres to an R-4 zone would permit this planned development. The blended density is only slightly higher than three units per acre, which would have been permitted outright on the future land use map on the north 56 acres. In summary, Kingsbridge is a planned development with 236 units proposed. One other accommodation we made to a neighbor to the southeast in the Koontz Hollow Subdivision immediately adjacent to our bridge, they are building a brand new home tucked up into the corner of their five acre lot, she asked that we consider limiting the cul~de-sac that's directly adjacent to her lot from five lots to four and we have redesigned it to just have four lots. We believe that the low density of 3.09 units per acre provides a transition to the medium density residential use that is called for in the Comp Plan map, both to the west side of Eagle Road in Tuscany and for future development of the properties to the south. We feel that Kingsbridge meets all conditions for preliminary plat approval. We conform to the applicable criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. Public utilities are available to the site. Water and sewer exist in Eagle Road and we will be extending those services into the property through our flag pole, which is also the point of contiguity, we will be able to bring utilities in adjacent to the Ten Mile feeder canal without tipping any sort of annexation decision for Dartmoor and because we will be extending all the public utilities, we also will be improving the Eagle Road frontage, widening it to provide an acceleration-deceleration lane and a left turn turning pocket southbound. We think that ~- that that will ease the traffic flow on Eagle Road and will further encourage our future residents to use the main entryway on their way home from work, rather than cutting off through Dartmoor. We also plan to strategically place stop signs with the project to create Kingsbridge Drive as a through route both to and from work. As you will hear, no doubt, in the minutes or hours ahead, the two main concerns that we have heard expressed by the Dartmoor neighbors are, first, the compatibility of this urban density project with a rural community and, secondly, is the traffic mitigation. First, the compatibility issue. We have attempted to address that by locating oversized lots immediately adjacent to Dartmoor. We have a total of eight lots that adjoin Dartmoor. They range in area from 12,000 square feet to 19,000 square feet. The average lot size is about 15,000 square feet or over one-third of an acre. Staff discussed our perimeter landscape buffers and privacy fencing. We will abide by the recommendations of the police department and design it in such a way that those become landscape amenities without being a danger to folks using them. We have detached streets and sidewalks throughout the project. You can see on the plan map there is an eight-foot wide landscape buffer between the streets and sidewalk on each side and street trees will be planted throughout the project. The Dartmoor project is also close to open space and the landscape pads that we are going to install along the Ten Mile feeder canal, we have also agreed with the neighborhood that we would pipe the tail ditches to eliminate or reduce, at least, the weed problem that they have with the ditches right now. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 51 of 72 second concern is traffic mitigation. I see my light is yellow. The fear is hundreds of trips coming through the Dartmoor neighborhood from Kingsbridge and we believe the traffic study, based on the new cul-de-sac design, establishes that we will only be adding 400 to the existing 200 trips per day that Dartmoor generates. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: May I just say our traffic engineer is here, Pat Dolby, and if the Commission has questions on the traffic mitigation, he will be prepared to answer them. Borup: Okay. Mr. Elliott, let's see if any of the Commissioners have any questions for you at this time. Zaremba: I had one. I need clarification on Lot 11, Block 2. Elliott: Yes. Zaremba: I didn't quite understand the timing of the -- whatever it was you were reading from. It sounds to me like the Ada County planning and zone commission and Ada County commissioners said on the one hand that the -- that lot and block could not be developed for 15 years and, then, at the same time said that as soon as any of the other lots were sold that didn't count. Where did you get the timing on that? I can see that 15 years later it could be deemed that those lots had agreed that 15 years later it wouldn't count, but how did you interpret that that meant immediately when the lots were sold? Elliott: The statement that you're referring to, Mr. Chairman, is -- or, I'm sorry, Commissioner Zaremba, is the note nine on the plat of Dartmoor. It makes specific reference to the Ada County open space code provisions that were, then, in effect. What those provided and now provide is that upon the extension of publiC utilities to the property that is being held as open space and provided that it be developed at a density that's no greater than five units per acre, the property owner is able to go ahead and file an application and if the project is in compliance with the code at that time, which is now April of 2004, then, the property can be redeveloped in accordance with the plan and code. Subsequent to the county's approval of the plat, when the developer wrote up declarations of restrictive covenants for the project, recorded that document, each of the landowners after the project was built, then, took their lots subject to the declaration. The declaration is what further qualifies the plat note by saying that no matter what the county code says about it, we, as the purchasing owners, waive our right to object to future development of Lot 11, provided that that development complies with the code that exists at the time of the development and that's why we are here. We feel that this application is supported by the open space code that existed back then and as modified now. The other key events that have happened since 1994 are the area of impact agreement. This land is within the area of impact, it is now contiguous to the city limits because of the expansion of Meridian to the south and it has public utilities in Eagle Road out front, all three of those are the criteria for annexation. So, we meet the criteria of annexation. The staff has said that the city's opinion and the opinion of our counsel is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 52 of 72 that once the land is approved for annexation, then, the city code and plan govern development, not the old county code that existed prior to the area of impact agreement. So, we think that under the pure language of the note we can go forward, but even if that were called into question, the Dartmoor neighbors have agreed to this development, provided we can show that we are in compliance with the laws that exist now. And I'd like to submit that letter and the attachments, since you all did not have the benefit of any advance reading. Borup: Okay. Mr. Elliott, had there been any consideration to reducing the amount of lots, just to comply with the three per acre? Elliott: Well, we feel that on balance we have 20 acres of land, which is almost a third of the site, that is zoned for -- from anywhere from three to eight units per acre. Borup: And that's why it applies to the -- not zone, but -- Elliott: Plan. I'm sorry. In the future -- that's correct. In the future land use plan. But it calls for medium density development, rather than low density. We thought that because we need the access through the south, that it makes a better access point and a better neighborhood by blending the density, rather than having high density at the entryway and low density on the back. So, as a result we come up with 3.09, which, as the staff pointed out, is at the very low end of the medium density. Borup: And did you verify that 3.09 or staff come up with that number? Elliott: We calculated it and I believe staff concurs with it. Borup: I may have done something wrong. I came up a little bit different. I will double- check. Elliott: I believe if we divide 200 -- well, 237, now 236 lots, into 77 -- or 76.77 acres, it will come up real close to that number. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Not right now. Elliott: Thank you. Borup: I get 3.25. I just tried it again. I still get 3.25. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, are you using the total lots, including the common lots, or just the building lots? Borup: 236. The number he just spoke. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 53 of 72 Siddoway: Because I -~ I'll double-check it, too, because I had and I thought it was correct, so -- Borup: Okay. Okay. This is the time we have for public testimony. We'd like to proceed. There is -- I think we went over kind of our guidelines at the beginning. There is one aspect I didn't mention and that is if there is a representative for a subdivision, neighborhood association or someone that would be speaking for that entire group, we do allow some extra time. I don't know if that is something that's come up. Who are you speaking for, sir? For the entire Dartmoor? So, no one else from Dartmoor would be speaking; is that correct? Well -- but that's what we are saying, if they are speaking for the entire neighborhood, we can allow some extra time. Ten minutes. If you want to go ahead and come up first, then, we will just start with you. Stott: And, then, I'll query them if I miss something in the making, tell me. My name is Rick Stott. I'm a resident of Dartmoor. I live on 3684 South Caleb Place in Meridian and we have been having a dialogue with the developers for quite some time. Borup: Before we start, let's establish now long we are going to be speaking here. You're representing how many people? Stott: Fifteen homes. Borup: Okay. And they have all designated you as their spokesman? Stott: More or less. Yes. Borup: Anybody here that does not? Stott: That's a good question. Borup: That lives in Dartmoor. Okay. No one raised their hand. I think that answers that. Thank you. Stott: They twisted my arm to be here, so ~- yeah, my wife wanted me to do it, too, so didn't have much choice. I can ignore the neighbors, but I can't ignore the wife, so -- are we ready? Borup: Yes. Stott: Okay. We have been having discussions with the developers for quite sometime and to a large degree our requests and concerns have been ignored, with the exception of the most recent addition, which is quite amazing that it would show up on the day of the hearing and not allow for real review and response, but I'll do my best wing it as I can. As has been mentioned, there are, basically, three issues at hand. One is the impact of the rural character of this area. This is not only concerning Dartmoor, but all, if -- many, if not all of the neighbors surrounding this subdivision. The second issue is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 54 of 72 the traffic and the third issue is the legal rights that the Dartmoor Subdivision has, the owners of that division have. On the first point, the impact of the rural character. There are two main things. One is the density of the house and the second is the lack of the buffer zones. And the density of the houses, it certainly doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan of less than three -- R-3. And, in fact, it's closer up in medium density and as your calculation is 3.25 or 3.08, that's not really all that relevant in that it's in the lower end of the medium density, therefore, it's justified. The realty is that every property around that is up to 20 acres and ours is the smallest at one. So, going from one acre to over three is a huge transition and is definitely contrary to what the environment is in that area and the character of that area. In fact, close to 50 percent, as was pointed out by your staff -- and I want to compliment your staff on the fine job of outlining the issues at hand. But as was pointed out, close to 50 percent exceed the R- 4 density rating, so it's like a -- you know, I'm an accountant by trade, so numbers are kind of a thing and it's like the statistician who measured the depth of a lake at two feet and, then, fell out of his boat and drowned. You know, it's all in the numbers and that's what's happened here, is the density is a lot more intense than the 3.08. The second issue is the lack of buffer zones. In the lack buffer zones, as, again, the staff pointed out, which wasn't addressed by the representative, in their CC&Rs they say that they can have -- they can be within five feet of the back fence. That's a serious concern, particularly in our subdivision. My lot, in particular is -- Borup: Let's correct that right now. The ordinance is 15 feet and the staff brought that up just to make sure that they weren't requesting a reduction and I guess we didn't clarify that answer, but -- Stott: No, that wasn't clarified, but I suppose it will be. Borup: Well, I, for one, would not approve anything other than a 15. I'm not sure about the other Commissioners, but -- I think we probably would be safe to say that would stay at the 15. Stott: Okay. And at the 15 as well, if you look at the elevation -- for example, in my lot, which is in the -- it would be the northwest corner next to the pond, the runoff pond, my elevation is approximately 20 feet lower than the ground level where my house is. The ground at my house is about 20 feet lower than the ground level of that lot right behind us. So, having a two story house 15 feet from the back fence means that I've got no privacy into my house, because they can see clearly in to all the back bedrooms. I'm concerned. Certainly there is no buffer zones, unlike the rest of the areas, no buffer zones around the Dartmoor Subdivision. Clearly half of the Dartmoor homes, like mine, are below -- elevation is below. We have a horse, soon to have a cow in our backyard, the official mascot of the Mountain View Mavericks and I hate to see what happens -- I'm actually in the cattle business and understand how neighbors move in and don't appreciate flies and manure and smell and we clearly have that in our neighborhood surrounding the entire subdivision. So, having buffer zones, having deep lots, having people more than 15 feet away, is going to be clearly important for the new subdivision, so that there isn't future conflict. There are no fencing requirements adjacent to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 55 of 72 Dartmoor, unlike the rest of the area within the buffer zone. These are all concerns related to buffer zones. So, we propose that the lots should be consistent with the rest of the area and that is in the one or two -- R~1, R-2 kind of zoning and include buffer zones. The second issue that we have talked about is traffic. The original traffic study was, obviously, prepared and -- prepared for the person who paid them, because any driver that is on their way to work on 1-84 isn't going to go through that south entrance, they will go through Dartmoor, which represents about 75 percent of the houses. And even on this proposed, if you look -- and you look at from that -- if you were to live in this subdivision and you were to live on anything north of a line that goes along those common areas, which way would you drive to go to 1-84? I certainly wouldn't drive south -- all the way down south in through there, I would drive north through Dartmoor to get to that. And I suspect that the traffic study doesn't show that exactly, because it certainly didn't do that the first time. In fact, I calculated that rather than their calculation, that it would be over 1,700 trips a day in the regular calculation and they estimate today that under this revised that it was only 800. So, the practical nature of it that they underestimate it by 50 percent. Yeah. Four hundred now. Right? Now. But previously they had 800 and I calculated 1,700. So, they are saying 400, so I suspect that it's probably double that, in reality, or more. Not seeing it as kind of unfair to be able to make that judgment. The traffic is of serious concern for several reasons. One is the children -- we have a fair number of children in the neighborhood and one of which is -- five of which are mine and one of which is profoundly deaf and on the way to going blind and they walk through the subdivision from my house out onto Eagle Road to catch the bus. In our subdivision there are no sidewalks and the developer has proposed no sidewalks to be put in. That puts those children at significant risk when you're talking about 800, 400, I don't care how many cars that go on there, the vast majority of them are going to be in the evening and in the morning. It's a serious concern. There are no streetlights in our subdivision, so