Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 9, 2004 C/C MinutesMeddian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 39 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearings on Items 15, 16, and 17, RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067, and ask Council to, please, continue these public hearings until the 16th. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067 for Cedar Springs Professional Center until March 16th, 2004. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings on Items 15, 16, and 17 for Cedar Springs Professional Center, to March 16th, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 03-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 140.97 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Saguaro Canvon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 03-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 461 single-family building lots and 43 common lots on 140.25 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canvon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 03-058 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirementsforfrontages, lot sizes, and minimum house size and permission to have two cul-de-sac lengths exceed the maximum length in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Saguaro Canvon Estates Subdivision by Farwest, LLC -north side of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19, and 20, with your permission I will open all three public hearings for AZ 03-027, PP 03-032, and CUP 03-058, and I will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Saguaro Canyon Estates. This is a large subdivision, one of the larger ones we have got in the process currently. The annexation and zoning includes the 140 acres. As you see outlined here, it has also been amended to include the small strip of the driveway to -- also. And I will get in a little bit as to why that's occurring in a moment. The preliminary plat is for 461 buildable Meridian Clty Council March 9, 2004 Page 40 of 77 lots and 43 other lots and the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development is in order to approve reduced lot frontages, lot sizes, minimum house size and also two cul- de-sac lengths that exceed the maxim length as allowed by code. As you see here, this is the first urban scale development that will occur in this section. This property was done as a nonfarm development in Ada county. There is a deed restriction on -- a 15 year deed restriction on this property, as well as all these little ones in back of these lots as well. The intent of this diagram is just to show you the other developments as they have come in in the north Meridian area and kind of highlighting the fact that this is the first one to occur in this section again. Okay. I'll try and go through some of the points here. I'll probably leave most of it up to the developer, but as you can see, there is a -- kind of collector road that comes into the project. It terminates at this location. There is a series of two large open space -- one at the terminal of this road here as you get around, there is this kind of short mill loaded street in this location that, again, terminates at an open space. You have fairly uniform lots going throughout the development. This is a five acre lot owned by the -- there is several properties that have been joined together to make this application. One of those properties is owned by the Boyacks. The Boyacks would like to keep a five acre property as shown here to --they'd like to keep it and what they intend to do at this point is to develop a single lot phase of this property with this access road as shown and, then, to build a new house on that on aseptic system. The other phases would start in this location, so it would be a disjointed phase for just that one lot. That's why we went back and renoticed the annexation, was to pick up this strip of land. There is a strip of land that has historically been the access to this property and they are asking that that be approved as the frontage for that property. It's 24 feet in width. The standard requirement would be 30 feet. I think I'm going to skip now and go to the summary recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And the applicant's representative Mr. McKinnon has also provided a letter and I wanted to go through just a couple of those issues as well. Application does come forward to you with a recommendation for approval. Testifying at the hearing were David McKinnon representing the applicant and Rob Greiner represented John and Ed Priddy and they own the property right here, from here to here. So, they would -- this drive aisle would be their southern boundary and I believe their other property line comes through right there. And they express concerns about the density of the proposed development a nd t heir a gricultural u se, s pecifically a b ull, I think, t hat they have on their property and how it would relate to this development. Mike Youngberg is a property owner representing the Larkwood Subdivision and, again, that's the nonfarm development here to the east. He reiterated the concems that they had in their letter. The Priddys have also supplied letters for the record. He submitted a one page agreement, dated 1/6/04, between Larkwood Homeowners Association and Farwest outlining five agreements made since the original application and neighborhood meeting. Grant Lee, who owns the property just to the north here -- Lee: Not that far. Powell: Not that far. Right there. Is that correct? Or here? No. Further down. Here we go. Now I got it. Sorry. Mr. Lee testified with concerns about lot sizes adjacent to his parcel, fencing, and street names, among other issues. Justin Martin, the applicant and Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 41 of 77 developer, testified regarding a secondary access and other key points of discussion included timing and service of Meridian Road access, sanitary sewer location and timing, perimeter fencing,and restricting the number of buildable lots. I ran through those and I wanted to go through in a little more detail. Right now sewer is only -- sewer, right? Sewer is only available to about this portion right here. It goes into a different kind of service area on the other side of that line. So, right now there is very limited ability to service this whole property. I mean we just can't. To serve this property, the sewers are going to need to come through Paramount a nd, then, a cross one of these properties. I think it's anticipated that it would be this one. The elementary school -- middle school? Middle school is going on the southern portion and, then, we have not seen any development proposed on the northern portion of the adjoining lot. I'll go up to the surrounding property owners. There we go. Here is Paramount. As you will recall when Paramount went through, we knew there was going to be demand for sewer getting through the property in a timely fashion. We did not acquire those easements at that time, so to adequately serve the majority of this subdivision, that sewer does need to make it all the way through Paramount and, then, through the school property and over to this one and we were concerned about the timing of that in relationship to the preliminary plat approval. So, what staff had done -- that's regarding sewer. Now, there is also a question regarding access. The only frontage that this property has is McMillan. So, they have one way in for 461 lots at this time. They have proposed an emergency access. I believe it's here. That would be a secondary emergency access for the fire department. Staff wanted to see before they got passed the 236th lot, I believe it is. This is what came forward from the recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, that no more than 236 building permits would be issued until there was a second public access available and that would be a full paved public access, presumably coming from the west, to provide access one of these stub locations and that was what -- they have wanted that to be a secondary access, not requiring it to be paved, but the Planning Commission's recommendation was that, you know, until we have two streets coming in and out of this development, there should be no more than 236 lots. That 236 is not some magic traffic number, it just happened to be how many lots there were at a dividing line between properties that they picked. I believe it's this property here. Is that correct? Yes. I'm getting nods from Mr. McKinnon. That represents everything from here down could be developed with just a single access, but that this property could not be developed until there was a second access point. Okay. So, the key Commission changes to the staff recommendation were to add a condition to the development agreement that no more than 50 homes can be built until the North Slough Trunk and secondary emergency access are available. So, again, that's this line down here, basically, could be built until they had sewer and, then, you'd also have to have the secondary access. Emergency access. Add a condition to the development agreement that no more than the 236 building permits be issued until a second public access is available. Incorporate the five agreements made between the applicant and the Larkwood Homeowners Association to the east into that development agreement. Also add a clause to the development agreement indemnifying the City of Meridian in case the North Slough Trunk construction is delayed by actions of people other than the city. And you should have in your packet a memo from Brad Hawkins to the Mayor and City Council, it's dated February 10th, and it's regarding a hold harmless Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 42 of 77 clause for Saguaro Canyon and they did work with Mr. Nichols to develop the hold harmless agreement, basically stating that there was limited sewer to the project and that we won't be held to their time table, basically. So, with that I