Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 18, 2007 PZ Comm minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 14 of 40 Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Finding document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 1 st, 2007. Siddoway: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. We have three seconds. That ought to be sufficient. All right. It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-040 for the Ada County EMS, to include all staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. Both of these items are related to the Harcourt Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Harcourt Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat approval for 60 single family residential lots and five common lots on 23.05 acres within the R-4 zoning designation. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before Planning and Zoning on November 2nd, 2006. Prior to that meeting the applicant and the planning staff were notified that ACHD requested relocation of South Zepher Avenue -- punch forward to the site here to show you. South Zepher Avenue is right here. Harcourt's access to Victory Road to align with South Bay Star Drive, Sutherland Farms' access to Victory Road just to the north. And this ultimately prompted a substantial redesign of the preliminary plat. Harcourt is generally located on the south side of Victory Road approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle Road. The primary access to the development will be from Victory Road as stated Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 15 of 40 before. Right here. The second access to the development will be via Falcon Drive and that is a public street constructed within the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, an Ada County subdivision. And that is along here. Three stub connections to the east will be constructed to provide connectivity to the county parcels upon their redevelopment. There is the first one, the second, and this can potentially be a stub in the future as well. City staff is supportive of the proposed street layout. To the north, as stated before, there is a proposed Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.1, also zoned R-4. Also to the north in addition, to the south, east, and west, are residential properties within Ada County. All of this is Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 60 residential lots between 9,000 and 22,250 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 12,000 square feet. The two existing homes on the property are proposed to remain. The applicant has provided 1.42 acres, which is 6.4 percent of landscaped opened space, meeting the five percent minimum required by the UDC. The majority of open space, as you can see, is provided in the form of parkways throughout the entire development along all the streets. The only issue to mention here is that perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or the preliminary plat. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be installed along the micro pathways and adjacent to the common lots and the applicant will need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission as questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Amanda, you mentioned the road down here as a possibly -- that it could possibly be a stub, but I want to make sure it is proposed to be designed as a stub with the -- to be extended in the future. Hess: I would imagine that would be more of a question for the applicant. Siddoway: Okay. Didn't know if the ACHD report addressed that, that it had to be signed, but I'll wait until the applicant's testimony. Okay. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. Staff did such a bang up job describing the application I'm not going to go back through it for you. I would simply point out for you that your Comprehensive Plan does designate this area for low density residential. That allows up to three dwelling units to the acre. We have designed a subdivision with lots that average about 12,000 square feet and I don't think I have anything in here less than 10,000 square feet. We achieve an overall gross density of 2.68 dwelling units per acre, so well below the three that's allowed under the Comp Plan. I would note all the public services have been extended in this area and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 16 of 40 are available to serve the site. This is a prime candidate for an in-fill development, as your code recognizes. With regard to the question of stub streets, this is not a stub, this is existing Falcon Drive here right now and it does provide access to a single family dwelling on this five acre lot, which is not a portion of the project. So, this is not a stub, it's an existing cul-de-sac. We have the two stubs along this property line here. With regard to surrounding land uses, this area has been transitioning, as you can see from the aerial. My client did develop this project to the north. We are endeavoring to extend the irrigation -- pressurized irrigation from this project to the north and piggy back off of it with some additional pumps and we are trying to workout those details with the irrigation districts right now. Currently there is gravity irrigation that serves the property. That ditch that runs through here, as you can kind of see. And it serves not only my client's four parcelS -- one, two, three, four -- but also Mr. Aldrich's property right here. We have been working closely with Mr. Aldrich to accommodate his needs with regard to irrigation and, of course, we will do whatever we have to do to maintain, since irrigation is required by state code. This property right here was approved for an assisted living facility by the City of Meridian. That has not been built to date, but I understand that is still their intent to build that facility there. There is an existing single family dwelling right here on approximately an acre and that will remain. This property here was re-designated by the city or your Comp Plan was amended to designate that for commercial land uses. We are in general agreement with the staff report. I don't have any serious issues. I would just point out that condition 1.2.8 should be modified to match page two of the staff report, which accurately states 1.42 acres of open space or 6.4 percent of the total. Condition 1.2.8 has some other numbers in there and those should be corrected. I think that's everything. If the Commission has questions I'd take those now. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Can you address the fencing? Fluke: With regard to fencing, my client generally prefers to allow homeowners to choose their own fencing and put in perimeter fencing and so we would be doing the construction fencing on the perimeter, temporary construction fencing until the land owners were to build fences. The CC&Rs do require fencing, but it allows for a range of options within that. With regard to the required fencing along the micro-path, we will certainly amend the landscape plan to include that. Moe: Okay. That's -- you just brought up my next question. Basically in the report here on a question of staff it says that the January 4th landscape plan was not approved and so has there been another one since then? Hess: That is correct, Commissioner Moe. And, no, we have not received an updated plan to date. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 17 of 40 Moe: Okay. So, that will be taken care of prior to Council? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I viewed that as a housekeeping item that the plan is in substantial conformance. There is a few little details that need to be changed and certainly we will do that prior to final plat or whenever you guys want us to do it. Rohm: The fencing being left to each of the individual lot owners, have you done that before in other developments? I guess where I'm going with this is the consistency of fencing has been something that we have tried to promote in all developments and have requested that they have a continuous fence all the way around the developed property and I'm not sure that I see any reason not to do that with this development. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have a problem with that and if that's something the city wishes to see -- and this is a high quality development with large lots in here, I mean those are -- that's a cost that can be passed to the buyers of the lots, so if that's something the Commission feels strongly about, we would not oppose a condition of approval to that effect. Rohm: Well, it's just for discussion. I don't know that I'm necessarily prepared to make it a condition of approval without discussion amongst the balance of the Commission, but just typically that's what we have seen as projects have come before the Commission. Thank you. Moe: Another question in regard to that, I guess. I would say -- you said you guys have a multitude of types of fencing. What would you anticipate in that subdivision? Fluke: Well, I would anticipate that either vinyl, cedar, or wrought iron fencing will be allowed. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Daren, back to my question of the stub street. This existing cul-de-sac -- you mentioned that you're not -- it's not considered a stub street per se. You also said that it does provide access to this lot east of it; is that correct? Fluke: That's correct. Siddoway: Because it would be my desire to see in that this -- if this lot were to ever redevelop that it would be able to have access to that and that would be the case, would it not? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in our plat that would prevent that from happening. In fact, the owners of this parcel are here tonight and I'm sure they may have some feelings on that, but if somebody wants to do that in the future that owns that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 18 of 40 lot, you know, that would be their prerogative upon redeveloping. The photo doesn't show it very well, but that is an existing dwelling right there at the end of the street. So, there is nothing to preclude it, other than the house being there, and the desires of the landowners. Siddoway: There is no land on the plat between the edge of the cul-de-sac and that -- the property line? Fluke: That's correct. That cul-de-sac is existing right of way. This is a public street. Siddoway: Okay. Cole: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes. Cole: A quick glance at the plat shows that there is 92 feet of frontage along that cul- de-sac, which is plenty of footage to get a 50 foot right of way through there if the next property so desires. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions of this applicant? Borup: Just one clarification. Mr. Fluke, I -- you mentioned you're in agreement with all the staff comments, the one on adjusting the lot line on 13 and 14, so it did have the double frontage, that's already something you have looked at? Fluke: Actually, that has been corrected, I think. If it hasn't, we don't have a problem with -- Borup: Yeah. That's pretty minor-- Fluke: Yeah. In fact, we found a couple of those things after we submitted -- resubmitted the plat to the staff. I should have mentioned that we were ready to go long ago with this project, but ACHD, after giving us an initial go ahead the way we had it laid out, wanted us to change the street design -- or the street location onto Victory Road, which completely messed up the layout that we had done and necessitated all sorts of redesign. And just to prove that no good deed goes unpunished, we did lose a lot by doing that. So, we are trying to keep everybody happy. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 19 of 40 Rohm: Thank you. At this time would Margaret Stern like to come forward, please? Did you want to speak? Oh. From the audience she said that she didn't want to speak, she just is neutral on the development. The next name on the list is Michael Reedy. Reedy: I'm not much of a speaker, but, anyway, I currently live in the Dartmoor Subdivision. Rohm: Would you state your name and address for the -- Reedy: Oh. Michael Reedy at 3702 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I live in the Dartmoor Subdivision on the -- butting up to the Kingsbridge Subdivision that was just gone through your -- the hassle of the experience of the comprehensive deal of Victory, to Eagle Road, to Cloverdale, to Amity, the majority of those lots are five acres, 20 acres, I'm currently a 1.3 acre lot. Kingsbridge is an R-2 approved, which has so far been a really nice deal. They put a solid vinyl fencing along us that's four foot with a lattice on top of there around their outside -- the rest of their perimeter. I feel that this R- 4 is a little condensed than based on the rest of the subdivision -- the square mile. It has been -- you know, most of it is less than R-1, although a lot of these lots can be broke down, but Selatir is five acre lots. Terri's is two and a half to five acre lots. The couple that -- I'm sure they are here that live on that lot that's isolated in that big corner there. They were part of the big battle with Kingsbridge that we had. I'm just a little concerned by the flow of drainage coming off the property on this lower half here as it comes down to our neighbors and comes -- which would come into our ditches that we have come -- these come off the farmland and comes around. Anyway, I don't know how to explain that very well. But it comes into our settling ponds, it is our water source for pressure irrigation and fire, because we are not part of the city limits, we are not in the city limits, which, then, they would be, but we are concerned about that. Rohm: So, you're concerned that you're going to lose the runoff? Reedy: No. We don't need the runoff anymore, because we are just concerned by the runoff coming from their streets, because it is sloped quite a bit from Falcon Crest down. Siddoway: There is a pointer -- Reedy: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. Okay. This is Falcon Crest right there. Okay. I'm sorry. This is Falcon Crest right here, this is sloped quite a bit and it used to be when it was farmed all the time -- the same way with all this back here, there is ditches that run behind our subdivision and comes through the property line right here, that -- what used to go into our settling pond right here and the concern about that water flowing off of their streets is contamination -- that was the biggest thing with Kingsbridge of getting their plots changed and getting their settling ponds -- they had to build a new settling pond back here to prevent the overflow off their streets, because that is quite a bit of slope. I'm approximately ten, fifteen feet below. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 20 of 40 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I'm sure the applicant will respond to your questions. Thank you. Bob Aldridge. Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Bob Aldridge. It seems like I have been living here. We have had a number of projects in this area. I'm the house right here and -- Rohm: State your address, please. Aldridge: 3300 Falcon. Rohm: Thank you. Aldridge: I guess now technically East Falcon. We have been changed. The two areas that I think are of concern to me I think will be dealt with. One is the fencing along here. This is, essentially, my back and front yards. I would concur that a consistent fencing would be nice, as I intend to live in that property I would hope another ten years and it would be nice to have a single view fence along there, rather than something chopped up. The second issue is the irrigation. Currently there is a pump house down here and pipe that comes up and, then, there is a split here that originally served all the different properties. Trying to integrate the pressurized irrigation in this area with flow irrigation here and, technically, on this lot and this lot, which haven't used them for decades now, is going to be difficult, but I'm convinced, in my discussions with Mr. Fluke, that we can work that out. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a pipe that comes from over in this area off the New York system, comes along Falcon Drive here to the front of the property here, comes under the road and is serving the property across the road that's being developed and that will have to be watched for, because there was no survey done of where that is. I have an approximate rough idea, but it was done by a guy in a backhoe kind of wandering about. So, that's the other concern is that there is that irrigation that will have to be preserved. Subject to that I have no problems. I believe it's good use of the property and I think that the type of property will augment the area well. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. Harold Kruzinski. Kruzinski: My name is Harold Kruzinski at 3475 East Falcon Drive. So, we are the property in question here and it is correct that our house does sit right about there and we would certainly prefer it not become a stub street, because we don't intend to change things, and certainly one of the things we are concerned about is the change. We, essentially, lived in a nice, you know, five acre community and all of a sudden it's a subdivision and we want some assurances that we are not going to have encroachment along our property line and certainly having -- if there is going to be the subdivision there and fences, we would prefer some consistency and we had spoken earlier back in June, there was a neighborhood meeting where they discussed the plans and we were given some assurance that there would be fencing along there and Trevor Roberts, I believe, was the owner of the property and he had indicated they would probably put Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 21 of 40 vinyl fencing there and we just want to make sure it's something that's attractive and consistent with some of the other properties nearby. We were a little concerned when Kingsbridge came in right about here, they came across our property line with the stub street -- actually paved across the property line and put a manhole right on the property line, so we would like some assurances that anything that happens along the borders is -- that there should be no encroachment. I can't see anything that would cause them to have to cross the property line with utilities or anything and we'd like some assurance that that would -- anything happening would happen on their side of the property line. The cul-de-sac, of course, is a county road at the moment. Our irrigation comes off the ditch right here and floods across our property and drainage comes out here and I believe, as was just pointed out, flows into the culvert below Dartmoor. So, we would need some assurances that we have a way to drain our flooding there and we also have another ditch that comes out here, currently floods into a ditch along East Falcon and want to make sure we have some way to take care of that with piping. Of course, we were very appreciative that the agreement with Kingsbridge turned out to be R-2. And, obviously, the less density we can get the better, although they have a fairly decent plan, but no huge complaints with it, but, obviously, density the lower the better to keep consistent with everything that is currently around there and that the cul-de-sac we were wondering if we could get the developer to work with us on some way to maintain our front yard there. There is a lot of large trees in front, which looked to me like they are going to all have to come down for that cul-de-sac and if there is something we can do to work with them to find a solution to that, we would certainly appreciate it and anything we could put down formally now that would make an agreement where we would have the ability to negotiate with the developer for any of those kind of issues would certainly be appreciated. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Kruzinski: I guess that's -- Rohm: Yeah. And I'm sure the applicant will address your concerns when he comes back up. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman -- Rohm: Before you sit down I guess we have one question. Borup: Mr. Kruzinski -- and I appreciate your comments. I still was confused on your last comment on the cul-de-sac and the trees. Are some of your trees, then, over your property line? Kruzinski: Well, they are. We purchased the house from a previous owner and, obviously, they landscaped back when it was county -- Borup: That used to happen a lot, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 22 of 40 Kruzinski: Excuse me? Borup: Yeah, that used to happen a lot-- Kruzinski: Oh, I'm sure it did. Borup: -- back a number of years ago. Kruzinski: Now, we spoke with Mr. -- I believe back in June and he -- he indicated that he didn't think they would necessarily need to finish around our side of the property, but I'm sure that -- you know, I don't know where that would actually go when time comes. Borup: So, they can work something out with you you think? Kruzinski: I would hope so. And in here -- Borup: Well, I'm sure they would just as soon not take any trees out if they didn't have to. Kruzinski: ACHD, essentially, said that they did not require East Falcon Drive to be redone in its entirety, only within the boundaries of this subdivision. Borup: Yeah. Kruzinski: And I guess I don't know that little 90 foot frontage there if that's considered within their boundaries or -- I don't know how that would be viewed in -- Borup: I think they are required to have the -- they are required to have the cul-de-sac, so a vehicle could turn around, so whatever they can do' to do that is probably what they need to comply with. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but it's still an open hearing and I saw you folks come in, so I presume that you're going to testify. Turner: Sorry I'm late. I wasn't anticipating being through the agenda so quickly this evening. Rohm: There you go. Newton-Huckabay: Nor were we. Rohm: Please -- yeah. Please state your name and -- Turner: Yeah. Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place, which is this property right here. I am the president of the Dartmoor Homeowners Association. I'm speaking for myself on behalf of the Dartmoor Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 23 of 40 homeowners this evening. In addition to my written comments that we submitted to P&Z, my letter dated October 24th of 2006, I would like to reiterate -- add the following concerns with the proposed applicant's development. We have expressed concerns of this development to the applicant in letters dated April 11th and May 27th, 2006. To date the applicant has been unresponsive and has not addressed our concerns. Transitional lots. Kingsbridge Subdivision lots directly adjacent to Dartmoor range from 23,000 to almost 25,000 square feet. In contract, Harcourt lots range from 11,000 -- excuse me -- 10,000 to 11,400 square feet. These lots are on the smaller end of the sizes within the Harcourt Subdivision and, therefore, cannot really be considered as transitional lots to the acre plus parcels within Dartmoor Subdivision. When we contacted the applicant again within the last week to inquire if they were planning on having an informational meeting to review their revised plat, we were told they were not, since there was no significant difference between the original plat and this current plat. We disagreed with that statement, since the original plat is part of the applicant's September 19th, 2006 application had lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor ranging from 12,000 to 21,000 square feet. This further supports our argument that the applicant has been unresponsive to our concerns. We feel that the lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision need to be on the order of 20,000 square feet, consistent with Kingsbridge to be considered transitional. The City Council has also agreed with us that this area on the fringe of the Meridian city area of impact should remain estate style low density housing. This is supported by the R-2 zoning of Kingsbridge. Furthermore, Napoli Subdivision was approved with mixed zoning of R-2 and R-4 with lower density adjacent to surrounding five acre parcels in an area where the Comp Plan called for medium density zoning. The applicant has also not documented any landscaping transition to mitigate the impact of their development. This would include landscaped berms and fencing between Harcourt and Dartmoor, as well as 25 foot rear property line setbacks on lots adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision, again, consistent with the Kingsbridge Subdivision. Since this development is also uphill from Dartmoor and consistent with the transition between Dartmoor and Kingsbridge, which is also uphill from Dartmoor, we ask that Block 4, Lot 6 through 8, be deed restricted to single story homes to further mitigate the impact of the development and avoid large two story homes staring into our bedroom windows and help to retain our foothill views. It was discussed already drainage from the applicant's property flows directly onto our property and into our irrigation water supply. The applicant has not explained to us how they intend to retain runoff within their property to prevent contamination of our irrigation water. For these reasons we ask the Commission to deny applicant's request for annexation and zoning and plat until our concerns our adequately addressed. Thank you for your consideration. Rohm: Wow. Thank you. I think we are going to let the applicant respond to your testimony, but thank you. Again, there is nobody else signed up, but would you like to speak as well or -- okay. Thank you. Daren, would you like to come back up, please. Fluke: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. Let's just go down through the issues. I don't think there is anything here we can't work with. I'm going to group the issues into four categories, density, fencing, drainage, and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 24 of 40 transitional lots, and we will just deal with them in turn. With regard to density, I would submit to you that in the 1970s when Golden Eagle Estates was platted with five acre lots that that was a big change from what was out here. This was a very rural area with very large parcels, ag uses, and five acre lots looked like a high density subdivision when it went in next to what was next to it. I would submit to you further that when Dartmoor Subdivision went in in the early '90s when I was working at Ada County, that it was -- looked like high density development next to the five acre lots and the other large agricultural parcels in the area. And so it makes complete sense to think that 12,000 foot lots on average look like high density next to acre lots or five acre lots. However, when you have to build a subdivision that has to extend sewer, water, street lights, you have to make accommodations for parks, you have streets with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and wider street sections, we have to deal with drainage that all has to be piped, rather than swales next to the streets, that -- I would submit to you that that sort of density is appropriate in this area. The City of Meridian has made a large investment in infrastructure, including upgrades to its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate growth in this area. My firm worked on the master plan for the City of Meridian and I know very well what the city was planning for when they upgraded their treatment plant and when they did their Comprehensive Plan and sewer master planning for the area. So, this is what was planned for the area by definition, three units to the acre and less, is low density development. With regard to fencing, as I stated previously, this is not a deal breaker for us. If the Commission wants to see perimeter fencing and our neighbors want perimeter fencing, I think that's something we can certainly do to be good neighbors. I would prefer to confer with my client before I tell you what kind of fencing that is, but I will commit to submitting a revised landscape plan before the City Council hearing that has fencing details on it, proposing either vinyl fencing -- I assume the two choices will be vinyl or six foot cedar fencing. So, we will certainly do that and do it gladly. With regard to drainage, as the Commission notes, we are required to accommodate all drainage within our project and we will do so. In certain cases you are allowed to discharge at historical rates and that is a number that you can calculate based on the land area and assuming some rainfall and other things and we have not yet designed the drainage system, of course, because we don't have an approved project, but we do have conditions of approval that we do maintain all of our storm drainage on site and we will do so. So, I don't have the answers for you about our exact solution to the drainage issue, but we know that we have to accommodate the drainage coming onto the property now and we know that we have to -- just like we have to accommodate the irrigation that comes onto the property and leaves it now, those details are worked out at the final plat stage. But it is a condition of approval that will be dealt with. Let me just -- I had just done a quick exhibit for you, because I anticipated that this transitional lot issue might come up. I have seen it come up before. Quite honestly, I disagree. These are single family dwellings against single family dwellings and I don't see what the incompatibility is with the lots that we have proposed there. I'm going to go ahead and pass this picture around to you. What it shows is an aerial photograph with Mr. Turner's lot on there, in addition to our proposed lots against his project and detail the lot sizes on there as well. Amanda, could we see the plat, please, for the southern portion. What you will see here is that the Turner's house is approximately 124 feet away from the rear property line. Right here. Their house sits in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 25 of 40 this area here and it's about 124 feet away. You will further see that this lot line that they have across here, because of the cul-de-sac configuration, is 336 feet, approximately, across. That presents a real design challenge for us. We went through a number of iterations of trying to make this five acres work where we looped the street. We tried not to bring a new street in here, because our neighbors here didn't appreciate that or wouldn't appreciate the street coming in and so we did a number of things. The first plat that we submitted, the city staff really didn't like the solution that we had for this five acres, so when we went back to redesign because of what ACHD asked us to do here, we went ahead and reconfigured this more in align with the city staff's wishes. What it ended up with was one additional lot here, because of the way the streets fell in here. These lots are about -- this is about 130 feet right here. I think the shortest line is right here, which is about 108 feet and I think we are 111 right there, more or less. So, what you're looking at with the setback off of the property here, which is 124 feet now, and a -- right now there is 15 foot setback that would be required on this rear line, if the neighbors feel more comfortable with the 25 foot setback, we are perfectly happy to do that and we would submit to that conditions of approval. Go ahead and give you this now and finish up my comments. If you just want to pass that down. We are further not in favor of restricting those lots to single story units, just because of the fact that the lots are so large. With a 10,000 square foot lot you would be expecting at least a 3,000 square foot house on there and it makes them awfully difficult to sell if you're telling somebody buying a hundred thousand dollar lot and looking at putting a 300,000 dollar house on there that they can't have a second story if they so choose. So, again, we feel like the setbacks there are adequate now. The house is well off the property line. We will submit to the larger setback and we think that we really accomplished a decent transition there in trying to maintain the wishes of the staff and ACHD and, you know, do what's right for everybody. So, if there is anything that I didn't hit on, I apologize, and I would be happy to take questions or touch on those subjects now if you can remind me what I missed. Rohm: Thank you, Daren. Any questions of this applicant? Siddoway: One, Mr. Chairman. Daren, I was looking at a copy of the previous plat, which had a road that comes down to this area, and it had, I believe, four lots that abutted Dartmoor. Now we have got four -- five and, yet, you have lost a lot in here. Did the lot sizes elsewhere increase or -- can you go over again why you ended up losing that lot? Fluke: Well, when ACHD asked us to realign -- or to relocate the street here, we had previously had the street here and had a couple of cul-de-sacs over here and a single stub street approximately right here. When we came back in and realigned it here, just the way the geometry worked out, in addition to the Meridian city staff's requirement to put an additional second stub street here, we just ended up losing a lot. So, they didn't necessarily get bigger, at least, you know, 50 feet of it went right there to do that stub street. And if you -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if you look at -- if you're looking at the old plat you -- I'm sure it stuck out to you right away how awkward that layout was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 26 of 40 down in that five acre piece. We spent a lot of time and effort on that five acres and this is about the sixth iteration of something and we feel it's the best layout. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fluke, I -- obviously, there is a lot of concern on the drainage and you mentioned that would be taken care of. So, again, for those here to emphasize that. And I assume -- you said there may be -- if there did need to be any discharge on an historical basis, I assume that, again, would not be going on to adjoining properties, that would be going to an existing drainage area or -- Fluke: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, just as we are required to maintain drainage that comes onto this property now, so are adjoining properties. Now, our preference would be to design it such that we don't have any drainage leaving the site, but it's dependent on a number of factors, including topography and ground water levels and just what we can fit into the project. What the irrigation districts have historically allowed, but are now moving away from, is for us to discharge our predevelopment rate at the historical point of discharge. So, we -- we might have the option -- and I don't know until we get into the drainage and actually do the calcs and design the system, whether or not we are going to need to take advantage of that ability to discharge at historical rates at historical points of discharge. Borup: But there wouldn't be any at any new locations? Fluke: There would not and I would further point out that everything that we do will be new and piped and so all the storm water that we captured through drop inlets would be run through sand and grease traps and, you know, to clean the water up somewhat before it leaves the sight, because now it's coming off the streets, rather than coming off of agricultural fields. Borup: Okay. Then, the other question I had was on the fencing. Mr. Kruzinski indicated at one of the neighborhood meetings that the property owner indicated that they were planning on vinyl fences. Do you have any reason to think that was not what was said at that meeting? Fluke: No, I don't. That's entirely plausible and, again, we don't have any issue with the condition requiring fencing. Borup: Right. And I mean if he made a statement to a certain type of fence, I think that, in my mind, goes a long way. If he didn't want to do that he should have not said anything at all. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 27 of 40 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to ask a question of staff. Can you remind me what the final decision was on the Eagle Victory Property Alliance? That didn't go through City Council-- that got denied, didn't it? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that Eagle Road Victory Property Owners Alliance application, the Comprehensive Plan amendment application was approved by the City Council. The annexation application was denied. So, they approved changing the designation to mixed use community, but their request for C-C zoning, L-O zoning, I think a strip of R-4 zoning, that application was denied. But the Comp Plan did get changed. So, that designation on that one -- one five acre piece right on the southeast corner of Victory and Eagle has changed designations to mixed use community now. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Thank you. We heard about the existing trees at the end of the existing cul- de-sac and I'm wondering if the landscape plan that was submitted shows where that existing tree falls in relation to that cul-de-sac improvement? Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, no, it does not. It does not show any existing landscaping on the property or adjacent property. Siddoway: Is that one of the changes that you required for the landscape plan to come into compliance? Hess: It is not. I have not added that as a requirement, no. Siddoway: And, then, a question for Mr. Cole. We have had a couple of people bring up issues related to drainage and maintaining an existing irrigation. Could we just get on the record Public Works staffs perspective on how that will be handled through the final plat process? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far as the drainage there, they talked about drainage leaving the streets and entering their property, as Mr. Fluke stated, he's accurate, that those will all be routed through catch basins and taken to some sort of a -- cleaned up through the sand and grease trap and, then, taken to some sort of -- either a pond, a drainage swale, a seepage bed, something along that nature. Sometimes they do allow historical discharge, but they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 28 of 40 have to enter into a discharge agreement with the receiving body prior to that -- to that leaving the site. In fact, all of those plans will be reviewed at final plat stage with the construction plans by ACHD, the drainage leaving the roads, and to make sure it meets all of DEQ's best management practices for cleaning up the water leaving the right of way. As far as the drainage -- or the -- I'm sorry, the irrigation lines, those will be reviewed by either the entity having jurisdiction, if it's in MID or Boise Project Board of Control, they will review those plans. If it's a user's lateral, Public Works reviews the plans to make sure that they are engineeringly sound, but we also have a new requirement that they get downstream user approval prior to construction plans being approved. That means if the ditch running through the middle of their site goes to the -- the water running through that goes to the western parcel, they will have to get a letter from that landowner stating that this system meets our needs and is going to deliver our water adequately and we don't approve the construction plans until we get that. That way they can't build it. There is an out in there that if it's being unreasonably held, the city engineer can make that determination that it's a sound system, it's being unreasonably held by a landowner just to stop the development, we can approve it in their stead, but state statute requires that they deliver -- state code requires that they deliver that water to that historical point of discharge. So, it's all reviewed prior to plan approval. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Typically, what I have done in the past on applications like this, I will poll the Commission and usually start at one end and move from one end to the other to get final thought. Commissioner Moe, would you like to speak to this application? Moe: Yes. On all, I think that the applicant's done a pretty good job representing the project. There are a couple things that I do want to see and that was going to be -- I would anticipate that we would want to have a perimeter vinyl fence around this property. That would be something that I would definitely want to see put in for acceptance for tonight. As far as the transitioning and whatnot per the Comp Plan, I think he is meeting the requirements of the Comp Plan and so, therefore, I don't have a real problem with the transitional lot sizes and other than that I think it's a very good project. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see a vinyl perimeter fence around the entirety of the property. I would want to add the condition of the 25 foot setback for the houses on the south property line. And also I would like to see some resolution or some comment regarding the trees for the Kruzinskis. And I apologize if I misspoke your name. The only problem or conundrum, if you will, that I have is as we sat through the Kingsbridge development and all of the arguments and passion and redesigns that went into that project and, you know, we did require that developer, if I remember correctly, to put those larger almost half acre lots on that west side of the property against Dartmoor and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 29 of 40 whether that logic still holds today, I do have trouble not applying that same logic to another subdivision. Although I mean there is some density closer to that, but, again, I do -- I mean I do remember the logic behind that. I suppose I would like to see maybe one less lot on the south against Dartmoor or shifting of some lot lines. I -- they have done a really good job up against the Kruzinski's property only having -- it looks like they have got a total of four properties only backing up to them and given the way their property is wrapped around by the development, I think that's -- that's done pretty good there. That's the end of my comments. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the issues of drainage and irrigation, I do believe that the concerns are adequately addressed in the safeguards that we have in the conditions of approval and the process that will move forward. Second, regarding fencing, I would concur with the requirement for vinyl fencing, Regarding the landscaping and the Kruzinski's existing tree, I would like to see that existing tree added to whatever additional changes are needing to be made to the landscape plan to bring it into compliance prior to City Council. Regarding the transitional lots, that was my only conundrum also. I was on staff when the original Kingsbridge came through that had a lots roughly this size up against Dartmoor and was denied and, then, a separate application came through later that increased those lot sizes to the 20,000 square foot range up against it. It would seem consistent to apply the same reasoning here if that was truly the direction of this Commission and Council at that time. To do so would require losing two of those lots, though, and I might -- knowing also the cost of extending things like water, sewer, street lights, things that Mr. Fluke mentioned if we were to lose any, I'd probably limit that to a single one. That said, I am conflicted. The additional setbacks -- you know, these are still much larger than average lots for the City of Meridian. In general, those smaller lots tend to be better maintained than the much larger ones. I'm not saying the ones in Dartmoor aren't. It looks from the aerial photo that they do have nice landscaping, so I don't mean to imply anything there. But I have seen instances where when the lots get too big to maintain that they tend not to be as nice. So, I have conflicting emotions on that one, but could support a reduction there if the Commission felt going that way was consistent with the Kingsbridge. Finally, on the two story versus one story, I believe that this project should be allowed to build two story homes. And that's the end of my comment Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think -- I agree with what's been said on drainage and the tree mitigation for the one property, other than ACHD is requiring a turnaround and where the streets need to be extended and there is trees in that area, I don't see there is any choice on leaving those. Well, I'm assuming there is probably some of them that can't. The statement -- expounding on transition. I think there is one difference here between this project and Kingsbridge. Kingsbridge Subdivision accessed -- their entrance into their subdivision was through Dartmoor, right down the middle of it, driving down, you know, the streets they had had. So, I think there was a much direct impact. This subdivision has got Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 30 of 40 back property lines joining it and there, really, is not -- I mean my experience from seeing -- seeing subdivisions over the last ten years, there is not a direct impact. I happen to live in an acre lot subdivision that had this size lots and smaller up against it and the impact was probably just the opposite, as far as what it did to property values and such. So, I don't feel that any -- I mean and as a staff -- the comment addressed all this. Same thing with the -- in relationship to the Comp Plan and being in compliance. So, I'm in favor of leaving it like it is. And I have never been -- and I guess I could go either way. I have always been completely opposed to a two story restriction. Commissioner Huckabay mentioned that the 25 foot setback -- or someone did. That could possibly be in there, maybe. If it's a two story it would need to be 25. If it's a single level, then, it would be normal setbacks, could maybe compromise on that. I know it's hard for the city building department to enforce those things and it makes it very difficult. So, that's probably a reason not to -- not to get into that. But the lots are large enough that I don't think that's a problems. Most people want to get as large a backyard as they can anyway and it would have to be a pretty large home to encroach on that. I think that's alii have got. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my final comments on it would be that it -- if, in fact, the applicant is willing to have a 25 foot setback along all of those lots, that would remove any concerns over single or two story homes from the Commission's perspective and possibly a motion to that effect would address that issue. And I believe that the applicant has adequately responded to the drainage and the irrigation issues as in there is existing ordinance and state law that address those issues. And so I'm sure in the final plat all of those things will be considered -- will be addressed. On the fencing, I think that, again, a motion that would make it a requirement that perimeter fencing of vinyl construction is definitely in order. And that concludes my comments. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if there is no additional public testimony, I'd move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I may have missed -- missed a comment by Mr. Fluke. You said he did -- he did volunteer to do a 25 foot setback? Rohm: Yes, he did. Borup: Is that what you said? Okay. I had missed that earlier. All right. Am I doing this? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 31 of 40 Rohm: Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-046 and PP 06- 048, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. And, you know, I didn't put where we want to insert these, so I guess we will let staff take care of that. To add vinyl perimeter fencing around the subdivision. That on the far south side of Block 3 -- that is the right block, isn't it? That there be a 25 foot rear setback. Did I get the right block? Block 4. Rohm: I think it's Block 4. Borup: Okay. I'm looking at an older plat that had Block 3. So, change that to Block 4. A 25-foot setback. And that in the -- that the landscape design will try to accommodate the existing trees that are on the east end of Falcon Court cul-de-sac. Those that can be preserved will do so. Anything else? And I think that was understood, that the revised landscaping plan needs to get in before -- ten days before City Council meeting. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: We have four in favor and one against. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC - NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Rohm: Okay. Before we open this last one, does anyone feel the need for a break? Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing from November 16th, 2006, for Item No. CUP 06-032 and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to -- let me jump forward in the slide show here. Okay. To modify the conceptual planned development for the Fairview Lakes - Devon Park Subdivision. The proposed changes to the planned development affect a portion of the