most of the time most of the school year it's dark when those kids are out there on the street. And, of course, back to the rural character, it's built that way, because it's built around a rural character and a subdivision that was built around openness, which certainly wouldn't be maintained. The solution, I guess, is a more realistic design or even a gate and, obviously, they have researched the gate -- we have a previous discussion earlier, I guess, about a gate and we would be happy to adopt that gate that you guys wouldn't allow the other ones to have, but -- but, apparently that's not a viable option. So, obviously, designing it appropriately in the real sense to be able to restrict the number of cars that will, from a practical standpoint. The last point is on this legal issue. Mr. Bob Burns prepared a letter, a review, for a clarification standpoint -- and this is from a non-attorney, so, hopefully, I can explain it the way it's been explained to me and that is that there are two issues. One is that the CC&Rs, which we signed up for, have conflicting language within that CC&R. It's very confusing. Bob Burns addressed that, unlike Mr. Elliott, said he did not, but, in fact, he did in that letter address that issue, that it is conflicting. The position that we have is not related to the CC&Rs, nor is it related to the regulations that are between the city and the county, but it has to do with common law and what the courts have said related to our rights under our deeded -- registered deeded property rights. And so those deeds were registered with that covenant in it, with that provision within it, and so it's an agreement between Lot 11 and the rest of the Dartmoor provision Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 56 of 72 that it would not be subdivided for 15 years and it's registered and deeded and so it's a legal common law issue and the covenants have conflicting language. Certainly the regulations have changed for the city and the county, we understand all that, and so we believe we have a position, enough to be able to file an injunction for the subdivision if it goes through. Mr. Burns has told us that we do a have enough position to be able to do it to that point. That is not our point. That is not our objective. It is not to stop a subdivision. We understand this will be subdivided. We understand that and fully comply. We think and believe that these developers have a quality development. We believe that if they would work with us, would listen to us, and would consider our concerns, which they have not for the last six months, then, they would perhaps work out a viable solution, one that gives them a return on their investment and gives us a neighborhood that is consistent with the rural character that it currently is. And I think that there was an opportunity here to have this as a very high level, very nice, above average neighborhood, an area in the City of Meridian that is certainly needed. This subdivision is higher density than Tuscany, which is across the street, which has very few neighbors around it. It's out of-character. The land that they propose south -- they are saying that is high density, if you look closely at those plats, there is only one piece of property south until you hit Amity that's open for real development. The rest are -- have lots on them, houses with five acres, 20 acres, so on, so forth, so -- Borup: Okay. Stott: Anyway, that's the basic -- did I miss anything? Borup: Any questions or comments from any of the Commissioners? Maybe just a couple that -- your statement on consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, I agree with that. I think one aspect we are looking at is consistency with the Comp Plan. That's what this Commission would be looking at. So, the consistency of the Camp Plan. And buffers are normally intended between unlike uses is when we talk about having buffer areas. But just also for your information, they are proposing a six foot vinyl -- tan vinyl fence along the west property line. So, there is a fence proposed around the entire subdivision. The area that the staff has talked about were some clarifications on the fences in those areas, but the fencing -- Stott: I didn't see that in the details of the -- Borup: Right. I think ~- well -- and he just mentioned that as proposed in the landscaping plan. That's why I just want to clarify that to let you know that there is fencing proposed. Stott: I would say that there is a reason for the buffer zone -- like I said, I have got a horse and many of the neighbors -- a couple of the neighbors have horses in Dartmoor. Cattle. We are in -- the CC&Rs within the new subdivision doesn't allow that. So, there is a transition. Meridian Planning 13< Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 57 of 72 Borup: Yeah. There is a vinyl fence. And I think the other thing that does provide buffer is just lot depths and normally people want their back yard to be as large as they can. With 136 foot deep lots, the houses will be up towards the street, which will add to that depth, too, but -- Stott: I can appreciate all of those things, but I think, you know, the medium -- or the low density housing is between one and three and since all of the other lots around it are five, 20, one, a consistency in that particular area for low density would be closer to one than it would be to three. And so within the Comprehensive Plan, being able to be consistent with the surrounding area and the environment around it, you know, if we were talking about houses that were already R-3 or R-4 and going from a low density to a medium density kind of thing would be certainly consistent, but when you're talking about property owners that have larger lots, the one or two R-2 would be probably more consistent with that environment and that nature in the low density. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Stott a question just for clarification? Borup: Please, Bruce. Freckleton: I just wanted to clarify; I hope I misunderstood you when you were talking about the elevation differential. Did you say that there is 20 feet of elevation differential between where this drainage lot is and your lot? Stott: My house -- and the front yard is even more, but my house is about 20 feet elevation between when I'm standing on the patio to where the house would be up above. I believe it's around 20 feet. And I haven't measured it exactly, but I know I put in a waterfall and a pond and it was a big event -~ it's a big event, they -- it's a big fall. And so it's -~ it's an elevation. And that's a concern with the -- with the retention pond as well, because -- yeah, because you got -- I don't know how it's spec'd and I don't know that, but if it's spec'd based upon a ten year event, 25 year event, or a 50 year event, you know, that would make a big difference, because, quite frankly, it's not going to go into my neighborhood -- into my yard, but it's going to go into Brady's yard, I can guarantee. We have already had that event several times from irrigation water and so -- and there is no place to go, other than through his house, perhaps, or around it and into the ditch and then -- anyway, it's a whole elevation issue. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? We'll just have you each come on up just as soon as the one is finished. Becker: Commissioners, my name is Lisa Becker, I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. If you could put my first slide up, please. The first thing I'd like to let you know is that the developer did not contact or discuss any of this with either the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 58 of 72 Briarwood or Bremerton Subdivision. We found out about it first from your notice. I wanted to familiarize you with the character of the area. If you could move it down a little bit, please. We have five-acre estate lots that are just to the east of this development. The developer has actually clustered his highest density lots along our property line, 7,000 -- or 7,000 acre -- or feet lots. And I wanted to point out the Comprehensive Plan talks about how existing land use development patterns provide the basis for future land use development, so I wanted to give you a feel for the density in that area. These are all five-acre estates, ranging in value from about 400,000 to 750,000 dollars. The next slide, please. The Comprehensive Plan also discusses buffer or transition densities. The plan for appropriate uses within rural areas requires new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential provide landscape, screening, or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot size to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural level densities and I quoted the goal there, Goal 1-0. The Kingsbridge Subdivision also has one other issue that we are concerned about, so we are very concerned about the transition of densities between our five-acre lots and the smallest lots that they have proposed for this development along the eastern edge. Our second issue is a proposed stub street. In his proposal he indicates that the interior street is stubbed at the easterly boundary to provide further connectivity to Victory Road. We want you to be aware of an agreement that was developed when the neighborhood went in and it says the developer shall extend South Selatir as a dead end cul-de-sac within the interior of the residential lots with no reservation right of way easement over the residential lots for future expansion of the street to other properties. That is a dead end cul-de-sac and the property all around it is owned. So, if the developer thinks that he's going to go down Selatir Road to get to Victory, we feel like we have a legally defensible argument against that. So, I would be happy to just urge you to follow your Comprehensive Plan and I wanted to compliment you on it, I thought it was well written, it gave me good guidance on what I can expect from you as far as the decisions that we will get out of you and my final comment, just a little political one, I have lived in Idaho all my life, I'm proud of living in Meridian, I think we have a beautiful area here and we just don't want Meridian to look like the ugly step- sister to Eagle. Borup: Thank you. Becker: Do you have any questions? Can you put the plat up and I'll just show you where our lots are. Borup: You said you're to the east. Becker: Five acres are all along here. So, he's put the smallest density lots along our property line. Borup: Thank you. Becker: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 59 of 72 Johnson: My name is Daniel Johnson, I reside at 3501 South Selatir Place. My almost six acres has about 400 foot of frontage on the east boundary of this development. I understand this developer is new to the area. It shows, because around here we don't just put in developments like this and just kind of talk to Dartmoor, which is kind of what happened. The largest transition lots that he's proposing abut Dartmoor and that's lovely. None of the rest of the neighbors around this developed were ever contacted, which you have heard. I don't think that's a very good idea. That's just not the way we do things here. I think that all of us that have these large acreages deserve some involvement before we get a notice to a hearing. I just haven't seen that done very often and I'm an architect and a land planner with 30 years experience. I'm a little bit shocked. The density is completely wrong. We have in this stretch of Victory -- on both sides of Victory a pretty special area that I see disappearing from the landscape of Meridian and I read in the Comprehensive Plan now there is 3,000 acres of very low density residential in the impact area. I think these properties that have been here for maybe generations that all are small farms should have some consideration by the Commission and the Council for buffers and whether that's a lot density shift from five acres to one, to a half, to whatever needs to happen, that is what is commonly done in the other markets that I have been involved in. You don't jam the highest density possible against what is going to probably stay for many many years low density, small hobby farms. That's part of the fabric of Meridian that's alluded to in -- but I also agree with Lisa Becker is a very well written Comprehensive Plan that addresses these things. The developer, who, again, is new to this area, didn't address any of that, never called any of these large acreage properties that bound this development into any sort of meeting, any sort of discussion and we are ag based. I've had up to 14 horses on my property, it's totally set up for a horse facility, I've got hot fence, and you don't put 7,000 square foot lots next to that. It's -- you know, it's just not right and I would think if this goes through, we are not saying -- and I know that you hear this all the time, gee, not in my backyard. That happens all the time with people that come up and testify. Well, I'm saying not in anybody's backyard. No one that has a five or ten or 15 or 20 acre parcel anywhere in the City of Meridian should accept that sort of density transition, because we are really not talking all this calculation, three to one, you know, 3.2, that's not what it is. We have got -- Borup: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Borup: And I -- well, okay. Well, just a statement, looking at it from the perspective of maybe this Commission and the city, that the type of applications we have been seeing in the last several months are five acre lots that are transitioning to townhouse, commercial type developments and so, yeah, sometime in the future some things do change. I don't see that in this area, but that's been -- Zaremba: I would qualify by saying that most of them have been closer to the center of the city, than -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 60 of 72 Borup: Yes. I agree. Zaremba: -- on the very far outskirts. Borup: Okay. Go ahead, sir. Seegmiller: My name is David Seegmiller, 4080 Bott Lane, and I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed that this development does not meet the goals in the Comprehensive Plan and I have some concerns about traffic issues along Eagle Road, which is currently a two-lane road. Entrances to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision and also Zaldia Drive, which is the entrance to Zaldia's Zarrua Subdivision and Koontz Hollow Subdivision. And I'd like some clarification as far as landscaping on the irrigation district right of way concerning the micro-path and what -- landscaping is proposed for the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal. There is a head gate for irrigation for the Koontz Hollow Subdivision on the south side of that Ten Mile feeder canal and that also the impact of this subdivision on the agricultural use in the area, plat for Koontz Hollow Subdivision specifically states that it is for agricultural use and the concerns that our future neighbors may have regarding that. Also, clarification of the fencing along the south side of the subdivision adjacent to the micropath on the Ten Mile feeder canal, which would be opposite the Koontz Hollow Subdivision. That's it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Depin: You might -- my name is Bradford Depin and my wife and I are building a home on Zaldia Lane right where the letter B is on the little bridge diagram here in the blank white space. We own a five-acre parcel here. We had pursued purchasing land in this neighborhood for about six years before finally securing that property last year. Of course, I'm very emotional this evening. Regarding the property here, you'd think that perhaps we all orchestrated this visit to work. Clockwise, all the way around and all of our concerns are completely consistent with the fact that the density plan -- I don't even need my notes -- places the smallest lots around the perimeter and a nice little smattering of the biggest lots right toward that left side to balance out and provide the -- I guess the balance that they were looking throughout the entire neighborhood. I'm very concerned about the fact that there has been a proposal to blend the rating of both of these neighborhoods in order to balance out the density arguments that they are finding throughout the whole neighborhood. I did, indeed, find out about this whole procedure via my neighbor who lives to my south who knows a lot of families in the Dartmoor neighborhood. So, our information about this procedure also arrived secondhand and quite a bit later than we had anticipated. I'm very concerned about my ability to operate a small farming operation and mirror what was said earlier about the smells and sounds of farmland. The other concern, I guess, is the -- to make sure that I still have water. I do, indeed, plan to irrigate. I have a big interest in the homes being built to my north. Just in regard about the value that really small lots tend to command. They tend to attract more budget minded builders and more budget minded homeowners. Quite often the smaller lots and smaller homes will attract budget minded people who only want to live in them for a few years before moving onto something bigger as their Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 61 of 72 families grow. So, I'm, therefore, very concerned about the quality of their homes, the maintenance of their property while they are planning on living there in such a short term. The rest of the considerations regarding traffic, the rest of the considerations regarding the notice of this new slide as of just today is -- I mirror everyone's feeling in this room regarding the shock value to that and the method that Mr. Elliott has put forth in presenting this latest material. I guess as far as ~- my only question would be is __ has Mr. Elliott visited the neighborhood at all? Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Well, we'll try to answer all the questions and give the applicant time to respond to those at the end. Those at the podium will have opportunity to address the Commission. Shoemaker: Okay. Thank you. My name is Frank Shoemaker and I own a five acre parcel on the south side of the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision and like those before me, I heard secondhand of the development. We were never approached with our concerns. As market dictates -- Borup: You did not -- you say you're adjoining this property? Shoemaker: On the south side -- if you look at the phase two of -- Borup: You did not get a notice? Shoemaker: No, sir. Well, we got a notice for the Meridian city department, but as far as the developer, like those before me -- Borup: Okay. All right. I understand. Shoemaker: -- we were never -- so, we had heard of the potential development that might be taking place there, but we had never been asked to our input into the project. My property is -- if I leave Zaldia Lane in the morning -- what is proposed right now are 12 residential dwellings on 7,000 square foot lots. This small of lot and their concern -- or their statement that a 1,600 square foot minimum size house will be built, dictates that only a two story building will be built on this side of the street. Therefore, as I leave my property in the morning, what I'm going to see is like driving down an alleyway and looking at 12 two story houses and it's my understanding that the covenants need to address that there should be no RV parking or campers parked in the backyard. If so, then, we have an additional detriment to the view of those on the Zaldia Lane. We now have two story houses on the property and RVs parked in the backyard. That's my view every morning as I leave my property. The developer, for a landscaping buffer, he has a see-through wrought iron fence and no landscaping. So, obviously, our concern does not matter. What I would like to see is a continuation of those lot sizes that now exist in Dartmoor to be consistent and harmonize, as the developer has stated, with those of us with five and ten acre lots. Therefore, they would continue around to that degree to where we would have the larger lots backing up to our five-acre parcels. He does make reference to larger lots butting up to Dartmoor, which I think the most is 20,000 square Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 62 of 72 feet into their one acre project as a buffer zone to kind of harmonize, which I don't understand that and, then, we come down to our phase and what we have, five acre lots and to buffer us as a harmony we have 7,000 square foot lots. It's not in line with the intent of the neighborhood and I think that should be addressed. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Who is next? It looks like we are done. No? Lewis: Like everyone else -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm Sherry Lewis. My husband and I own the 20 acres just south of the Koontz Hollow, the lot within the lot. That's -- the parcel within the larger parcel. That's our 20-acre -- we heard about it through the Dartmoor folks. We were not informed by Mr. Elliott of any proceedings that he was planning. Our first reaction was to go into pig farming. We talked about it. Our second reaction was to sell. Our third reaction is it's going to happen, so let's make it the best for everybody. I got a kick out of Mrs. Sharp earlier. We live behind a gate. I should have told her that it's a great experience. She should indulge in that. Some of the things that I'd like to address are -- we currently have a number of houses that we have to take all of our children down to Eagle Road to access the bus and the only way to accommodate the bus coming back would be for that road to be a county road and I know that that's not going to please a lot of people, but it would be a lot safer. We had an incident last year where we almost had some children hit by a car on Eagle Road. We contacted the bus department and they didn't do anything about it and we contacted ACHD and they couldn't do anything about it and they wouldn't even slow the speed limit down on Eagle. So, the only way to fix that is to make Zaldia Lane a county road. I'm not thrilled about that, but it does have line of sight for 20 years in the future, not now, 20 years in the future it does have line of sight access to Bott Lane, which is a county road accessing Cloverdale. It would be a straight through shot. I don't want it now, but I think in 20 years when I'm ready to retire, I think it would be okay and I think most of our neighbors at that time would be willing to retire at that point, too. I'd also like to know where the sewer access is going to be for the rest of us. And I, like Mr. Shoemaker, would like to see that the CC&Rs for that subdivision require that there are no campers, playground equipment, storage units or anything that exceed the height of the fence. And my proposal for the fence is that they not be the wrought iron fence that was suggested where we can see in their backyard. Down around the Boise zoo they have a large ten foot chain link fence that is covered with beautiful ivy and Honeysuckle and I think that would be a much better option for those of us that use Zaldia Lane. That's what I have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hicks: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is George Hicks. I don't live anywhere near the proposed subdivision. Some of the folks who do have asked me to come up here and speak. I'm an attorney. My address in Boise is 1471 Shoreline Drive and I'm here on behalf of some of the folks at the Bridlewood and Bremerton Subdivisions east of this development. The first thing I would like to say in the short time that I have here is that I want to, for the record, object vehemently to the last minute submittal of this different subdivision than what we were thinking we were going Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 63 of 72 to come here and talk about tonight. Secondly, I think it would be important for you all to consider that I believe, in my opinion ~- and I have only looked at this for about a week, but there are some serious legal issues that will probably be considered by the courts, unless -- and we all hope this would happen -- unless this developer is willing to work with the people who have lived around this proposed subdivision for many many years. They have developed their own lifestyle and your Comprehensive Plan is pretty clear, it seems to me, and well written, as has been said before. This subdivision just doesn't seem to fit, but it could. It could if it's, I think, planned with some help from some of the folks who live around it now. One of the points I'd like to make that hasn't been made that I know of yet and that is will the proposed use not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses and it says you're specifically -~ that the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony, oral and written, to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighborhood uses. You have heard plenty of it tonight. I hope you consider it very carefully and I would suggest that this subdivision either needs to work with the neighborhood or go back to the drawing board and I would support or urge you to recommend denial to the Council in this particular configuration. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Quick: Hi, my name is Troy Quick, I reside at 3677 South Caleb Place. I just want to make a quick comment. I just wanted clarification -- when I ran the numbers, like Chairman Borup did, I come up with the 3.25 lots per acre, not the 3.09 that has been stated on the submission. And to reiterate the fact that the Tuscany Subdivision, which is across the street, is only 2.4 and though staff said that it was only a slight increase, if you actually run the numbers from 2.4 to 3.25, you're talking about, you know, a 33 percent increase, which is not slight, that's extremely significant. I feel like that we could have a great subdivision here. I am pro sub-division, I am a building contractor and I just think in this case that a lower density of homes would match better with all the surrounding areas. And that's alii wanted to say. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Are we finished? Anyone else? Okay. No. One more Krasinski: I'm Chantelle Krasinski and we have a five acre property on the north side and I echo all the feelings tonight about the differing size of the lots. All the perimeter lots are very small. We have seven actually bordering our property. One thing that hasn't been touched on tonight is schools. This subdivision is going to be in the same school boundary for elementary and middle school and high school as Tuscany and I had gone to all the boundary -- the redistricting and redrawing of the boundary lines and already the middle school was left slightly overcrowded and they have way more students, because the projections are so far above what they thought and the elementary school as well is adding classes. So, I would just like to point out that, you know, Tuscany has a school set aside, but that's -- it's a bond issue. Any developer can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 64 of 72 set aside an elementary school, but it has to be passed by bond and the school district actually said Tuscany probably would not be the next site for an elementary school. So, that's just what I wanted to say, is to consider the density for schools as well. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Let's hold the applause until maybe the end. Do we have anyone else have anything new to add? Okay. Mr. Elliott, would you like to conclude? Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, for the record my name is Ken Elliott and I represent the applicant Vision First. The last minute cul- de-sac, rather than creating consternation in the opponents, I guess we thought would please them. That is the only change in this plan from the one that we talked with the neighbors about approximately four weeks ago. The reason the cul-de-sac is there is because our attempt to convince ACHD that the agreement the fire department made, which is what we agreed with the neighbors we would try to achieve, the emergency access only. That was rejected by ACHD based on its code. And so as of Friday we got the comments from the traffic planner at ACHD, who suggested the cul-de-sac. We think that the traffic study demonstrates that it will work remarkably well and that it cuts the trips in half from what would have occurred if we had a street connecting there. So, I guess although it may be a surprise to the opponents, I hoped that it would be a happy surprise, because we are only adding 400 trips to the existing 200 trips that come out of Dartmoor right now, the average, then, become about 40 per hour in the evening peak, which is less than one every minute and that's a long time. That's -- our traffic engineer points out that meets the street hockey threshold in old traffic engineer language, which is 500 trips per day, you can still have the kids playing street hockey in the street safely. One thing I didn't get to mention that our diagram showed is that ACHD also said that it will paint stripes on the edge of the Dartmoor Drive within Dartmoor to create a safe pedestrian path four feet wide on the pavement for the kids to walk to and from Eagle Road. So, we put in our traffic calming device at the end of the cul-de-sac, extend sidewalks up to the cul-de-sac and, then, ACHD will stripe the existing pavement. We will meet all code setbacks. I can only explain the five foot as an error on the plat note. That will be corrected and we do not intend to seek any variances to the code setbacks. The statute protects farm practices. There is an Idaho law that will put all of these new residents on notice as they are coming into an area that has some farms and they will expect that and be on notice, so the mascot of Mountain View can remain. As to Mr. Stott's traffic analysis, he didn't state any basis for 1,700 trips a day through Dartmoor, except his own opinion for that calculation. I would submit that our qualified traffic engineer is the one who should be making that judgment and we will rest on the conclusions in his report. The comments about the covenant again -- again, Mr. Burns' letter ignored the language that I read in into the record tonight. He didn't even consider the fact that the declaration contained a waiver and consent from each of the property owners. There is no conflict in the language within the declaration. If one reads it carefully, one sees that every provision that talks about the 15 lots within Dartmoor has an exception clause that says except as otherwise provided herein and, then, except as to Lot 11 and Lot 1 of Block 2. So, we think the -- if the neighbors are determined to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 65 of 72 take an injunction action to court, we are willing to defend that vehemently. We don't think that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to put itself in the place of trying to settle a private covenant and just would remind the opponents that in order to enjoin this project they need to show the court that they have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and we think the clear language of the declaration would refute that. The increase in the number of lots from our initial drawing of 224 up 236 now was because the neighbors asked us to eliminate the patio lots. We had 60 by 110-foot patio lots, the narrower frontage; we got rid of those at the neighborhood's suggestion. In so doing we created more 70s than 80s and so we ended up on average having about 13 more lots. But that was an effort to get rid of what the neighborhood considered to be undersized lots. So, to say that we have ignored the comments and suggestions and the requests of the Dartmoor neighbors, is not supported by what has happened between our first meeting with the neighbors and tonight. And I would submit that the cul-de-sac is the best evidence of our attempt to address their key concern, which was the traffic circulation. Our storm retention parcel is designed in compliance with the city code to hold back a 50-year flood event. So, if the engineers decide at a later date that because of a grade differential that that should be relocated or resized, we will certainly deal with that at the appropriate time. In response to the neighbors over on Selatir, Mrs. Becker and Mr. Johnson, it's true there are 7,000 square foot lots on our east boundary, but they are separated from the open fields on those folks' five acre estates by a 40-foot buffer and there is a 20-foot canal easement along the property line and, then, we added another 20 feet landscape buffer inside that to attempt to mitigate any adverse effects that the estate owners might feel from having smaller lots across their field. On the south side all the way along Koontz Hollow there is a 60-foot canal and easement, as you see on the plot there. So, those 7,000 square foot lots are 60 feet away from the nearest property line and that area is what we propose to improve over what is out there now and try to enhance the canal area as something that people would like to walk along, instead of just trying to keep down the weeds. The stub street to the east, we put that in and I believe there is a statement in the initial narrative that contemplated we would be looking to connect to Victory, potentially. We have analyzed the property ownership and the gentleman is correct that they did put a spite strip down alongside Selatir and so it would be very difficult to connect. There is a large acreage to the east and we are in discussions with that property owner and we hope that if we can reach an agreement to purchase that land, it would allow us to connect down to Bott Lane and, then, easterly to Cloverdale. So, our primary goal is not to go north from that stub street, but, rather, east. The Eagle Road traffic is a problem right now and ACHD knows it's a problem and they have got the widening of Eagle Road from the south end of Silverstone to Victory Lane in their project schedule for 'OS. The Victory and Eagle intersection will be improved in '06 and widening of Eagle Road between Victory and Amity south of our project is in the capital improvements plan for ACHD. In the meantime, we proposed to take care of our frontage and go ahead and widen it to three lanes to provide the necessary entrance to the project. We don't intend to build entry-level homes. We expect that these homes will be comparable to Sutherland Farms to the north of Victory, due north of this project. We expect the prices of the lots, depending on what the market does between now and when we first start selling lots, to be anywhere from 60,000 to 75,000. We expect that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 66 of 72 will support homes in the price range of anywhere from 250 to 400 thousand dollars. We don't intend entry level homes and we don't think that there will be any sag on the property values of our neighbors. Finally, for those who live on the five and ten acre estates, I guess we just have to go back to the Comprehensive Plan. We have attempted where we adjoin the one-acre lots of Dartmoor to create the large lots with large backyards. On every other perimeter we either have a buffer or the existing canals that we will be improving and we don't think that with that combined with the privacy fences, we think that we will be a good neighbor. I have one picture, I'm not sure if Michael can find it, but we read letters from the Zaldia Lane neighbors and we did realize that the landscape on our south side of the 20 acre parcels is not as extensive as elsewhere. I didn't know the reason for that when I spoke on the phone with one of the neighbors, but it's because there is going to be a pipe along that, an underground irrigation pipe, so we can't put in large trees, but what we propose is to put the privacy fence on the top of the berm and, then, have landscaping on the south side of the fence and lawn. We have got a 20-foot landscape buffer now from the right of way to our fence line, so this is the way it would be improved. We have a total elevation, then, of a three-foot high berm and a six foot privacy fence on top of it and landscaping in the backyards on the other side. So, we hope that that will present a better front to the folks on Zaldia Lane. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? I had a couple, then. The question was raised on landscaping along Ten Mile canal, if that could be clarified on what was proposed there. Elliott: Well, what we are planning is there is an existing tail ditch that goes from the corner of the field, the southwest corner of Lot 11, along the south lots of Dartmoor, we are going to put that in a pipe, underground it. That's the major weed-cultivating problem along the south side of Dartmoor. We will also, then, pipe it northerly along the Eagle Road frontage to the Dartmoor irrigation pond. It's had its way with the landscape over the past ten years and does not flow as directly as optimal and is backing up and causing problems along Eagle, so we are going to pipe that. Borup: Okay. That will be piped up to -- Elliott: Yes. Around the core of Dartmoor up to the north end of the Dartmoor entryway, that's where their irrigation pond is, so it will be piped from our southwest corner up to there. Then, over the pipe we -- with the ditch company's permission, we are going to propose that we scrape and get rid of the weed seed and, then, put in lawn and a path and have the lawn in such a way that we can take care of it with the homeowners association. We will mow it and try to restore that as a nice walking path for all the neighbors. Borup: There has been some discussion on the fence on the south. Is that the wrought iron fence that has been discussed? Was that because of the irrigation district's requirements on noncombustible? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 67 of 72 Elliott: No. As long as we keep it on our side of the property line, we can use vinyl. We thought initially that with the cleanup of the canal and the adjoining pathway that it would be more of an open feeling to have wrought iron and we hoped that this canal will be treated as an amenity and not just as a nuisance, so we suggested that originally. If the Koontz Hollow neighbors feel strongly about it, we can go to the solid vinyl subject to the recommendation of the police department that it be four and two. Borup: Okay. Elliott: Just a quick response to the neighborhood in the northwest corner of Koontz Hollow where the capital B is, he said he had never been approached by us, never talked to us, his wife was at the most recent neighborhood meeting and the result of her telling us that they are building a brand new house in that corner is that that little cul-de- sac used to have five lots and that's where we lost a lot, we at her specific request changed that from five to four to make larger, more premium lots backing up to their home. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Was there any other questions that were brought that you felt need to be answered? I have got one on the -- you had stated that originally the design had 224 lots? Elliott: Yes. Borup: And you eliminated 55 and 60-foot lots and that increased the number? Elliott: Because we had more 80-foot wide lots and a combination of 80 and 60 and so we created more -- we eliminated the 60 footers, put in a lot of 70-foot wide, and we ended up with 13 more. Borup: So you decreased the 80s? Elliott: Yes. Borup: Okay. You would have been well under the three per acre at the 224. Elliott: That is correct. Borup: I come out about 230 with that. Elliott: I did the long division again and I -- it's been a long time, but I still came out with 3.09 just now, but I wish I had a calculator. Borup: Okay. No other questions, then? Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 68 of 72 Borup: Commissioners, do we want a little discussion first or close the hearing or -- Newton-Huckabay: We should close the hearing. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of comments before we close the hearing. I appreciate -- the staff has put a lot of time in this and made some excellent suggestions about how to deal with some of the issues that are in here. I also appreciate that so many people have taken the time to participate in the process. For those of you who don't come to these meetings very often, I'd like to describe what some of our choices are. If we think that there are issues that need to be resolved and, along with those issues we feel that they can be resolved in a short space of time, we would continue this hearing to a specific date not too long from now and specify what those issues are that need to be resolved. The second choice is to close the public hearing, which ends the opportunity to make any further changes to the proposal and, then, we have two choices. One is to recommend to the City Council that they approve this and to do that we need to find that it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and some other things that have not been mentioned, that this is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to incorporate this project into Meridian and the Comprehensive Plan also has language which I believe has been brought up about transition areas. I'm well known as an advocate of high densities, but I feel that those densities need to be closer to the center of the city and I'm very comfortable with low densities as we go towards the exterior of the city, particularly as they surround existing low densities. The other choice if we close the Public Hearing is to recommend denial to the City Council. To do that we would have to decide that this is not in the best interest of the city, first, to annex it or to approve the other elements of it. That decision is based on a number of things and to me the number of things are elements which do exist in this case. My personal feeling is that there are a number of legal issues that aren't as clear as the applicant would like to state that they are and I think there is an absolute legitimate opening for the people who disagree with that to bring this into the legal field. Taking the position on behalf of city that we are making the legal decision that those issues don't count, opens the city for being a party to that suit and I personally am not willing to hook the city into that problem. I think those issues need to be resolved before the city takes on annexing in this piece of property and I don't see that as being a quick resolution. The choices that the staff has suggested are that the neighbors sign an agreement that they don't have a problem with this. I think we already know that's not going to happen quickly. The other choice is to settle it in the courts, eventually, perhaps, going for a decision of the supreme court of the state of Idaho. That's a process that would probably take longer than it would take for this provision to expire in March of 2008 and you all know that it will expire at sometime. All of those elements to me -- and I will ask my other Commissioners for their comments ~- I don't believe the city -- I don't believe it's in the best interest of the city to open it up to legal difficulties. I think they need to be resolved certainly before we take any action certainly before we would recommend approval to the City Council. I will say to the applicant there are a lot of elements in this proposal that I think are very nice, there is some nice touches, but I feel there are enough issues out there that are not going to be resolved soon enough that my position is for denial. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 69 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to comment that when we have a Public Hearing and, I have counted, there is over 70 people that have come out to give testimony tonight, and it makes it very difficult as a Commission to make a decision, like you said, based on one -- like Mr. Stott, I am not an attorney, I'm an accountant, and I'm not comfortable making decisions based on ambiguous legal issues -- well, I don't think we can, actually. And so I will agree also to recommend denial. I would possibly agree to a continuation and give everyone a chance to maybe meet in the middle, if you will. I do think there are issues that could be worked out. This seems like a group of homeowners willing to sit town at the roundtable with the developer more and we've certainly had rooms full of people who are not willing to sit down at the roundtable and do that. So, I also would recommend denial. Borup: And the chairman normally doesn't vote unless it's the case of a tie, but -- which could have happened tonight. I think I agree with most of that. A couple things that weren't mentioned that staff did request that we wait for the ACHD report, which we have not received yet. His request was to at least to continue until that came in. I don't have quite the concern on the set-aside agreement, unless I'm mistaken, but I believe part of the reason for that is so there -- not have a lot of acre subdivisions out in the county that when the sewer and water services come to that area within -- within the area of impact, that it wouldn't be practical to service those areas and so I think -- I mean from years ago my understanding of that is when the services did come, it would be more normal urban density in those areas, rather than have the sprawl that everyone likes to talk about. So, I don't have a concern on that provision. I think when those services do come I have to agree with what that stated there. I do have some concern on the -- on the -- on the density of the project, though. I still don't feel that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. You know. This -- if this did that or if it was standard R-4 subdivision, I think I would have different feelings about it also. A standard R-4 without -- you know, without any request for changes would be hard to argue against, considering what's intended for the area, but that's not what's before us tonight. I think that's all I've got. Zaremba: Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman -- Holinka: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. We have talked about a lot of legal things and -- Holinka: We have and I just -- I wanted to make a couple of comments for the record. Borup: Please. Holinka: I only found out about this issue today and I know that Mr. Nichols has known about it for some time, I'm not sure how long, but I was able to review the letter from Mr. Burns and also from Mr. Miller at Givens Pursley and I was able to speak with Frank Lee of Givens Pursley this afternoon and -- late this afternoon, actually, so it's -- my Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 70 of 72 review of it has been very brief, but I do know that Mr. Nichols' intent behind the original site specific condition number two that's in there in getting the approval was to kind of avoid the legal conflict that really is readily apparent, I think, and without further -- more in depth review by our office -- I mean I don't -- I think it would be better to error on the side of caution, like Commissioner Zaremba said, and not get into that fight at this time. It does appear that there is conflicting language between what's on the plat and what's in the CC&Rs, but there may be a waiver there, but it -- again, it's just -- it's a little bit unclear and we would probably want to look into that further, so that we would not be subjecting the city to liability at this time, so -- Canning: Chairman Borup, might I remind the Commission, given the -- Borup: Yes. You may have some -- Canning: I have been quiet all night long. Just given your conversations so far, I just wanted to remind you that if you do make a motion on the preliminary plat, it is for denial and you need to direct staff to provide findings to you at your next hearing. Zaremba: Thank you. I, actually, did remember that this time. Canning: Okay. Good. Zaremba: I think with all that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on AZ 04-023, PP 04-030, CUP 04-32 be closed. Newton~Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: There were none, so-- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All we did is close the hearing. Zaremba: There is more to come. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to the City Council denial of AZ 04-023, on the basis that it is not in the best interest of the city to annex this property at this time. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 71 of 72 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny PP 04~030 on the basis that if it is not annexed we do not have jurisdiction over this property. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, you need to provide the applicant with some idea as to how to remedy the deficiencies in this subdivision. Zaremba: The deficiencies in the subdivision can be provided with a legal decision that there is no need to remain the open space until March of 2009. Borup: That's the only concern you had with the whole project? Zaremba: Well, I could list other -- let's see. Transition between this project and the other larger lots around it. Borup: Densities. Zaremba: There was an issue of whether or not the access stub road could actually go east to those properties. There is an issue of the amount of traffic that would go through the other subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Dartmoor. Zaremba: Dartmoor, I believe it was. Newton-Huckabay: The density. Zaremba: Any other things that need to be -- density. That's what I meant by transition. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I thought you were talking about the perimeter. Zaremba: Well, perimeter lots and all lots of -- the total density. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And as a part of the motion I would ask the legal staff to provide facts and findings for denial of PP 04-030. Newton-Huckabay: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-32, for the same reason stated for denial of PP 04-030. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 72 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. And thank everyone for staying so late keeping us company. Canning: Commissioners, for the record, as of Tuesday planning staff is doing findings. You didn't know, but just so you know. We switched it on you. Borup: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Meeting adjourned at 11:10. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED I I DATE APPROVED KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK