Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 2, 2008 PZ MinsMeridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 13 of 45 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for .Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ 08-012 and PP 08- 009 for Shays Cove and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning request for 5.03 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County, to the R-4 district and preliminary plat for eight single family residential building lots and three common lots on 4.45 acres of land. The property is located at 3155 South Mesa Way, approximately a third of a mile west of Locust Grove Road on the north side of Victory, as you can see here on the overhead. Surrounding uses. To the north are single family residential lots in Kachina Estates Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is Victory Road and future single family residences in Cavanaugh Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family residences in Cabella Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are single family residences in Glacier Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the property. There is an existing home right here and a couple large shop buildings. History on the site. The subject property was previously platted as Lot 1, Block 2, of Kachina Estates Subdivision in Ada County. This is the proposed preliminary plat. As I stated earlier, it consists of eight building lots and three common lots. Lots 3 and 4 here will take access from Mesa Way. The rest of the lots will take access from South Coy Place via -- or, excuse me Victory Road. All of the structures that are existing on the site are proposed to remain, except for one small structure here on this property line, which will be removed. Staff is recommending as a development agreement provision that South Coy Place be extended as a stub street to the north property boundary for future extension. The fire department requests that a temporary turnaround be provided until such time as South Coy Place is extended. This is the proposed landscape plan. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Victory Road. No street buffer is required along Mesa. There are many existing trees on this site, a few of which will be removed with development. Most of them will be retained on the site. Mitigation is required in accordance with UDC standards for existing healthy trees, four inch caliper and larger, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 14 of 45 that are removed from the site. Six foot tall vinyl fencing exists along the west property boundary here adjacent to Glacier Springs Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to construct fencing to match along the north boundary here. This is a colored version of the landscape plan. It shows all the existing trees on the site. Existing house. Existing shops. And a little pond here. These are the proposed building elevations for future homes on these lots. Construction materials consist of stucco, with rock accents and the roofs. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed, as they represent high quality design and construction materials. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required with annexation of this property. Some of .the pertinent DA provisions: No direct lot access to Victory. Only Lots 3 and 4 have direct lot access to Mesa. South Coy Place shall be extended as a stub street to the north boundary for future extension. And future building elevations and construction materials shall comply with those submitted with this application. No written testimony was submitted on this application. Staff is recommending the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications be continued, so that the applicant can revise the preliminary plat and landscape plan to depict South Coy Street as a public street. Excuse me. Stub street to the north property boundary. Staff will stand for any questions at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Sonya, could you explain, again, the stub street. And maybe I'm confused as to -- are you going to extend it further from what. -- I'm confused with the cul-de-sac, I guess, on Coy Place. Watters: Yes. Certainly. Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, staff is requesting that this street right here be extended clear to the north boundary here and, then, when the property to the north eventually develops -- I'll show you here on the vicinity map, then, access will be provided to that site also for future interconnectivity and cross-access. O'Brien: So, they are not going to have I guess built out on those lots, of course, if the -- if it's going to be stubbed further, because it shows like it's going to be building lots there right now; right? If you go back to the previous -- Watters: The applicant is proposing building lots on this subject property here. The property to the north is yet to develop. O'Brien: Okay. I was confused because of the -- of these -- find this thing. These guys here, if a road's going to go right through those properties are they going to build on them? Watters: This is the proposed preliminary plat. So, at this time is when we want to request these changes before it's actually approved and before it's final platted. O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 15 of 45 Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Mr. Chair, actually. Sonya, could you go back to the landscape plan. So, is that a building lot up there in the northeast corner? Fourth? Is that Lot 4? Moe: Yes. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, it is Lot 4. The applicant has told me that the plan is here -- the existing homeowner that owns this whole property lives right here. He is going to construct a new home here and, then, his son is going to move into this home here. Eventually what we perceive happening with this is a property boundary adjustment to move this lot line to here, so that these shop buildings will be associated with the future home on this lot. Moe: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: And then -- so, then, Lot 2 -- it's just kind of awkward looking, guess. Moe: Well, it's a huge piece of property, too. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No, I agree with that. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: This is Lot 2? Is Lot 2 intended to be a building -- a buildable lot? Newton-Huckabay: No. Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Lot 2 is going to be a buildable lot, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Marshall: And you mentioned that the three lots here will all take their access from this site. So, this lot will -- Wafters: There are two building lots here that will take this -- Lot 4 and Lot 3 will take access from Mesa. Marshall: Okay. Wafters: This lot and all of the rest of these will take access from South Coy Place. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 16 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. The color is the size designation. On our transmissions nothing is in color, so it's hard to get -- Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Wyatt: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jed Wyatt. I'm with Landmark Engineering and Planning, with a business address of 332 Northside Boulevard in Nampa and it's a pleasure to be here representing this project tonight it's been a fun one for us to work on, because it's -- Mr. John Shays -- it's his project and he's lived here in that home for quite some time and it's property he's owned for eight or nine years and now he wants to develop it and he actually is intending to live on the site and he will actually -- hopes to live in Lot 2. Just a little bit of correction. And, then, he's going to sell that existing home to his son and so it's been a fun one to work on. As you can see with the landscape plan that's before you there, 90 percent of those trees are existing trees. That pond is an existing pond. Mr. Shay's got a very nice place there and his intention for this project is right in line with his current home and the quality that is there already. Also, as you saw on the building elevations, he's got a footprint and stuff picked out for the home he'd like to build on the lot and the building elevations he's submitted are in line with the home that he plans to build there and so we see it as a very nice project and an amenity for the whole neighborhood. The lots on there range in size from -- the smallest one is, obviously, the one up in the northeast corner, which is -- Moe: There should be a pointer there. Wyatt: -- 8,600 square feet. Thank you. Right here. And all the rest of them are over 12,000 square feet. So, they are nice size lots with nice homes. We'd like to thank staff for the time they put in to working through this with us and we agree with the staff report, with one exception, and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about that and that is the stub road to the north. If we can get the vicinity map placed up there. That's great. Thank you. As this property -- these properties to the north develop -- well, let me start with this. Generally, I'm in agreement with stub roads and interconnectivity. understand why planning staff is -- has put that as a requirement and I like to see that on plats myself as I work on them. But in this case I don't think that -- good planning principal is a good principal for this particular site and the reason why is we have an arterial road here in Victory Road that's meant to carry a lot of traffic. It's good to limit accesses to those roads and we have been granted an access from ACHD for our -- our project here, as there is no other point of access with the existing homes and shops, we couldn't get our access onto Mesa -- Mesa Road. So, we have an access approved through ACRD. Mesa Way, as you see here, continues up quite a long ways. That should be kind of a traffic funneler as these -- as these lots in the future develop and we will carry -- as you see the subdivision to the east all stub into that, the majority of the traffic add onto Victory Road. If we stub this road up in this direction, you're going to have additional trips, potentially, in the future that are going to be coming out to Victory Road. Through what will be a secondary access point and just it makes a little more planning sense and traffic sense, in my mind, to funnel that traffic onto Mesa Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 17 of 45 That's the first reason. The second one is that -- as you looked at the landscape plan that has been done and you see the work that he's put into his existing home and the monies spent on trees and whatnot and building elevations for what he plans on in the future, it's going to be a very nice project and with no guarantees of how it will develop to the north and the R-4 zoning around -- R-8 zoning around, prefer that we have the -- the cul-de-sac to have more of an intimate community there. And thank you for your time tonight and will stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Is it Jim or -- Wyatt: Jed. O'Brien: Jed? Wyatt: Uh-huh. O'Brien: J-e -- Wyatt: J-e-d. Jed. O'Brien: So, this -- so this -- this stub street it's going to service this lot -- basically this lot here and this build out here, is that why they are going to stub it through the center of this -- Wyatt: Yeah. That's my understanding is it would stub to the north and so as that development occurs to the north it would just provide some interconnectivity. But if you look there is plenty of frontage off of Mesa Way and there is also another stub street provided here to the north. And so there seems to be ample -- ample space for access as those properties develop. O'Brien: So, this line here, then, is not -- it's just a dividing line, it's not going to be a future stub? Wyatt: It's a property line. O'Brien: It's a property line, so -- I guess I'm just -- my only concern is how these people here are going to have access, unless they go right through these people's property right now and I'm concerned about that, I guess. Something doesn't seem right about it all. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 18 of 45 Wyatt: Mesa Way would be their primary access, which runs along their entire piece of property. O'Brien: And did I hear your concerns about the traffic flow, then, should be maintained on here and not up this way or -- Wyatt: That was my thought. Yeah. Victory Road is an arterial road. It's good practice to limit our accesses onto it and funnel -- funnel the majority of traffic in at certain designated points. O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. Moe: Well, I want to discuss this a little bit further in here as well. Okay. Basically, what you're saying, you got a stub street right there in that subdivision right there that will take care of this area right here. What are we doing here, if we don't do the connectivity through, so we got it, you want to have all these folks here, then, have to come out here, go down here, and, then, come this way to even get into any of this here. I mean that's why I think it's imperative that -- to have the connectivity of this road going all the way through this, so that eventually when they are building in, that these people do have some where to get down into here, as opposed to having to go out and around and, then, turn coming back in and going back on the arterial again. O'Brien: I agree. It was kind of confusing, because you think that they would have had some -- something there already as a proposal, I guess. Wyatt: You could connect these two properties without having to have access out to Victory Road. I mean you could have -- both of the properties have access onto Mesa. You have a stub street here and there can be connectivity between those two and you could get from here to this subdivision right in that -- in that way. The point I'm trying to make is if and when this develops, the residents here could come this way or this way as easily as that way to get out. Moe: I think just basically for safety purposes the fire department is going to want to be able to go, you know, all the way through into here, as well as come up in to do something here, just for safety purposes alone. Marshall: How much further up does Mesa Way go? How much is feeding onto Mesa Way there? Wafters: Unfortunately, my map doesn't cover that, Commissioner. Wyatt: It doesn't go up much farther and it's a cul-de-sac, but as you look at the development directly to the north of it there is a stub street, which stubs directly into where Mesa Way is heading. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 19 of 45 Wyatt: Thank you. Moe: Well, this hearing took up the fact that we didn't have anyone signed up on the other ones, so -- you guys did good this time. First one on the list -- I'm going to butcher this real good. Aneke Billford -- Binford? Binford. I'm sorry. When you do come up, please, name and address, please. Binford: Good evening. Aneke Binford. 3101 South Mesa Way, Meridian. Let's see if can run the pointer. Okay. Our property is this one right directly next to where Shays Cove is proposed. We have been down this road before with development. Two of our other neighbors on the street developed each of their five acre parcels, Cabella Creek Subdivision that's under development now and so we know that anything that's within that area of impact is going to be developed and we are not going to fight that. So, that being said, we are not completely opposed to Shays Cove. However, we are in agreement with staff that we feel that that road needs to be stubbed and not a cul-de- sac, just for future development of our ground, which is right here. The other stub road that's right there, that one we also requested when Glacier Bay went in. When Cabella Creek Subdivision went in, which is this road that comes here and this road right here, that dumps out onto Mesa Way. When that was being developed we had requested cul-de-sacs there and they told us that because of interconnectivity they wanted those roads to go ahead and dump into Mesa. So, our feeling is that to keep that interconnectivity we would like to see that road stubbed, because we do plan to develop our property somewhere down the line as well. Could you flip to the one -- let's see. Go ahead and go back one more. Sorry. He was talking about how they can -- you know, if we do develop here, they can just run all the traffic from -- those lots can be accessed off of Mesa, but what happens with that is they are saying that the existing property where John Shay lives, that they can't run all of their lots onto Mesa Way, because of his shop and buildings and whatnot. So, that's kind of the same thing that would happen to us if we only had Mesa Way as an access to our property. So, yeah, we'd like to see that road stubbed. We are in agreement with staff on that. What else? I think we do have some irrigation issues as well. My husband will probably speak to that a little bit later, because he's the irrigation guy. And berming -- we'd like to see a four to five foot berm and white vinyl fence, which is consistent with everything else that's gone on, so -- Newton-Huckabay: A perimeter fence? Binford: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: Perimeter fence? Binford: Correct. And also I know they had a great landscaping plan, but they didn't show or explain to us -- we have a little piece -- yes. So, right there is our property line -- the back of our property line and, then, this is our pasture area. We'd like to make sure that four foot berm is here with the fencing. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 20 of 45 Moe: Earlier in testimony it was said that they were going to do the perimeter fence. Binford: Okay. Yeah. Oh, am I up? Moe: Be quick. Binford: Okay. We were not aware of this smaller lot right here when they presented that to us at the kind of community meeting, so we are just a little curious how that got in there. It's just not a large enough transition. The other homes across the street on Mesa Way that were originally five acre pieces, we requested half acre lots, which they felt was a good transition. The other properties on Mesa Way are five acre lots. So, we feel that that is awfully small of a transition to be thrown in there, so -- all right. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Jed Wyatt. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay. Sue Haglund. Haglund: Good evening. This is my first time in a public hearing. I just wanted to -- oh. Moe: Name and address, please. Haglund: Sue Haglund, 3126 South Glacier Bay Way and I'm a neighbor of John Shay and I think it's nice that he wants to do something with his property. I'm just wanting to express concern for the busyness of Victory Road. As was pointed out, there is quite a bit of house development around our neighborhood and ground is just sitting, there are no homes being built, there is just dirt sitting there and we have it on the south of Victory and we have it up in that RUT, which is Majestic Point, it's all been plumbed, it's already, but there are no homes in there and I guess as a concerned neighbor I just don't want to see this go along and, then, it just sit and just be dirt and cement, you know, and also the -- right at the edge of the property on the left there in our home area the road -- Victory Road is elevated and so when you're coming down that hill you can come very quickly and I'm concerned for traffic going into that -- that entrance into that housing district. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Roy Haglund. R.Haglund: Roy Haglund. I also live at 3126, which is the second lot in from Victory that backs onto Mr. Shay's property. We moved up from southern California where we had lived for 20 years in 2006 and one of the things that was really appealing to us about that particular lot was the openness and the view and everything like that and so when he heard about the development we very sad and chagrined, as you can imagine, but I understand that, you know, it's Mr. Shay's property and he can do what he likes with it and if it was my property and I wouldn't want my neighbors to come and tell me couldn't do it. I do have a similar concern to what my wife said. We didn't discuss this ahead of time, but we do see all of the other develops around -- there is four within a half a mile and they are sitting there empty and, you know, we would prefer that if there Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 21 of 45 was a way to just delay this until the housing market turns, so that we didn't have to look at empty weed filled lots that would be great. Moe: Thank you very much. Judy Staub. Okay. From the audience she said that her concerns have been met. Liz -- yeah. That's right. Okay. Echanis: Liz Echanis at 3042 South Glacier Bay Way in Glacier Springs and I have a few concerns. We attended the meeting at the Shays and had some concerns and they were never included in the application and, then, when I went down to check it and, then, I think you said there was no written information submitted on this and I hand delivered it down here for our subdivision with signatures from everybody. So, that has me a little concerned that -- Newton-Huckabay: You had a petition? Echanis: Yes. We signed an agreement -- in fact, I have copies in my file. I talked to Sonya and, then, I brought it down here on a Friday and give it to the gal and said I had extra copies and she said she would get them to you. So, this has me concerned, because you mentioned there is a six foot fence on the west boundary and there is not. We were concerned about landscaping and some privacy and for some issues like that to be addressed and, then, also there are so many Cabellas sitting there empty, and Majestic is sitting empty and I guess Cavanaugh is the one to the south of us. And if he wants to build, I mean I can understand him building his house, but maybe subdividing later, because we are going to have dirt surrounding us forever and it is true, Glacier -- if you look at Glacier Spring, we have one road in for all those houses and, then, you're going to put another road in and if you have been on Victory Road and you try to turn into our sub, which is just probably 300 feet from where this entrance is going to be, you can't see the cars coming. I mean it evens out a little bit toward Mesa. It's dangerous right now for us getting into our sub. So, that is a concern, too. The road safety on Victory is a huge concern. But we did have some issues that we wanted addressed and I'm surprised that it hasn't been. Moe: Are you speaking of this one here? Echanis: Yeah. And there is a typed letter to this. Moe: Uh-huh. Echanis: Okay. So, those are my concerns. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Should we read into the -- note it for the record? Would you like me to do that, Mr. Chair? Moe: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 22 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to note into the record the letter and the bullet points that Echanis -- Mrs. Echanis was pointing out and it was -- they would like development agreement provisions that would restrict the height of houses all -- to all single level on the west side of the property that borders Glacier Springs, which are all single level. This was received on September 12th, 2008. A minimum of 2,400 feet on the home. Landscaping for privacy, such as evergreens. They'd like to see taller fences. Currently the fence is -- of Glacier Springs Subdivision that borders the proposed development are the lower level. They would like to see a cul-de-sac and not a through road. We already have a road in front of our homes and this would be a way to keep the noise level down. And, then, some type of turn lane on Victory Road to help avoid a dangerous situation. Again, that was the letter received on September 12th. Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Randy Cash. Randy has evidently left. Ashley Bloom. All right. Ron LaFever. LaFever: Yes. My name is Ronald LaFever, 2962 Glacier Bay, and I do oppose this project for several reasons. I bought there because it is five acres behind us and I realize that you guys would like -- or the city would like to eventually develop everything. But if you would just -- within probably two or three blocks of us is 300 lots that aren't sold and only partially developed and I just don't think this is the right time to develop it. And if -- I developed some property in 1995 in McCall and the city council was reluctant and I asked them just to come to the property and look the situation over and after the meeting they got in their cars and went to the -- to the property and looked it over and, then, it was -- I wanted approved and it was. And I feel like if that's a possibility before this finally goes through, if you came to the property and saw how they want to get this road through and its at the bottom of