think the outstanding issues before City Council pertain to, one, the hold harmless agreement and to discuss that, where that adequately addresses those needs for the -- for indemnity. And since the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, they -- the Planning and Zoning Commission did not hear discussion based on this private driveway to the Boyack property and they did revise this to just include a one five lot phase, so that they can construct a new family dwelling on that. And that would be serviced by septic system and well, not by city sewer and water, until such time as the development got up there. And it would require modification to the preliminary plat to provide the lot with legal frontage, because it doesn't have it today, and would also require adding land to the annexation legal description. But I think they have already done that. Okay. Now, I wanted to go to Mr. MCKinnon's letter. He goes through the conditions of approval and I'll try and summarize, so -- I don't usually take this long, but this is a large development with some -- a lot of issues were tied to it. But the first one he does ask that the condition number two be removed and that's the condition for the secondary access to be constructed on the site prior to issuance of the 236th lot. T he other one - I just wanted to comment that on -- with regard to the new septic and new well being on the site, we did want to make sure the applicant was aware that they would need to demolish the existing houses on the site before that would be .permitted. There was some minor modifications to some of the other ones that staff did agree with. Staff, however, does still believe that there should be a paved -- oh, no, I'm sorry. It states that staff is in support of a 24 foot wide frontage for the Boyack property and it's a little bit strong. I think staff came up with a way that they could propose that, but the requirement is for 30 feet on a flag lot and the concern would be is that if that ever became more than a driveway for a single family home, then, that's inadequate width to even have, basically, two flags for a house out that way, because they'd each have to have a 15 foot minimum. So, it is -- we usually look for 30, even for common drives for two lots would require 30 and it is a fairly consistent standard. So, they are asking for a 24 foot width on that. And there is a little bit of concern on staffs part of what happens to this. You know, sometimes these become spite strips and are very -- are kind of a road block to future redevelopment. In this case where you have got a large house and kind of an estate to the west, it may not be an issue, but it's there for Council's consideration. There was one more memo from Mr. Hawkins-Clark that I wanted to point out. And it basically addresses the outstanding issues that -- that Mr. McKinnon has raised in his letter. It should be in your packet, I believe it's Saguaro Canyon Estates talking points for Council hearing. I believe it's in your packet. And it does go over t he requirement for t he 236 b wilding p ermit, that -- t he a pplicant s tates that t he Meridian fire department isn't requiring it. Well, they only address -- they address temporary or secondary accesses. They don't typically address the need for a permanent access. That doesn't mean it's not suitable for the Planning staff or the Planning Commission or the Council to address the need for a second access, particula~iy a project this large. The other one is that ACHD has just assumed that there will be another access available to the property once it hits one' of their thresholds and I think Brad went through those numbers. Red Horse Way is a designated collector, Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 43 of 77 residential collector, it would have a total of 3,600 average daily trips at build out. Residential collectors by ACHD policy are supposed to carry a maximum of 2,500 vehicle trips per day. Well, that 2,500 is for new development. They do anticipate that that number goes up slightly as additional development goes beyond that one, but their maximum policy says 3,000. So, this collector will have more trips on it than would normally be allowed by a collector and that's because they are anticipating that there will be some secondary access. So, all we have said is that prior to the 236th building lot g oing i n, a II P tanning a nd Z oning C ommission h as s aid i s t hat t here s hould b e a secondary access at that point. So, I think I'll leave --end stafFs presentation at that and answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? Nary: Madam Mayoi'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. Anna, on that five acre parcel, that wasn't before the Planning and Zoning Commission; right? Powell: Correct Nary: So, that wasn't part of the staff report? Powell: Correct. Nary: That was presented? And I have heard you say that -- you may have softened a little bit, but the staff isn't necessarily promoting it, but you-have found a way to make it work. But I haven't heard whether or not you recommend to have it. It seems a little goofy to me to let people build a brand new septic system temporarily until we get sewer there. But I wanted to know what your thoughts were as a recommendation, since that wasn't originally in the staff report. Powell: I have a little bit mixed feelings about it. I mean it's, obviously, of benefit to the Priddys as a -- as a much better buffer along most of their boundary. Is it appropriate for the city to want a five acre lot? As a planner, I don't believe so. Is it going to be temporary? Probably. Once all these houses get up there - I don't -- have never understood the real motivation and apparently they are very motivated to have this five acre lot and it's never made a whole lot of sense to me to put the money that's required for a new septic and well and, then, you know, if this were done at the rate the Lochsa has been done, then, they will be there in, I don't know, six months, Justin, something like that, you know. So, you know, to have that kind of investment and, then, to have -- to come along and say, no, you just spent 40, 50 thousand dollars, I don't know how much they cost for both of them -- anyway, you have just spent a chunk of money and now you have got to find out for -- you have got to get on the sewer system. I anticipate you will be getting a request from them not to hook up to sewer in the future. Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 44 of 77 Nary: Me, too. I would agree. Powell: And, then, having a house on there without a redevelopment plan -- typically we do require a redevelopment plan on houses on five acres and I don't believe we have seen one yet for that five acre piece. De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? Please state your name and address and you have 15 minutes for your presentation. McKinnon: All right. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, representing Farwest Development tonight. And I'll try not to take the full 15 minutes. I will address the comments that Councilman Nary addressed and go over some of the issues that Anna discussed tonight, but before I do that I'd just like to lay out for you some of the development features w ithin t he s ubdivision a nd t ell y ou a l ittle b it t hat h e might n of know about this subdivision. And I'll let you know right up front that I didn't have anything to do with the development or the design of this layout, but I, actually, do like the layout of this quite a bit with this spine road running right up through the middle of it and the high degree of interconnectivity of the subdivision. If we can start just right down on McMillan. As Anna has said, we only have frontage right on McMillan Road and there is not a great deal of frontage and there is a large canal that runs across the south -- the north side of McMillan. We are not going to have any frontage there for McMillan, we can't because of the ditch, but on the other side of the ditch we are putting a ten foot wide asphalt pathway, rather than a five foot sidewalk, and that's been a pproved by ACHD. Just to the north of that ten foot wide asphalt pathway we are putting in a large berm and this berm is going to be between eight and ten feet, possibly 12 feet in height. So, it's going to be a very large landscaped berm. Just to give you a sense of scale, the berm in Lochsa Falls, if you have driven past that, is approximately eight feet tall. We are talking about a very large berm for this site and we would ask that there not be any fencing requirement on top of that berm. As you enter into the subdivision, the large collector road, which is the spine street that was addressed, it runs north-south, is a separated collector street. There is large landscape islands in between that and on the -- I believe it's the west side of that there is a pathway that runs the full length to here and, then, the pathway continues across the large open space lot. This is the regional pathway that's shown on the Comprehensive Plan that runs eastward as a six foot wide pathway to the east boundary line. So, we are meeting the requirement for the regional pathway system as well as part of the spine street. As Anna pointed out, the first 51 units are going to be serviced by a lift station in Havasu and that's where we are getting the sewer connection and that's where we have talked a little bit earlier tonight about the indemnification of the city and that's the only area that we will abe able to sewer at this time until the rest of the sewer comes through. We have read Brad Hawkins-Clark's letter that he prepared with Bill Nichols about the indemnification of the city and we are okay with those requirements and we would approve the recommendation that the city has to include that as part of the development agreement. As Anna pointed out, the first 236 lots end right about here at the mid point line of the subdivision and at that mid point line there has been a lot of