the hill and it is five acres now, it just -- I don't think that this would go over with the City Council. I just don't think it would be an approved subdivision at this time with all the lots sitting and just my comment at this and like Liz brought up, there are four subdivisions within -- I'm going to say two to three blocks, maybe a quarter mile at the most with hundreds of lots that aren't sold and only partially developed. And so I do opposed it and that's what I have to say. Moe: Thank you very much. Brett Cash. Left with Randy. Shawn -- is that -- is it Shakori? I can't pronounce that very well. C-h-a-k-o-r-i. Newton-Huckabay: S-h. Moe: Well, Linda Baker. Baker: Good evening. I'm Linda Baker at 3086 Glacier Bay Way. Nary: Would you pull the microphone down, ma'am. Baker: Most of my concerns have already been voiced by my neighbors. I am opposed to the subdivision at this time, again, because of all the vacant lots. The last bad wind storm we had dirt flying everywhere. I don't want to see that in my backyard for years to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 23 of 45 come. The other subdivision's been there it seems to me a couple years and there has only been one house built on the other side of Mesa. Glacier Bay -- my home is elevated from the property that we -- the proposed property right now. The fence, believe, is five foot. I know it's not six foot. We have no windows on the second story. We would be having people looking into our yards. Incorrectly we were told before we bought our property that that property was five acre lots and could never be subdivided. Unfortunately, that was incorrect. But that was the basis that we bought our home on. Because of the wildlife back there, the view, I have my opposition at this time. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. That was all that were signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward, raise your hand and -- come forward, sir. Todd: Sorry I was a little late, I had another commitment, but Chris Todd with Landmark Engineering and Planning as well. Business address is 332 Broadmore Way. Here on behalf of John Shay, our client. The owner of this property and our client Mr. Shay wanted to do something a little bit different and unique for this area. The design and the preliminary plat that you see in front of you this evening are kind of the brainstorming efforts of the client and our firm to kind of match the goals that he was looking for and the piece of land that Mr. Shay owned. The design and the preliminary plat allowed for our client's goals to be achieved and high standards, quality design, and some superior homes. If you look through the application and the transmittal that was sent to planning and zoning, you will see some elevations of proposed housing types and elevations -- Moe: Those were all shown. Todd: And other -- also included with the application, other than those homes sites, was this color exhibit and landscaping plan. With the existing landscaping plan and the potential for the superior homes for this site, I feel that these are kind of wasted by putting in that stub street. I feel that the potential is lost with the extension of Coy Place for a variety of different reasons. I'm not going to rehash those, I think Jed went through them with the irrigation canal that's to the north and two properties -- could you show the vicinity map up one more time? Moe: Yeah. I was going to say, you're doing applicant discussions here and -- Newton-Huckabay: They have already been done. Todd: Okay. I feel that with the existing stub streets and the irrigation ditch that are there, as long -- as well as ACRD not commenting that they would like the stub street, I feel that the design of this subdivision is kind of lost with the extension of the stub street and I will conclude my testimony there, because I don't want to step on any feet. Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 24 of 45 M.Binford: Matt Binford, 3101 Mesa Way. So, we live on the property on the north of the developed agreement. So, one thing I -- I'm not -- neither really opposed, nor for this development. We know development's going to happen and this area -- you know, a high impact area, lots of development going on. What I'd like to point out, though, is John does a nice job, you know, he does quality development. These people you hear arguing against that development, I would think would encourage that. His home that he's going to build is going to be a nice house in this location. But beyond that, my other concern is irrigation between us and John right along this area. We flood irrigate from here down across. It catches a ditch in here. I just want to make sure that whatever they put in there is at least a three foot berm that would keep that water from going on this new development. And the other concern -- if you go back to that small lot, is this was a surprise to see it in this -- this rendering. It wasn't in the town meeting that John had and it really doesn't offer a lot of transition. All the lots across the road from Mesa Way -- these are. all half acre lots, so this lot really just doesn't fit with what's currently existing. As my wife mentioned earlier, we would agree with the stub road here. The folks in Glacier Bay, their concerns are valid with the debris and all that that happens. We have lived with their development and also the development across the road. You know, that's growth, that's up to the city -- City of Meridian to decide what kind of growth they want, but that's all I have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, then. Wyatt: Jed Wyatt with Landmark Engineering and Planning, 332 Northside Boulevard in Nampa. And I tried to take some good notes. I hope that I can touch on all items here. The first one I'll address is this lot here and, yes, that is different than what was on our map in our neighborhood meeting and maybe Sonya, if I missed some of this, can explain some of the reasons why. That lot originally included these two shed structures on it, but because of some technicalities in the code and whatnot, we couldn't have a lot with a shed and not -- not a living structure mainly. So, we were planning on doing a lot line adjustment in the future and that lot will grow in size and, again, accompany those sheds. But we didn't add any lots. They are slightly configured differently, but the general intent is the same and it was just an effort to meet some of city code that we made the changes. that we did for that lot. There was some concern on Victory Road and there is a little hill there and, yes, there is a little bit of a hill coming -- coming down, but it's been through ACRD. We have had engineers look at it and it's not a problem as far as sight distances. There is hills on pretty near any road you go on and it's -- the safety is .not a concern with the experts that have looked at it. But that does bring up a good point with the housing that is next door. That housing is five or six feet taller than the backyards and the homes that will be say here and so, really, it's not any of the homes here that will be looking onto those, they will be looking into this. These lots are substantially larger than the lots adjacent to them anyway. Irrigation was brought up and we will insure that all the irrigation rights are met and work through that in our construction drawings and we will make sure that his historic irrigation rights are there. There is state laws that protect those and we will make sure that all his irrigation concerns are resolved. And let me look at my notes here real quick. Oh. Market Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 25 of 45 conditions was addressed. Three of the lots are spoken for already. There is only eight lots in here. These lots are unique, because they are quite a bit larger than anything that's around. them. This isn't a -- this isn't aproject --atypical developer project, this is a landowner who wants to live on this project. It's pretty unique and it's really not a concern for the developer, the land owner. And that's all I have got from my notes. Just to touch on that, the stub road one last time, we would like to keep it a cul-de-sac for the intimacy within the neighborhood, the high quality of homes that we are proposing to build here, as well as we feel that there is -- there is ample cross-access opportunities available to the north and we thank you for your time and ask for your approval. Moe: Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: So, what is the future intent of that lot for, the 8,600 -- you say that's going to be -- there is going to be a lot line adjustment and it will eventually connect to the sheds? Wyatt: Originally we had this lot with the home as its own lot without the sheds on it. You see that's kind of a funny shaped lot. Marshall: Right. Wyatt: And this lot, Lot 4, had the sheds on it. The city code says -- and maybe they can help me, again, to this, that we can't have that -- that lot with sheds on it without a living structure and so we put it on with this home and we hope in the future when we build a home on there that we can adjust that. Moe: Sonya, can you give us an explanation on that, please. Wafters: Yes, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. It's just like Mr. Wyatt said, city code does not allow for these structures to remain on the site without a primary residence, so they would have to be removed if it wasn't configured like it is. Wyatt: It's just a small technicality. The reason I brought it up is there was some -- some people noting that we added that lot and it was different than the neighborhood meeting. I just wanted to explain why we weren't trying to pull a fast one or anything, but that's the reason it looks the way it does. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Appreciate that. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 26 of 45 Wyatt: Thank you. Moe: Comments? Thoughts? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: These type of developments are difficult and I think we are going to start seeing more and more of them come in as we start to in fill. If -- you know, connectivity is something that they point you to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they hand you the book of good planning practice and connectivity is like number one in there to build good communities and this is the entryway, if you will, to the rest of the development along Mesa Way and I think it's critical to provide that connectivity and I would expect that any -- any -- to do anything else I think would be negligent on our part. If we said, oh, you can have a cul-de-sac to every development that wanted a cul- de-sac; there would be a lot of cul-de-sacs in the city. So, I think it's critical that that go through there. That may not be the best thing for the vision of your development, but I think it's the best thing for the city in the long run and for ultimately that area to develop as -- to its highest and best use. Understanding why lot -- I do think Lot 4 is an odd lot. Understanding why that is that way I think I'm okay with it. So, I have no -- I have no issues -- issues with that. Addressing the oversupply, I -- it's a valid concern and market conditions, but I don't believe that we have the right to tell someone that they can't do that because is oversupply on the market. I think that would be -- I'm not going to say anymore, because the attorney will tell me -- may correct me there. Probably justifiably so, but -- so, with that Ithink -- I think it's a great development. The elevations are beautiful. But I do believe it needs to stub through. That seems to be the sticking point. Moe: Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: Well, when I look at the lot to the north and knowing the feelings of the owners of that lot, I look at it and if they were to ever develop, they really don't have access and couldn't without that stubbing in. Right there. Yeah. This lot here. I mean if you go back to the aerial photo, please. Right there. I mean they might be able to get a -- you know, this is a separate lot, I believe. Newton-Huckabay: It is. Marshall: So, here -- they could -- they could stub in here and that's the only access they have and, what, we are going to put another cul-de-sac here? I -- I don't know what you do. I mean that -- that would be silly, you would have to stub to the north. can't imagine not. I understand that it kind of doesn't meet the division of that little subdivision, it sounds like a very nice subdivision with a cul-de-sac. I love it. But that's Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 27 of 45 -- really, for connectivity, EMS, fire, things like that, as well as the neighbors to the north, if they are ever going to develop, they need that connectivity. Newton-Huckabay: Well, we have to leave options. Marshall: And the 8,600 square foot lot is not significantly smaller than these lots. These are not -- those are not half acre lots, those are, you know, fifth acre right in through here. I'm sure about the same size as the 8,600. So, I don't have aproblem -- I don't have a problem with Lot 4, especially considering the fact that the city code will not allow that to contain the sheds as well. Again, my one issue is the connectivity. think it needs it. I really do. Unfortunately, I understand that it kind of goes against the idea of that subdivision and what they want to have there, but -- Newton-Huckabay: We should have stubbed somewhere in here when Glacier Springs went in. Marshall: Even if they had stubbed right in here. Newton-Huckabay: You know, we are covering 15 acres before we hit the stub. Marshall: Yeah. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: Yeah. It's a tough thing for us to decide what's in the best interest of the city, whether we approve the zoning or not. I think that we are kind of caught in a quandary of which direction to take. Stubbing that cul-de-sac out at a later time may seem like a solution for connectivity, but I think the value of the property surrounding that is going to drop considerably. I don't know who would want to buy that, especially with the size of the lots will be diminished considerably. The traffic flow will increase. But, then, again, you're going to have the need for connectivity to the property above that. So, we are kind of caught in a -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Your burden lies on helping decide what is in the best interest of the city. O'Brien: Exactly. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 28 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Not what is the value of the property. O'Brien: Oh. That was just an after comment. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: I do have a quick question of Sonya. Newton-Huckabay: I'm getting corrected by the attorney, so -- Marshall: I'm sorry. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you raised a question earlier. It is within your discretion as this Commission to decide in an annexation request what's in the best interest of the city. The issue that's been raised by some of the testimony that there is an over abundance of residential housing that's already available and platted properties that are already available, is certainly within your discretion to exercise, because, again, it's an annexation request. So, it is not inappropriate for you to consider that if you want to. Again, you don't have to, but it's certainly within your purview to make that decision that it's not in the best interest of the city because of those reasons or certainly it's not a factor to you that it's -- that there is residential properties available and it's still in the best interest of the city. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Well, my question is do we have any comments from ACHD regarding the entrance there to Victory on what -- how far do they go? I didn't see an ACHD report. I assume they approved the entrance there, but was there any cautions or any comments that they gave? Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner, let me pull up their report. They did approve the entrance, the access point. I'm not sure what the exact comment was, so give me a minute here. Marshall: I don't remember reading through it. It's not a separate report. Newton-Huckabay: There is not one in there. Marshall: There is not a separate report, at least that I can see, other than it was approved. I just thought maybe that would be in regard to coming down that hill and turning in and out of that subdivision and -- Moe: Right. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, if I might interject just one comment about the Ada County Highway District notations. I would like to know if that was based on the cul-de-sac without stubs Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 29 of 45 or is that -- be included in stubbing all the way through changes considerably the amount of traffic that would access onto Victory Road and having driven that part of the highway for many years I can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, but if they feel it meets their criteria, then, I don't have any issues with it. Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioners. In answer to Commissioner Marshall's question, there really wasn't much analysis in the ACHD report. They, basically, stated the applicant's proposal for the construction of Coy Place meets district policy and should be approved with this application. Moe: I'd like to follow that up, then, with the question that Mr. O'Brien brought up, then. Was that analysis given after, then, knowing that the city would want that street to go through -- to be stubbed through at a later day? Wafters: Prior to that. Moe: Prior to. Okay. So, ACHD only saw the -- Newton-Huckabay: Stub. Or the cul-de-sac. Moe: -- the cul-de-sac. Okay. Well, you three have commented. I guess I, myself, pretty much am in agreement with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Mr. Marshall in regards to the connectivity issue. I'm very concerned that it needs to be there. The development itself, I -- you know, I -- with the amount of lots and whatnot in there, have no problem with it going forward as well. Just realizing that there is a lot of subdivisions and a lot of empty lots out -- you know, with a little different zoning all the way through there. So, these are bigger lots and whatnot. I think it's a different condition all together, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's a little bit unique in the development, you know, with the type of rebuilding. Moe: But I do think it's very important that the connectivity is there and I would leave it at that. I guess there is one question I do have still of the applicant and that's based upon staffs recommendation that are dependent upon if, in fact, this Commission does make a recommendation that a stub street does go through, our time frame as far as bringing any knew plat with the conditions noted in the recommendation that's basically our next meeting, which is in two weeks, that we got something that the applicant would want to get taken care of in two weeks or is it going to take you longer or do decisions need to be made as to what you want to do to go forward? Kind of need to have some direction from them as well before we can decide what -- and we are still in public hearing open, so I want to get that -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 30 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: I would also like to see the fencing issue addressed when it comes back, making sure that it's a six foot fence or verifying that it is a six foot fence. Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, while they are making their way to the mike. Moe: Yes, sir. Hood: Just to keep scheduling in mind somewhat. We do have a hearing in two weeks, Sonya would need something tomorrow, probably, for first part of next week to do a revised staff report, to just keep that in mind. Also, November 6th, we are going to have potentially only three Commissioners, so keep that in mind as well, that we are going to potentially have no quorum on that night. So, just to put those two concerns out there. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, the soonest we would want to do anything is November 16th. Moe: So, we can make it to that point and, then, we can go from there and -- Wyatt: We could get something the first part of -- first part of next week. Moe: Okay. Okay. That will do. Thank you. Wyatt: Was there any other questions? Moe: That was it. Well, you know, while we are here, though, let's get the fencing details that you're looking for a little bit more ironed out. I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: The Binfords were requesting to have the six foot white vinyl fence along the north property -- would be their south property line, your north property line, prior to construction. Did I get that right? Wyatt: We are planning on putting a fence there. We can put that in. It shouldn't be a problem. Newton-Huckabay: A six foot -- is the fence on the west side of the property -- how tall is that? Wyatt: There is one on the west and I thought it was six feet, but I got a picture of it in my landscape plan, but one of the neighbors was saying it wasn't. It's kind of up on a hill and so maybe I was mistaken in what -- it being a six foot fence. Newton-Huckabay: Will you verify -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 31 of 45 Wyatt: We can verify it. It's a very nice, brand new, vinyl fence. Newton-Huckabay: It's a vinyl fence? Wyatt: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It's a white vinyl fence? Wyatt: White vinyl fence. Yeah. Moe: With your landscape drawing up here I'm kind of curious, were you -- are you doing any berming at all at the north? Basically the -- Wyatt: We were not going to do any berming on the north. There was some irrigation concerns and we will do what we need to to take care of those irrigation concerns. Moe: Right. Wyatt: But we feel like our development's going to be very attractive. You're .not going to have to buffer -- buffer us from -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that. Moe: Anything else for -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I would just say for the benefit of those who testified that are higher than this property, I don't think it would be appropriate to put a burden on the developer to say you have to make your fence even higher, just because the properties to the west of you are higher. So, I would think as long as there is -- a fence in good repair, that the fence would be appropriate. I don't think -- Wyatt: I have a photo of the fence here. It's very poor quality in black and white. It's been photocopied, but the fence is -- you can pass that around if you like. Newton-Huckabay: Well, given the nature of the development you're proposing, it wouldn't be beneficial to you to have a broken down fence, but I believe the comments were wanting to have a taller fence and -- Nary: Ma'am, you can't talk from the audience. Moe: Are you okay? Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. You're good. Moe: We are fine. Thank you. Okay. So -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 32 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009, to the hearing date of November 20th, 2008, for the following reasons: The applicant will revise the plat to extend South Coy Place as a stub street to the north property boundary with a temporary turnaround for the fire department emergency access. The applicant shall submit ten copies of a revised plat and landscape plan to the Planning Department at least ten days prior to the next Commission meeting on the November 20th date. November 20th, 2008. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009 for Shays Cove to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 20th, 2008, for the reasons as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Nary. Nary: For the -- I guess the benefit of the people that were here today to testify, you have continued for that -- for that rendering, but are you taking testimony about those results, then, at that next hearing? Marshall: We didn't close the public hearing. Nary: Right. You have continued the hearing. I just want -- I don't know if these folks want to testify, but before they leave I thought you might want to make clear, since you are going to be taking new evidence, that they probably could testify only about that, not about other stuff, just about the new information that's provided. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you made the motion. What would you like to do? Newton-Huckabay: Given the potential nature of the development to change, I would say that we would take testimony only on the changes -- and the intention of my motion. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Second concurs. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, did we sufficiently cover that?