discussion about when and where the secondary Meridian City Counal March 9, 2004 Page 45 of 77 access would come through and we would like to just at this time state that we would agree with the staff recommendation for the secondary access prior to any additional building lots at that location. We can agree to that. But in the agreement with that, we still want to point out that the fire access will still be required for that and there were a couple different options that we were provided for the fire access and one of those that was acceptable to the fire department was to where ever the sewer comes to put the gravel on top of that and bring it into the subdivision, rather than an asphalt. If we are required to asphalt a large area in here and bring it down for the secondary access for this site, that asphalt -- and it would be 20 feet wide -- we would have to rip it all out because we can't patch to it for ACHD standards and so we would ask that that secondary access for fire not be required to be asphalted at this time. I think I'll just keep going on to the five acre Boyack parcel and address Councilman Nary's questions concerning the five acre parcel there. On the question of whether or not that was discussed at the Commission level -- the part that wasn't discussed at the Commission level was whether or not a 24 foot wide access road would be sufficient to drag back there and whether that 24 foot wide access road had to be a part of the annexation request. The request for a new well and septic system for that site was addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was recommended for approval with the language in the approval it stated that it would be torn out once water and sewer came to that site. So, it was discussed at the Commission level to have the new water and sewer system there. You mentioned that it seems a little odd. It seemed odd to me, too, but in talking with the public works department, they felt that that would be appropriate at this time for one building. The one building that they would like to construct on that site has not been designed yet and I can state with the conversations that we have had with the owner of that piece of property is that they would like to construct one building at this time, but in the future it will redevelop. As you can see, there is a stub street located on the north side of that property right there that would allow the secondary access to that site in the future and that's where the additional roadway come through. So, the major topic of discussion was whether or not that annexation -- the 24 foot wide driveway would be appropriate. The reason why it was continued to this project at this time was because when we submitted the annexation -- field description for annexation, that 24 foot wide roadway was not included with that. It's a long, narrow, piece of property and it conforms with the Comprehensive Plan and the design of this it was -- we took a look at the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan showed that it should be appropriate for development for three to eight units per acre. The gross density for this site is approximately three units to the acre. So, it's on the low end of what the City of Meridian requested. If you take out the roadways and the other required improvements, the net density of this site is approximately four units to the acre, so it's, again, on the low side of the density that the City of Meridian projected for this site. Overall, the average lot size in this subdivision is around 9,300 square feet per lot. The majority of the larger lots are on the eastern side of the subdivision. Many of the smaller lots are located in this area. Those are approximately 6,500 to 7,500 square feet in size. And there is just --just to provide a mix of different housing types that can go in, different lot sizes for that, rather than just your straight 8,000 square foot that you would typically see in an R-4 subdivision. The Larkwood Homeowners Association to the east -- there has been a great deal of negotiation with them. You should have all received a copy of Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 46 of 77 their letter that was submitted as part of the conditions for approval. Fencing was agreed to at that time. The tiling of ditches located along the eastern boundary of the property were agreed to. The limitation on the size of the houses regarding the height of those houses were restricted to 25 feet, so a great deal has been provided by the developer for this site. There is going to be several people to testify tonight concerning the sizes of the lots and those are similar issues that we dealt with at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Concerning the sizes of the lots --and we have some very large houses that lie adjacent to this property and just to point out Mr. Lee's house -- you can't see the full size of it here -- is 10,000 square feet in size. However, it is approximately 460 feet away from the nearest edge of this subdivision and in redevelopment that's approximately the depth of three houses, plus roadways. And so as that property redevelops, there is going to be an allowance for a buffer for his site. Five hundred and sixty feet is a great deal of distance, approximately one and a half football fields in length, so it's a large separation between his house and whatever houses would be constructed on this site. On the western boundary of the property they have agreed to put fencing around the entire perimeter of the property. There was some discussion about some of the livestock and bull that is over there on the Priddy property and we have agreed to a fence around the perimeter of this property to provide some buffer to the Priddy property and, essentially, one that you would see in other subdivisions there is a note on the plat that is in reference to the agricultural awareness and people realize there is an agricultural use adjacent to the property and that it's not a nuisance, because it was there prior. It's the same way it's handled for all the areas that are developed -- in agricultural areas it's a note that's placed on the plat to allow everybody to know that at that time. Again, I wish I could take more credit for the design of this site. There is approximately 17 acres of open space within this site. There is a school site immediately adjacent to it and across the street is another school site, so it's well located with the access to the school and services. Water is available to this site presently. Again, the sewer issues we have discussed down here for the 51 units and sewer will have to come across in the future, but we have agreed to allow for the indemnification statement in the development agreement. In addition to that, just as a point of reference, the public works department anticipates that water and sewer will get to t his a rea i n approximately I ate fall o f 2004 o r early 2 005, t o t he remainder o f t his property, so it's close. And, then, we have to get through the final plat, construction drawings and everything, so by the time we get to that point sewer is going to be very close, if not to this site at that time. There is a good deal of open space. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan. I know you probably have a bunch of questions and they probably have to do a little bit with the Boyack property, that's -- they'd like to keep that piece of property and they would like to redevelop it in the future. I believe the owner of the property is wanting to give that to his son and give him five acres and the son would like to develop that himself and to build at this time. We would request that that piece be allowed to be final platted before the remainder of the property or as a nonconsecutive portion of the plat, because it's discontinuous to the remainder of the plat and if it's recorded earlier it would be required by Ada county to have a separate plat name, but that is something that we can deal with as that comes through the platting process. I'd ask if you have any questions at this time that I can address and reserve time to offer rebuttal later. Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 47 of 77 De Weerd: Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. McKinnon, would you point out the pathway system again? McKinnon: The pathway system? There is a ten foot pathway system along the Lemp Canal on the north side of McMillan. It continues up the spine road and goes across this large open space area. In addition to that there is an east-west access across the open -- across the ditch area in this location that would connect to the school site that is right here. It will connect to the school and the school has approved the connection at this location. And the pathway continues up to this point and, then, continues to the east. Rountree: Thank you. McKinnon: You're welcome. De Weerd: Any other questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: M r. M cKinnon, i f -- o n t hat five a cre parcel t here i n t he c orner, i f i is b een t he dream of the developer or the property owner to give that to his son, why did they draw it differently to begin with? If they draw -- they drew it with two cul-de-sacs in it on the plan that we have and so that was what was presented initially. And, secondarily, I guess I would ask the same question that Mrs. Powell brought up, who, realistically, is going to spend the money that it costs to build a well and a septic and say when we have water and sewer there, we are going to tear it out and hook to the city sewer? I just don't see that. McKinnon: Councilman Nary, we have asked the same questions. It's just a request of the property owner to have that five acres and to have the option to build that well and septic at this time. The cost of installing a well and septic system -- it depends on where you're at, but --and depending on the soil types and the height of the water table, but to do a new well and to do a new septic system would come in under 10,000 dollars typically in this area and that might be something that they are willing to do for a three or four year wait if it gets back to them at that time. it's a decision that they'd like to make and it's been their request to have that opportunity. The two cul-de-sacs that you mentioned earlier were taken out of the revised plans. We didn't want to design that for them and have them stuck with that. They would like to redesign that for themselves. Meridian City Counal March 9, 2004 Page 48 of 77 Nary: I guess the other question, though, too, on that parcel there, we don't have -- we don't have any other -- any other lots in the city that are part of the city zoning that are five. acre lots, so I guess I -- I mean I still find this inconsistent with the remainder of this property or even anything within our code. McKinnon: C ouncilman N ary, j ust to a ddress t hat i n a round about way --sorry. We couldn't separate it off from the remainder of this site, because that would be a subdivision of the property for the county and so we either annexed the whole site or we create an illegal subdivision for the county. And so it would remain -- it would be annexed as part of the whole and just remain as, essentially, what would be a county RUT type piece, with the ability to have the one building permit until the water and sewer gets to it and it redevelops. We weren't allowed to split that off. If we could we would. We would allow that to remain in the county and to deal with their own frontage issues in the county, but because it's all one piece of property right now, we have to annex the whole thing, rather than do a subdivision. It's not eligible for aone-time split in Ada county, to have that five acres taken off, because it would not meet the frontage requirements. We know it's an odd request. It's been the request of the applicant. Nary: Well, I think, Mr. McKinnon, you know, we have also turned them down when people wanted to split everything but their house and annex all but their house and leave that parcel out and we have denied them, too, so -- on the access to McMillan, this is the area that -where you were talking about the berm and not having a fence; is that right? McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: Okay. And I guess I'm still a little concerned on the traffic from this, even at the 236 mark on that location. I guess I'm not sure how you're trying to deal with the congestion or any of those things that appears that's going to happen from there. McKinnon: Councilman Nary -- and Bruce Mills is here from ACHD. He may be able to better address that. With 236 units just on the one collector street, that's approximately eight vehicle trips per day per house and that puts us well below the 2,500 threshold, which is acceptable for the requirements of ACHD for a collector road and that's based On ITE's manual for traffic studies and so that's -- it will accommodate the vehicle trips for that and that's what it's constructed for. We did play with the idea a little bit of putting a secondary access here for fire, but in crossing the Lemp Canal, in addition to the fact that it's too close to center access, that it really didn't pan out, it didn't make sense, it didn't meet ACHD offset requirements as well. In addition to that, separating it from here to here just didn't seem like a big enough jump to create the additional right of way for that area. Powell: Madam Mayor, President Nary, I did want to clarify. There is sometimes a difference in terminology here and I think Mr. McKinnon keeps on referring to a secondary emergency only access and I think that the Planning Commission was Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 49 of 77 referring to a public secondary access. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were clear of -- Nary: That was the 236 limit; right? Powell: Right. Nary: At 236 you're going to have to have a secondary public access to this. Powell: Correct. Nary: Through the school site. Powell: Correct. Nary: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. McKinnon: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have individuals signed up. Is Mike Youngberg here? Were you here when Iswore -- Youngberg: Iwas here. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Just state your name and address. Youngberg: My name is Mike Youngberg. I live at 5075 North Larkwood. I guess I'm representing the Larkwood Homeowners Association. De Weerd: Thank you. Youngberg: The only -- I just had a couple of clarification items: In the public notices that have been coming out, it's referring to approval of 461 single family building lots and, as we understand it, there was an amended plat map and that's 442. So, I think that's -- I just wanted to make sure that that, in fact, is the plat map that we have seen and looked at and are talking about. We have worked closely with Farwest and they have made several changes at our request. Really, the only concern that we have--- and it's more of a general concern is just the density of the homes. I don't know -- I have looked at the master plan and I agree it is consistent with the master plan, but it seems like awfully dense housing when you put it adjacent to a subdivision such as ours and the others that have been around it and they have worked well to try and create a transition with the larger lots next to ours and I guess I'll trust the Council that you folks will be able to determine from the master plan perspective whether it's consistent or not. But other than that, we just ask that the things we have agreed to would be approved. Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 50 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Thank you. Okay. John Priddy. Priddy. I'm sorry. Priddy: Priddy. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Priddy: John Priddy. 5740 North Meridian Road. And I was here for the -- De Weerd: I saw you. Thank you. Priddy: Since I don't come before you very often, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I'd just like to extend my appreciation for your hard work and effort in serving our community. Thank you very much. We own the propertythatwasputuponthe board. It's a unique property. It's a 20 acre property that has an interesting combination. It is a --that's it. It's a -- it's a working ranch, cattle ranch, but also has a luxury home on it, so it's a very unique type of property. You have before you written testimony from me sometime ago where I expressed my opposition to this Saguaro Canyon -- I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly -- which is directly behind me and in that my main concerns were, really, as it related to the agricultural issues and, really, safety. We do have -- we will probably run more cattle out there this year and have two separate pastures, so there probably will be two bulls and, you know, hot wire fencing and all those kinds of things and just a sixfoot vinyl fence just gives me real cause for pause, because it abuts directly the east end of our property and so there is no -there is no room there. I mean it's going to be -- there is just literally that -- the width of a fence between our property and that very dense subdivision. So, I do have real concerns in that regard and have offered in my letter to you some thoughts and recommendations relative to berming and some additional open space back there that might make it more of a safe environment and I'm aware of the farming laws and the right-to-farm act and so -- I mean legally everything is covered, but when you put that many people directly behind an acreage of that size with that kind of animals, it's - I know coming from Los Angeles I had to learn about bulls and cows and -- you know. And once you learn about them, you know that they can -- they can do t hings that a rent safe for young people at a minimum. My other concerns, aside from that, really have to do with what I think is the whole issue of density. The density directly abutting my property looks to be -- at visually on the plat map, to be smaller lot sizes, as opposed to some of the larger lot sizes that have been approved on the other side next to the other larger subdivision. So, I would like to see not the smaller density lots abutting our property, but larger density lots, not only just from an esthetics standpoint, but also from a safety standpoint. Easier to control. You know, fewer homes or homeowners, you can have a relationship with them. When you put row houses right directly behind you and smaller lots, there is just more people and more problems abutting a property like ours. Long term I have to express my concern, because I think once this subdivision is approved it really casts the dye for the north Meridian plan and I'm not seeing -- in my mind's eye I'm not seeing the consistency -- although it may be meeting the standards, I'm not seeing the consistency Meddian Clty Council March 9, 2004 Page 51 of 77 -- thank you -- with the north Meridian plan and in terms of open space and the kinds of things that I think we all look forward to. And I guess my final comment would be is that I think we have a real unique opportunity in Meridian to be a special community and I think that there shouldn't be a race to try to get a subdivision of this size in so quickly before we really consider all the other components of the plan. Thank you for your time this evening. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Priddy. Okay. Mike Atkins. If you will, please, state your name and address. Atkins: Mike Atkins. 6000 North Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Atkins: Mayor, Council, I'm here before you to also voice my opposition to the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. I find it somewhat concerning that -- from Mrs. Powell there wasn't reference to the testimony that I provided her. Hopefully, you have received my written testimony from February 3rd. But as Mr. Priddy stated, we share the same concerns. And I also found it somewhat concerning that there have been -- and, actually, I think that it was very good, I guess, on Larkwood's part if they proactively reached out to the developer on this case. But it's kind of concerning there have been active negotiations with the neighbors to the east of this proposed development and not to the west. Certainly as individual homeowners -- I think the Priddys and myself have significantly probably more to lose when you look at our respective 20 acre parcels with estate style homes, so I find it troubling that the developer has not reached out to work w ith the neighbors on this and to this date -- the date of this testimony I still have not had any conversations with them. I'm not opposed to d evelopment. I think it's very i mportant, though, that when we consider development within the City of Meridian and being a long time resident here, that we do it with some forethought and I certainly supported the north Meridian plan. I see it sitting over there and certainly the area behind me directly to the east and to the Priddys at the time that that plan was being developed, was for open space and recognizing when you look at the development in terms of what's going on in north Meridian, we are about out of room and rushing to do a development of this magnitude right now when adequate city services do not exist in the form of sewer and in the form of water and I would challenge in the form of streets and certainly without question when it comes to the schools, this is premature and if this project is going to be developed, I think it has to be done with all the neighbors in mind and with the best interest of everybody and not just the developer in this particular case and so certainly I'm appealing to the Council here, as they consider this, that if you do consider it, please, do not consider it by lowering the minimum standards of R-4 zoning, which is currently 8,000 square feet. The developer here is asking for 5,700 square feet. We do not need to do this in the north Meridian area. As well, concessions have been made on the east side of the properly to protect those homeowners and the value of those homes and those are very nice homes in the Larkwood Subdivision. I would ask the same thing. Tonight was the first night that I have heard of vinyl fencing being proposed on the west side. I heard it discussed on the Priddy property, but not on mine. I'm going to Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 52 of 77 take it one step further. I think that should be high bermed and not by use, but by the developer, and it should also be fenced, so that -- so that you can separate two very unique pieces of property from a development of this size. But, certainly, I don't think this development should be -- appreciate that -- that this development should be considered under any circumstance until this Council is absolutely convinced that the city services and the infrastructure is in place to support this. You talked about -- early on your mission statement and changing it to a vibrant city. Well, a vibrant city isn't one that is overcrowded and overtaxed from an infrastructure standpoint and there is an opportunity right now for this Council, I believe, to do the right thing and that is don't rush to do this and preserve some of the open space that's out there in Meridian, but certainly don't do it without the infrastructure. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Atkins? Powell: Madam Mayol? De Weerd: Anna. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did receive a letter from Mr. Atkins. I didn't mean to slight him, I just forgot to mention the written testimony, and there is a fair amount of written testimony in this file, as well as spoken testimony. And one point of clarification on the -- his testimony as well. He spoke of open space and that reference was to -- there was a potential park and a school site notes in this area behind those two houses. That's when the school was anticipating locating there. I think they have located it here and here, instead. I believe. That was all. Thank you? De Weerd: And we do have the letter in our file. So, I have Grant Lee signed up. Lee: You got my letter also. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and address. Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. I own the 30 acre parcel to the right in the upper corner. I abut both Larkwood Subdivision and I abut the proposed Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. I'm good friends with most of the people in Larkwood Subdivision. I, too, am disappointed that there was a lot of negotiations between the developer and them. Originally in their first preliminary plat as they proposed, the lot sizes on Larkwood and the lot sizes for the lots facing my property were the same size. After their great deal of give and after their attempts, they say, to have lots that are uniform and lots that are above average size, it turns out the lots at Larkwood t owards m y e nd are n ow 31 f eet b igger, wider, t han t he I ots t hat face my property and this came about after I turned down their sell my property at their price. My home is 10,000 square feet. I would consider that a luxury home. My garage is 1,800 square feet. It's bigger than the proposed houses that can fit on a 75 foot lot. In accomplishing making lot sizes bigger for Larkwood, they eliminated four lots and they slid the lots on my property smaller and also introduced a street stub, so Mr. Youngberg Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 53 of 77 says he still thinks that the density is not what it should be. Well, his doesn't have a street stub going by his house to make it worse with everybody on that end of the neighborhood w anting t o c ome down n of o my i nto m y p roperty, b ut p assed m y front door. I don't think that the requirement should be reduced for frontages or for lot size or for minimum house sizes. They did agree to put vinyl fencing, as the Planning and Zoning Commission required, passed my property. No mention of berms, no mention of pressurized irrigation, no mention of changing lot sizes, other than they decreased it 31 feet small, as I mentioned, from the Larkwood sizes, where in their original plat they were exactly the same size. I disagree with that strongly. The Planning Commission was very hesitant to approve more than the first phase. If you will look back through their comments -- although they did approve the first phase, they were very hesitant to do that, and I don't have any problem at this time if the first phase were approved, but if you do approve that, I would strongly suggest that you don't approve the rest of the subdivision until such time as they are ready to approve and, who knows, maybe some developer is going to come into my property and want to put a street stubbed differently, rather than running right passed my front door. My house, just in final comment, does not sit back 550 feet. My house is right in line with the other homes in Larkwood. They have the luxury of an acre minimum, nonbuildable lot, separating from these larger lots now and mine are squeezed into 74 feet and I'd like that same thing, to be able to have some vacant property between my house and these little skinny lots with the street stub coming right passed my house. I sincerely hope that you take those into consideration when you make your decision, not just on my behalf, but from Mr. Atkins and Mr. Priddy. Larkwood got what they wanted. They don't seem to care that my lot sizes have been decreased at their benefit and at my expense. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Any questions. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to issue testimony on this application? Please step forward. Had you participated in the swearing in? Beehler: I did. De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address. Beehler: Madam Mayor, my name is Stephanie -- or Stevie Beehler and my address is 1920 Tanner Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you. Beehler: I just have some comments and some feedback for you, because I don't really know, I have to trust you to decide what's right or what's best for our community. And I think you have done a fabulous job just watching you here this evening. So, thank you. I do -- my husband and I do own a parcel, it's adjacent to this. It's at the northern piece that you can't really see on this plat, but it's up above -- yeah, it's one of the little four squares to the north. Yes. That one. No. Down at the bottom adjacent to it. There you go. So, that would be the parcel. Oh. Sorry. I forgot it was Mr. Wardle doing that. Excuse me. But, anyway, just some feedback, for your information, because I do know Meddian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 54 of 77 my neighbors, and they have some very fabulous, very unique properties on the outside of the proposed subdivision. You know, anything that the developer could do to maintain that integrity and, therefore, they don't lose the value of these beautiful, beautiful pieces that they have spent a lot of time enhancing and making extremely gorgeous homes and landscaping on those 20 acre parcels and the other parcel, the other large rectangular would be, I'm sure, greatly appreciated. I just thought I'd give you some feedback, you know, everybody probably deserves the same consideration. I, myself, haven't been contacted, but that's okay, too, I probably had a chance to go to the hearings before this. I was out of town and that's all right. One point of information. My little ten acre parcel there has already been -- at least I received a letter in the mail from Ada county and they did say that I could split that into two five acre parcels. So, the five acre parcel that is being discussed there is not, in my mind, unusual, the Boyack parcel that you're talking about, because I have already been told I can take that ten acres and split it into two. So, that's not unusual and I just thought from a -- I'll give you another point of view from a horse owner's point of view or from somebody who likes to have a large piece of land, it would not be beyond me at all to put in a septic system and drill a well and, then, when city facilities became available, to take advantage of them, because I'd much prefer to be on city sewer. I know it's more money, but I would much prefer to deal with that than a septic system and I'm currently building on a piece of property while I'm putting in a well and I'm putting in a septic system and when the facilities are available I fully intend to spend the extra money and connect and take advantage of those. So, that's a little different perspective for you and I guess that was basically what I wanted to say, is just I think all the h omeowners deserve the same consideration a nd let's see if we can't keep the value of their property intact. I think that's really important to all of us. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to i ssue testimony o n t his?Okay. Would t he a pplicant's representative I ike to rebut? You have five minutes. McKinnon: Okay. I guess I would like to rebut just a few things. If we can start off with just a couple of items that Mr. Priddy had to comment on. Anna, could you go to - to the next two slides. There we go. Right there. Mr. Priddy's lot right here, we have approximately an 8,500 square foot lot and another 8,500 square foot lot. There is two lots that are approximately 6,500 square feet adjacent to it. There is four lots adjacent to Mr. Priddy's property. The request for berming of the back yards or the side yards of these two lots and, then, putting a fence on top of the berm becomes problematic in a back yard, because you build the berm and, then, you put a fence on top of it. At the height of the berm is where you would like to see your property line, but if he wants to see the berm all on one piece of property, then, essentially, the applicant or the developer would be granting all the remainder of that land on the other side of the berm to the owner of the property adjacent to it, because the owner of the property could not utilize that property on the other side of the fence, so you would have a berm built up with a fence on top, everything on one side typically goes to one owner, and the other to the other owner. So, you could create a berm and put a fence on top of the berm, but that -- it destroys the back yard of those properties. And, in addition to that, we are only Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page u of 77 dealing with four properties on Mr. Priddy's property that we would be looking at. So, the berming in the back yard becomes somewhat -- somewhat hard to do. And as far as the fencing and having the fencing discussed for the first time, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting there was a great deal of discussion with Larkwood Homeowners Association and they wanted to have a five foot tall fence with a one foot lattice on top. We talked about what type of fencing the adjacent neighbors would like to see and at one point during the conversation in the minutes they said what do you feel about doing the west boundary, as well as the east boundary and we said we would be happy to do the west boundary, as well as the east boundary. So, we agreed to put the fencing in at this location. In regards to the agricultural uses, there is a lot of agricultural uses in Ada county that are adjacent to properties in the City of Meridian and, as Mr. Priddy stated, the right-to-farm act basically covers the legality of that for this subdivision. As far as Mr. Atkins comments go, there is a couple -- well, he addressed a lot of things and I got a copy of this letter today from Brad Hawkins-Clark and he addressed a lot of things, the issues of whether or not water and sewer are available and, as we stated, water is available and if sewer is available for the first 51 lots, and we would agree to wait until the water and sewer -- or the sewer gets brought into the remainder of the property. As far as the schools, there are two schools planned immediately adjacent to this site, one across the street and one immediately adjacent to this site, so schools are in the works and you typically don't see the schools until the people are there and so those are in the works, as the rest of the things are going through. Planning takes place at the same time for schools and for subdivisions. As far as the streets, that's a difficult question to answer, because we can't dedicate any additional road on McMillan. If we could, we would, but we can't and so we are left with what we have got there. We have met the traffic study requirements for the collector road and for the access onto McMillan. It falls within the guidelines of Ada County Highway District for the use of McMillan Road for the vehicle trips that would be generated by this subdivision. We talked a little bit about berming and fencing. Again, it becomes difficult to berm and fence someone's back yard unless you can do it on one side of someone's property and have the berm -- the remainder of the berm fall on the other side of the property, which is not what they'd like to see happen. I believe a fence would be adequate at this time. I don't know if Mr. Atkins has any cattle on his property right now -- no cattle. It's a large piece of property and the house is set back - I think it's about 360 feet on -- from the topo map that shows where the houses are at and they jump right from there to Mr. Lee's discussion about not being 560 feet back. That might have been my mistake. It's 460 feet back from the remainder of this property and Mr. Lee's conversation just a little bit more, the idea that an additional stub street has been added to his property, the stub street was, actually, in the same location. There was a great deal of testimony at the previous Planning and Zoning Commission meeting about the name of that stub street, because it was called East Totem Pole Way and he didn't want to live on East Totem Pole Way if the street was ever to continue through and so we went ahead and changed that to a new name and so the stub street didn't change. The actual number of residential lots within the subdivision has gone from 461 units down to 442 units, so the sizes of the lots have gotten bigger adjacent to Larkwood. There was one unit out of -- there were four units adjacent to Mr. Lee's property below Totem Pole. The fifth one was moved up there. Those are still over 8,000 square foot lots, which are larger than you would Meridian City Counal March 9, 2004 Page 56 of 77 typically see in the R-4 zone. The fact that we are adjacent to a large estate type development that's set back far enough from the remainder of this development and the fact that it will redevelop in the future should provide additional buffer for that. I thank you for your time tonight and I'm thankful for those people that came and testified. This is a large project and there is a lot of impacts with this and we understand that and we believe that it provides a great deal of open space and some of the necessary things that y ou'd I ike t o s ee and t he c reativity o f a s ubdivision a nd I'd a sk i f y ou h ave a ny questions at this time. De Weerd: Do you have any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: It would appear, Mr. McKinnon, if I'm looking at the original site from where the 461 to 442 came, it appears that, really, all of it is just this parcel right there. So, it really was just the change from the two cul-de-sacs and the fairly intense amount of parcels right around this piece to one -part one house and that's it. So, it wasn't really-- I mean it's not like you readjusted the whole thing, I mean it's really just that one part that took 20 out. McKinnon: That's probably pretty close to being accurate. I know there was some movement and shuffling of these lots in this area, a great deal of it, but you may be correct in that. In addition to that, if you will notice on the plat there is a note as to the average lot size and that excludes the five acre piece. It does not include that in that number. De Weerd: Anything further? I guess I was curious -- you mentioned that 8,000 square feet is large for an R-4. McKinnon: That's a minimum in the R-4 and let me clarify that comment. I started speeding up really quick. In the -- De Weerd: I just wanted to clarify. McKinnon: Well, if you look at the Comprehensive Plan it says R-3 to R -- three dwelling units to eight dwelling units per acre and so there could have been a request for an R-8 designation on this property, which would have allowed for much smaller lots than would be allowed. In addition to that, under the planned develop requirements you can ask for a reduction in the lot size. The lot size is not being reduced there adjacent to this property below that, which would be an R-4 minimum. It's actually above the minimum, which is 8,000 square feet in R-8. De Weerd: I guess, though, I'm curious. When you look at the size and the quality of the homes, that you still have .8,000 square foot lots on, or less, they are not going to Meridian City Coundl March 9, 2004 Page 57 of 77 redevelop into R-8 subdivisions, even if they would. Mr. Lee's home is 10,000 square feet and his garage is bigger than the houses that will probably be built on those lots. So, he's -- even if he did redevelop, which he didn't say he was, he's not going to surround himself with 8,000 square foot lots. So, I guess I don't understand why there isn't a better attempt to transition, not only on his side, but also on the other side, because of the quality of the homes and the size of the homes that are on those estates. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just going off the Comprehensive Plan from the City of Meridian that was adopted, you're right, on the east side of this property and taking a look at the estate size lots that are over there, the City of Meridian, in doing the Comprehensive Plan show the properties to the east being low density, which is the -- up to three dwelling units per acre. It won't develop at this same density. However, what do you place next to a 10,000 square foot house, other than a large 10,000 square foot house to have the same type. If you were to do that, the 10,000 square foot house, you could essentially look at doing, you know, one to one and a half acre lot subdivision in there, which isn't a city density. This piece of property is going to come into the city at sometime and come in with a city density and those large lots in that area are not going to come in at being the size that would accommodate a 10,000 square foot house. You know, as a point of reference, the R-3 is 18,000 square feet and R-2 zoning, which is the least dense that the city would allow, just two units to the acre, is 20,000 square foot lots. You're not going to be able to fit very many 10,000 square foot buildings on that. Within that 460 feet you could fit two large lots, plus a street in between it. At a higher density of the R-4 type density, which is also something they could request under the Comprehensive Plan, they could fit three - there is three stacks worth of housing, plus roadways between the house and this piece of property. It's a big house. De Weerd: Well, I'm not asking you to put a 10,000 square foot house there. I'm just saying there must be some kind of transition and your development -- your proposal is certainly n of a nywhere c lose to what would a ven transition b etween t heir h ouse a nd your piece of property and I guess that's what my question was. Also, as I recall in the conversation and the testimony that led up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, that open space was there because, in essence, a lot because of these estates and I know that those are floating, but I guess I thought there would be a little bit more sensitivity in those areas for a transition, a larger size lot, or open space. So, I guess I would share some of the concerns of the people that have testified as to what really transitioning is occurring and I guess another point is the agricultural use of Mr. Priddy that with his current use there is great cause of concern with the livestock and that you would have that kind of density next to that kind of use. McKinnon: As far as a transition for those areas, what type of transition would you like to see? De Weerd: I guess I'm a little bit perplexed, like the testimony is. What you have done in the transitioning to the east of your property and that subdivision, it seems like there Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 58 of 77 was greater sensitivity down there to that transition of uses a nd so, I guess, m aybe something in that regard. But, again, to the berming or allowing of berming, at least in lot depth, that you could have berming to the properties to the west. And I'm not going to design it for you, those were just my questions. And I guess my last question is more in terms of, you know, in considering sewer, I guess I'm, again, a little bit confused on why we are considering a lift station. We hate lift stations and the lift station would be pumping this sewer into a sewer line that isn't to serve this particular piece of property. So, when you say there are services out there, even to 51 lots, really, there aren't. They are putting in a lift station to sewer those 51 lots into a different sewer line, as I understand it. McKinnon: Let me address that real quick. The sewer lift station is there. It's part of the Havasu S ubdivision o r C obre B asin. S o, i is a n e xisting lift s tation. I is n of a n ew I ift station. It's the lift station that was installed as part of Havasu, which is now Copper Basin. It's an existing lift station. De Weerd: And that's across the street. McKinnon: It's across the street. De Weerd: And would be in the White and this would be in the North Slough. McKinnon: That's correct. And as soon as it comes through, then, it's set up so it would drain into the correct drainage. De Weerd: But, generally, our policy is we do not sewer subdivisions into a line that it's not meant to sewer into and that's my only point. McKinnon: Okay. De Weerd: We don't have -- we really, if we follow our policies that we have been fairly consistent in, is that wouldn't be considered that we have sewer out there. Watson: Madam Mayor, can I just clarify that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. I would appreciate that. Watson: This first phase would forever more sewer by gravity down into the White trunk. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Watson: It's just that the top part of Cobre Basin is on a temporary lift station until what we call the Starky piece to the west is developed and it will flow westward into the White trunk. It's going into the right drainage, it's just it needs a little jump across some undeveloped property at the current time. Meridian Clty Council March 9, 2004 Page 59 of 77 De Weerd: We have a piece of that that is sewered by -- this property is sewered by two different trunk lines. Watson: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I'd like to just real quickly -- Mr. McKinnon asked the question of -- and I'd like to give my opinion. He asked, well, what would you like to see as far as transition and I would say that the developer worked with the residents in this subdivision right here to find something that they felt was a transition from larger uses and so I didn't hear from public testimony that the developer worked with these surrounding entities to find a similar transition which they would find acceptable. And so -- and maybe that might be the answer to one of the questions that Mr. McKinnon asked. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there has been -- you know, we did do a neighborhood meeting where everybody within three hundred was contacted and those people that didn't receive a notification, I can't speak to that, but there was a neighborhood meeting that was held and it was held at one of the area hotels and there is a large number of people that live there. The Larkwood Homeowners Association was -- I'll just state they were the more aggressive of those that wanted to try to work harder with that. Mr. Lee and the developer have worked and they have tried to -- they even talked purchase of the lot -- Mr. Lee's lot for future development. I mean it's not as though that's been put off. There has been ample testimony from the applicant -- from the adjacent property owners at the P&Z meeting, so it's not something that we haven't tried to work with, there just hasn't been a great deal. If you could give me just a few seconds to talk with the developer, I might be able to get one thing straightened out. I'd like to have that straightened out before you close the public hearing and report back to you on something that -- Bird: I need to ask a quick couple of questions. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Now, you're testifying that you met with the opportunity -- every person within 300 yards of this property had the chance to meet with -- De Weerd: Feet. McKinnon: Three hundred feet. Meridian Clty Council March 9, 2004 Page 60 of 77 Bird: Three hundred feet. They were all notified and made sure that -- where the location of the meeting was and all this kind of stuff. McKinnon: To the best of my knowledge that's correct. Bird: Okay. Because we have had three people testify that -- or four people testify that they did not receive a notice. The 8,000 square feet, we can have by 75 by 150 or what's the width of Mr. -- the lots that are butting up against Mr. Lee and also against Mr. Atkins and Priddys? Lee: Seventy-four feet -- Bird: Just a minute. McKinnon: That's pretty accurate. Seventy-four, seventy-five feet, 110 feet deep, for those -- Bird: See, the 8,000 is your minimum for R-4s. McKinnon: Right. Bird: But you can make them in any rectangular shape you want. McKinnon: That's correct. Bird: I, for one, would sooner see a lot wider, less of them there, and not as deep to get that, and I think that would match up much better against that property than some long, narrow thing that we are -- McKinnon: That's, actually, one of the things I wanted to talk with the developer about before you guys close the Public Hearing, have a chance to get back to you on that. Bird: And we also -- I'd like to make sure that all parties around there was notified of this meeting that you had with them. McKinnon: And, Councilman Bird, just to follow that up, the city sent notifications as well for those meetings and, you know, the city has the applications and knows how to contact those people that have to deal with this if there were additional questions. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Before we do that, maybe I could ask a question, too. Anna, could you back up the one slide that's basically the north Meridian area, the one that's got the colors on it? There we go. I mean I think this is a situation, Mr. McKinnon, and I guess it's more of Meridian Ciry Council March 9, 2004 Page 61 of 77 your comment. You know, when we approved this subdivision and this subdivision, I don't we think we had five people come to both who had -and these two subdivisions are three times the size of this. But this is very typical -and the Mayor has really hit on the point that I guess I had a hard time figuring exactly what my concern is, is these didn't have -- the developer basically bought all the property of the people that were around it that would have any issue. That's not the case here. This is not exactly an exact definition, but this is an in-fill development. There is a lot of development around this property and I think as Councilman Bird said, it seems like -- at least our testimony is that they worked very diligently to attempt to transition this piece or this portion of the property, but not really the rest of it and I don't think that you needed to transition by building 10,000 square foot houses, but Iguess I -- I think the five acre parcel is the only one that really seems somewhat compatible with the area, because there are other options. I mean this is not a -this is not a bad subdivision, I think Farwest has built a lot of good subdivisions. I like the open space, I like the streetscape design, I like the pathway design in it, but this is pretty dense. I mean in the design of this, the trade-off to those pluses is the lower lot sizes, the smaller lots sizes to have the increased density and. I recognize it's still four units per acre, but it is really squished in here compared to some of the other ones we have seen and it doesn't fit these other homes. These are not -- many of these homes I don't think are going to redevelop in the immediate future and I guess that's the problem I'm having with it is I don't really see these redeveloping. I don't see people tearing down their 10,000 square foot house in the next year and a half. So, I don't see that transition that I think is critical when you are having to design among existing homes that realistically aren't going to be redeveloped in the immediate future. And I don't that you got an answer to that, I guess that's just my concern and maybe as you talk to your client, you know, figure out how you are going to address that. McKinnon: Can you give me a few seconds? De Weerd: Mr. Bird and, then, Mr. Wardle and Mr. McKinnon. Bird: Before he meets with his people, I believe along there where we got cattle -- and I know Mr. Atkins stated he didn't have any cattle, but Mr. Priddy has cattle -- and I don't know if they have horses or cattle out there or anything, but I would think that if -- they can put the vinyl fence up, but in -- on the side of the property owner on Mr. Priddy's and t hat area, I would recommend that t he m inimum be s ix foot c hain I ink fence for cattle along the inside of his property or on the property there. I know we have got laws that protect the agriculture and everything, but that still don't make it right if some kid gets killed by some bull. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to follow up on a comment from Mr. Nary and I don't - the five acre parcel here, I don't think that's the answer for that whole section. I think there is a better transition. And I don't think Mr. -- I think there are opportunities around - Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 62 of 77 -around this perimeter that are more dense than one acre lots that will fit. I just didn't see them in this application. De Weerd: Thank you. We will go ahead and take a recess and, then, you and Mr. -- whoevercan rebut. Okay. I will call a ten minute recess. (Recess.) De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order again. Is the applicant -- McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 725 South Crosstimber. Thanks for the recess. It was helpful. I had a chance to talk with some of the neighbors and we didn't come to a full resolution yet, but there are some things that we would be willing to do to try to bring the transition into compliance. Anna, could you go forward to the next slide? Thanks. One thing we just need to point out, we are dealing with a large piece of property and looking at it all on one piece of paper -- you know, one slide, this is a very large piece of property with a lot of homes in it. Just to point out what we are dealing with here in size and scope of this, just to get an idea, is from landscaping buffers on each side of this street are 25 feet wide. That's the same width as you see from Lochsa Falls on Linder Road. These are very large, wide landscape buffers along there. There is large open spaces in these locations and these are the -- this is the largest open space that Farwest as ever done in one of their subdivisions. You're talking about eight -- 17 acres of open space. It's a large amount of open space. The buffer on McMillan is actually as wide as you see in Two Rivers. This is a very large -- large berm that you're going to be able to see -- it's a really large berm, so we are dealing with something that's very big in scope, something you can be very proud of for the city. Now, .let's go back to the transition issues. There we go. With Mr. Lee's property, the initial plat that he looked at showed five -- showed four lots there. We are willing to get rid of one of those lots and go back to the four lots, the same sizes that he was okay with previously. We will take out one lot and move it back to that size. In addition to that, over on the Atkins piece and the Priddy piece -- the Priddy piece over here, we have talked with Marty and Marty is willing to do a stone wall across there for the agricultural purposes and with a stone wall in place you don't have the same issues with the cattle being able to knock through that and the safety issues and that's a big concession, but a stone wall that length of the property would be able to address the issues for that. Again, we are dealing with some very large setbacks from those houses. The neighbors recognize that we are not going to be building executive style Spur Wing houses in this subdivision. That's not what this is. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan doesn't allow for that. It says three to eight dwelling units per acre, which is what we are doing here. Along the western property line as well we can agree to take out three lots and lengthen all of those that creates the width that you were talking about, Councilman Bird, to being much wider. That would be another 180 feet, essentially, to spread out over nine lots, which is going to get you up over the minimum of 80, more close to 90. Those are some issues that we would be glad to do. So, we can get those reduced by three lots, spread out that 180 feet equally amongst those lots and, then, you have less houses. It's very similar to what you see on this side with the larger lots. Once you get on the north side of this cross-street here Meddian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 63 of 77 those lots are all in the 90s and above range as well and so we have created the additional width. And so we have got some great distances and, you know, in the past there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do with the properties that are adjacent to five acre lots and the 20 acre lots, ten acre lots. One of the things you have to address in doing that is finding out where the houses are in relationship to that. Most of these houses that are in relationship to this subdivision are over one hundred yards away from the subdivision itself. That's a big distance. That's the whole length of a football field, plus some and it's not reducing the value of that property, because they, themselves, have a large buffer on their one property from the subdivision itself. It's hard to buffer agricultural uses sometimes from itself and so we can address that by widening up those lots and doing the stone fence for the western property line and we can agree to do those at this time. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. McKinnon, why don't we -- I don't like to -- I, for one, don't like to pass on a preliminary plat without seeing the actual footprint, so why don't we continue this for a week and give you a chance to redo your lots and stuff and so that we can actually get a feel for it. I mean we are not all planners and builders and stuff, so we'd like to just actually see how they compare up against the other stuff in some kind of a coordinated drawing -scale drawing or something. If we continued it for a week, would that give you time to do that? McKinnon: That would give us time to do that. Bird: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Bird, the only thing I would suggest -- is a week enough time for these neighbors to see that, too? De Weerd: And for staff to evaluate it. Nary: And for staff to review it. I mean that would be the only thing about a week is I want these folks to have the opportunity to see what you're proposing, so that they have an opportunity to comment. McKinnon: That's a question for the neighbors as far as the time frame that they'd like to see that, but in talking about the things that I just mentioned, it's line work for drafting, it's something that could be accomplished very quickly. It's moving lines and creating new distances for that variance, but that's something that can be handled very quickly at Meridian City Council March 9, 2004 Page 64 of 77 a drafting level. It's something that, you know, we could have ready, you know, by -- sometime in the afternoon tomorrow or Thursday and it could go to the neighbors and they'd have the weekend to take a look at that and work over those issues and we could have it to the staff in the same time frame. Powell: We would need it dimensioned. McKinnon: That's correct. Dimensioned. It's just line work, it's just moving the one line and erasing and moving other lines over. That creates the new dimensions. Powell: You have got fast draftsmen. McKinnoh: Well taken. The neighbors just mentioned that they'd like us to work with them prior to having all the drafting done, so that might be the appropriate direction to go with that. De Weerd: And make sure you contact all of the property owners and -- McKinnon: Okay. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge that's what we have done. De Weerd: Just personally. McKinnon: They are here now, so I have got them cornered. De Weerd: Well, not all of them. McKinnon: I have got a couple of them cornered tonight and I will get with them. Bird: Mayof? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that, I would propose that we continue public hearings Items 18, 19, and 20 until March 23rd, 2004. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 18, 19, and 20 for CUP 03-058, PP 03-032, and AZ 03-027 to March 23rd, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Ordinance No. RZ 03-012 Request for a Rezone of .85 acre from R-15 to O-T for proposed Strickland Subdivision by Roy Strickland - 1225 Main Street: