Loading...
2004 09-16 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina September 16. 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay - Michael Rohm ......ð....- Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the time for the Meridian regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. Maybe just a little bit of information. The Planning and Zoning Commission primarily makes recommendations to the City Council and this would be regarding annexations and rezones and conditional uses that come before us. The Commission normally tries not to begin a new hearing after 11 :00, so this may mean sometimes -- and we haven't had it happen too often, but some time in the evening, at least before 10:00, we would make a determination whether all the hearings would be able to be accommodated on that schedule. Now -- and I'm not sure what information sheets are in the back. To keep the events orderly, we -- of course, anyone speaking would speak to the chair, Commission, and the opportunity for each person to testify once. Of course, the time limit is three minutes and at that time personally would state their name and address for the record. The procedures on the hearings is that the -- there is a presentation of the project by the staff, where they go through, evaluate how it complies with the city zoning ordinances and, then, going through sometimes some of their concerns and also their recommendations. And, then, the applicant would have up to 15 minutes to make their presentation and after that we take the public testimony. And do mention that we recently -- we do have a timer now, I think the timer -- when the light turns yellow there is about 30 seconds and, then, red, it is time to conclude. Then, after all the public testimony, the applicant has an opportunity at the end to answer questions that have been raised. So, that being said, we would like to proceed with our meeting this evening. The first item is that of minutes of August 19th. Zaremba: Roll call first. Borup: That would even be better to do first. Roll call. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 2 of 72 Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: Okay. Now, the first item is the minutes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would make one amendment to the minutes. On page 28, the 11th line down, I am speaking and it says kind of a stair step, which is -- and that word should be isn't -- which isn't all that great. I know I mumble and my voice trails off, but there was an n-t on the end of it when I said it. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of August 19th, 2004, with that amendment. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 04-006 Request for a Vacation of 25-foot wide utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 10 of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Bonnie Reiterman - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Our first item is, actually, a vacation, it's not a Public Hearing, it would be a recommendation from this Commission. VAC 04-006, the request for vacation of a 25-foot utility easement along the south boundary line of Lot 10 of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. We would like to proceed with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is not my application, so I will do the best I can to briefly summarize. As you know, this is not a Public Hearing, you are making a recommendation to the City Council. So, without further adieu, the subject 25-foot easement is on the south side of the recently approved Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. The easement was created when Crestwood Subdivision was platted and was used as an easement for utilities and the Heritage drain. Here is a better shot of that easement and the approved Razzberry Crossing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 3 of 72 Subdivision. Again, that easement runs 25 feet along the entire southern boundary. The applicant is requesting that that be vacated and a 12-foot wide public utilities and easement be approved with this subdivision. They are tiling the Heritage drain and that's all that's needed is a 12-foot wide utility easement for the drain and utilities, so they have submitted consent to vacate the easement from several utilities. However, there is a condition that all public utilities with any facilities submit consent, so the city is still covered, but it does appear that they have submitted all -- a consent from all the utilities. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: I don't either. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the request that the applicant supply all signatures from anybody interested -- or having a need for the easement, such as your public utilities, drainage, and irrigation entities, the request that they supply that information seems to cover this and, therefore, I recommend that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of V AC 04-006, request for a vacation of 25 foot wide utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 10 of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date September 16th, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13th, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 19, 2004: AZ 04-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 39 +/- acres from RUT to proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -- northwest corner of West Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway): Continued Public Hearing from August 19, 2004: PP 04-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 70 residential and 12 office building lots and 10 other lots on 39 +/- acres in a proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northwest corner of West Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway): Continued Public Hearing from August 19, 2004: CUP 04-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 4 of 72 single-family dwellings with attached garage and office buildings in a proposed R-4 and L-O zones for proposed Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -- northwest corner of West Victory Road and South Highway 69 (Meridian/Kuna Highway): Borup: Okay. Our next item, we have received a letter from the applicant requesting -- well, they are requesting withdrawal of this application, so I guess probably -- maybe just a motion to accept their withdrawal. Is that -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the previously opened hearings on AZ 04-016, PP 04-022, CUP 04-024 and accept the applicant's request to withdraw the Strada Bellissima Subdivision, for the purpose of adding more area to it and I agree with that. That's my motion, to close the hearing and accept their withdrawal. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: AZ 04-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.82 acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkle neck Project by Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station and convenience store in a proposed C-C zone for Maverick Country Store by Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 1495 South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Next item, Item No.8, is a continued Public Hearing AZ 04-012. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.82 acres. We heard this hearing on September 2nd. It was continued for the purpose of the next one that was accompanying it and that's CUP 04-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a station, convenience store, in a proposed C-C zone for Maverick Country Store. So, we'd like to, again, reopen the continued hearing and open the new hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thanks, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I don't believe that staff gave a report, even though it is a continued item, on the first item, so I will go ahead and do a quick overview. This first Item No.8 is Wrinkleneck; this is the annexation and zoning request for 1.82 acres. There is a slight difference in the properties between this Item 8 and the Maverick CUP, Item No.9. Generally, the same property, but this annexation is a little bit larger than what the CUP is for. Both applications are here at the northwest corner of Overland Road. and Locust Grove Road. As you can see, there is quite a bit of annexed property already at this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 5 of 72 intersection. The zoning of the RV park here at the northeast corner is CoG. There is industrial land just north of that. There is an undeveloped piece, about 18 acres here at the southeast corner that was part of Resolution Subdivision. This is Mountain View High School down here in the yellow. Sportsman Point Subdivision is across the street. There is immediately across the street one parcel that has not been annexed into the city. The majority of this land holding here at the corner is owned by the same property owner Ronald W. Van Auker, Incorporated. What they are proposing to annex is just a portion of that land holding. They do not have control of this piece here, which is owned by a natural gas company that is out of state. So, the request is to annex to a C-C, community commercial zone. The future land use map designates the property as mixed use community, so it's the middle tier of our three mixed uses, and the C-C, community zoning, does comply with what the long-range plan designates for that. The aerial gives you a little better sense for what's out there. This industrial piece that I pointed out just across is vacant. The Locust Grove overpass is scheduled for 2006 construction and that project will include not just the overpass across 1-84, but also a couple hundred feet after the touchdown point, so it would extend. The Overland Road widening that happened last year did widen Locust a little bit adjacent to this property. So, essentially, in 2006 you would see the full street section and, then, get across 1-84 and, then, of course, continue north there. So, in terms of street improvements affecting this specific project, they are really built out to generally what they are going to be at full build out in the area. The only item I think that I wanted to point out on this annexation was site specific comment number three on page six of our staff report did mention that at the time of annexation we were just making the applicant aware that prior to developing the remaining .8 acres of the parcel that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for the balance of the property. So, other than that it's a fairly straightforward annexation. We do feel like the request meets the findings and we are recommending approval. Item No.9 is the Conditional Use Permit. This layout, as you can see, does show the entrances, one off of Locust Grove here on their north boundary and one off of Overland Road on their west. This line here shows the acreage that would not be developed at this time. The entry drive pretty much splits the developed and undeveloped portions of the site. The required landscaped buffers that the City of Meridian requires are shown here, 25 feet on both Overland and Locust Grove. They have -- the required number of parking spaces is 19 for this size convenience store and they are showing 19 parking spaces on site. They are proposing five dispensing islands here. The underground storage tanks for the fuel is located here on the south side. There were just two special considerations. One of them has to do with the elevation. This would be the elevation, of course, facing Overland Road, the front of the store. Staff was very supportive of the facade work, which had some additional features, and, then, the one comment we had related to the east elevation that is going to be oriented towards Locust Grove Road and we just wanted to point out to the Commission that they are bringing across the effuse work and the cornice here at the top for about four feet and, then, some brickwork for about four feet on the bottom, but the remainder of the elevation we thought might be able to be improved with some other architectural features and so we are encouraging a change there. Signage. The city code says -~ let's see, I will just -- these are the other two elevations I just wanted to point out. City code says you only -- if you're on a corner lot you can have two sign -- two freestanding Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 6 of 72 signs. They are proposing just one sign at this point in time and that's located right at the corner. We are just wanting the applicant to be aware that when they develop this other piece they are going to need to either share the sign or subdivide and create this as a separate legal lot. At that point the separate legal lot would be eligible for another sign, unless the Commission decides otherwise tonight. But other than that, I think I will just wait for any questions that you might have. We are requiring a cross-access easement on this north entrance here, even though the applicant does own the partial immediately to the north. Since it's technically a separate parcel, we wanted to see a cross-access there, so that that internal connection can be made. Any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: I just had a comment. In your notes you remarked that the ACHD report had not been prepared yet, but I think you anticipated what we learned from the report, being received today, that there would be asked to abandon a couple of driveway cuts that are already there and move them a certain distance from the intersection. Does the depiction that we are seeing comply with that requirement? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is, Commissioner. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Then are we also looking for a cross-access agreement on the -- at the south entrance? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, well, actually, today this is all just one parcel, so there is nothing to cross-access over, technically. Borup: So, anything else would just be developed -- additional development of the same parcel? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Any comments on the staff report? Miller: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Brad Miller and I represent Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC. As Mr. Brad Hawkins-Clark stated, the proposed annexation and zoning meets the standards set by the Comprehensive Plan and the C- C zoning, which is requested, allows for a gas station and a convenience store. The only reason for the Conditional Use Permit application is that the mixed-use zoning requires that per the Comprehensive Plan. We reviewed the staff report, we are in agreement with all the things there, and don't have any problems. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you have. Meridian Ptanning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 7 of 72 Borup: You're fine on the single signage? Is that -- Miller: That's fine. Borup: Okay. Miller: We reserve the right, as it states in there, to move the signs to the -- to have two signs at each entrance -- or one sign at each entrance. Borup: Okay. Then comments on the exterior design on that east elevation. Miller: Mr. Dan Murray of Maverick Stores is here and he can address that. Murray: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be with you. We are happy to comply with the staff's request to modify that side of the building and so I assume that we would be asked to work with staff. We'd probably look to continue the cornice and the dental detail across the top, as well as the brick wainscot. If there are other items that they would like to see incorporated, again, we are happy to work with them on that. Specific to the sign, my suspicion is that as we look at your ordinance a little more closely, we will probably move that sign towards that shared driveway on Overland, so that it can be used by both our store, as well as the future development. Borup: Okay. Maybe just -- your name and address for the record. Murray: Oh. Dan Murray with the Maverick Country Stores, 880 West Center Street, North Salt Lake, Utah. 84054. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Will that work fine, Brad, that they'd work with staff on design on that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. The staff's happy to do that. Borup: I mean not necessarily work, they will draw up a design and present it and let you take a look at it. Newton-Huckabay: I think the brick and the cornice around the east side of the building is what you were asking for and I agree that that would dress up the building quite a bit. Murray: And we are fine with that. Zaremba: I would comment although staff has not asked for it and I don't think we would make a requirement, but since the rest of the property is likely to be developed around it, I might ask that you consider also adding whatever detail you're doing on the east, something on the west and back as well, because it. won't be visible from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page B of 72 public streets, which are a concern, but it will be visible from the rest of the project whenever such a thing happens. Just a comment. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Murray: Thank you. Borup: Do we have any other public testimony -- any public testimony on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, the point is made that this brings some needed services to the south side of the freeway and I think that's a valid point. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-012 and CUP 04-034. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: I got ahead of myself. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-012, request for annexation and zoning of 1.82 acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkleneck project by Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC, northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments for their memo of the hearing date of September 16th, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station and convenience store in a proposed C-C zone for Maverick Country Store by Maverick Country Stores, Inc., 1495 South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16th, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page g of 72 Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Ustick Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.27 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Our next hearings are AZ 04-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development and accompanying that is Public Hearing PP 04-006, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential building lots, one common lot on the same 5.27 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Packard Estates Subdivision. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You, no doubt, recognize this plan, since you just saw it a couple of months ago. Your recommendation for approval did go on to the City Council and at the City Council Public Hearing the Council felt that the location of the open space in their first plan should -- which was on Wingate Lane, should be shifted away from Wingate to be more internal to the project. There was also quite a bit of discussion about an existing house that is on this acreage and there was a variance application that also went with -- that this Commission did not see, but that the Council did see and they did not feel that a reduced setback for that existing house should be approved. So, because of the variance, the existing house, the change in open space, they remanded it back to you. The annexation request actually does not change from your recommendation, which was R-4. They did make a slight modification at first to try R-8, then, they withdrew that from our office before you had a hearing and changed it back to R-4. So, I guess I won't spend much time on that, since you have -- there is virtually no change to the annexation request from what you saw a few months ago. The application remains for an R-4 request, which is the same zoning as Packard Acres No.2, which is to the north, and Packard Acres No.1, which is to the east. As you can see, those -- both of those subdivisions are platted out, as well as Chateau Meadows, which is R-8. Ustick Road is approximately a half mile to the north and I did want to make just one clarification that Ada County Highway District report does refer to Wingate Lane being one-third mile in length and that's incorrect, it is, actually, a half mile in length from Ustick Road down to the south boundary of the Sharp's property, which is this five acres located here south of the proposed Packard Acres No.3. Here is the aerial photo, which shows the build out. You can kind of see the house on this, which at this point is proposed to be removed. This is the layout of the preliminary plat before you for Item No. 11. Wingate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 10 of 72 Lane exists over here on the east boundary. East Challis Street is already constructed on the, north. They are proposing to extend Devlon from its current terminus here to the south and, then, they would stub it at their south boundary for future extension. And East Meadowgrass Street, which currently is stubbed to the east part of Packard Acres -- or the west boundary of Packard Acres No.1, they are proposing to extend East Meadowgrass across Wingate as a public street. You can see the existing house located here. As I just mentioned, they are proposing to remove that house. No access -- there are three lots right here and, then, 21, and I think this is eleven, that all have a shared boundary with Wingate Lane. They actually have a 15-foot wide easement that is for the private lane that is dedicated on their east boundary and they would not be able to have access to the private lane, which is the same condition that is placed on Packard Acres No.2 above, which also says that if your property is on Wingate Lane, you are prohibited from actually accessing Wingate, you have to use the public street system that's being built by the developer. A couple of items to point out in the staff report. They are proposing 20 build-able lots and one common lot. The common lot is shown here in green over on Devlon would be a joint open space storm water facility. On the annexation and zoning, staff has reviewed the findings, we feel that they can all be made and we are recommending approval of the annexation to an R-4. On page eight of the staff report, the site-specific conditions are recommended there for the preliminary plat. And we are -- item number three deals with the -- with Wingate Lane and direct lot access to Wingate is specifically prohibited for this subdivision. Item 3B states to widen the Wingate Lane private road easement width to 20 feet. Today it's 15. And I did talk with the -- originally that was put in there because of the standard Meridian fire department condition that says they want 20, for 20 foot free and clear for access. I did ask Deputy Chief Silva what his opinion was on that. Frankly, he felt that he could go either way. His opinion is that they will use the public streets to access this site and so he -- you know, like I say, I mean this is up to the Commission. The applicant would like to keep it at 15. It has historically been 15. Staff is, in this case, going to, you know, go with what the fire department says and what the Commission feels is appropriate. So, we would support keeping it at the existing 15 feet, if the Commission so desires to do that. Borup: What -- how was to the north handled? Hawkins-Clark: Well, to the north it's 15 feet up until you hit the north boundary of Packard Acres No.2 and it was widened to 20 feet there, but it was widened on the east side of Wingate Lane, so -- does that make sense? I can go back -- Borup: No. I understand. So, 15 would be -- the west property line would be consistent, then, with -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: -- along the whole length? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 110172 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. If the city -- yeah. If you were asking them to put five feet on the west side, you would, essentially, have a little bit of a jog in Wingate Lane, because you have 15 and, then, on Packard No.2 it jogs to the east for five feet and it becomes 20 feet for a couple hundred feet and, then, once it hits this phase it would technically choke down back to 15, bearing in mind that the street itself -- that the private lane itself is -- you don't see that. We are just talking about the easement width. I mean it looks just like a gravel straight lane all the way from Ustick down. The 20-foot was also an advantage for the Ada County Highway District, who does have a storm water retention pond on the east side of Wingate Lane. It's in this lot right here. This line here -- doesn't show very well, but this is the Wingate Lane coming down and, then, this lot on the east side is an ACHD storm water retention lot that is owned by the homeowners association and they wanted a little bit more width also to access that should they ever need to get in there. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Public Works comments were added in there. The extension of city sewer and water is pretty straightforward on this development. I think at that point, unless you have any other questions, that ends staff's presentation. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Is the street -- I'm trying to remember back to the first Packard Estates. Is the street the same? Did they just move the green space? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, yes, the street locations are the same. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The lot layout is essentially the same as well, it's just that's before they had the open space there on the east. Newton-Huckabay: And a walking path that went down the east side of the property? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: As I recall, there may have been a little bit of a meander to this street to get around the fact that the existing residence, which they are planned to stay there, was too close to the street, but if that residence goes away, now this is straight, but I believe that may have been a change between then and now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 120f72 Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yes. Newton-Huckabay: The house is going away or is proposed to go away? Hawkins-Clark: They are proposing to remove it. application with us anymore and -- They do not have a variance Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, office address 2501 Bogus Basin Road, and I'm here to represent the developers of Packard Acres Subdivision No.3. The developer's also here if you have any questions that I can't answer or you'd rather address them, rather than ask me the question. Now, what you see before you is an application for a 21-lot subdivision with one common open space. You're seeing this again, because we failed in the attempt to get a variance for that house that's on the property. We needed a variance of a foot and a half. The corner of the garage -- I guess see if I can make this thing work. The corner of the garage right in here would have encroached a foot and a half into the setback from the property line here. The City Council did not want us -- did not grant the variance, so, basically, that was one of the problems that we had. The other was that we had the common open space over in here, which we thought at the time was the place that it should be. They asked us to go back and without the granting of the variance and to move the common lot over in this area and remanded it back to you. We have worked with the homeowners association and come up with a solution. Our original application was for 23 lots and one common area, so 22 build-able lots. What we did was come back and eliminate this home right in here. Part of your condition should be that we take this home out and I'm sure you can make that condition, because we don't -- we don't have the variance for the setback and we eliminated two lots. Our first application was for 22 build-able lots, the one that you approved, and we are back here with 20 build-able lots. So, it is quite a change for us to eliminate the house that was there, which was -- had a certain amount of value, approximately 150,000 dollars, and to eliminate the two lots that -- that we -- after talking with the association and the neighbors in there, that we decided to -- to do. The green area there is not a common -- it's a common area for landscaping and common use, it's not for storm drainage. Our storm drainage retention -- or, excuse me, our storm drainage system is over here and you can see it right here along the road. So, that won't be a dual use, it's just for common area. There won't be any drainage encumbering that lot right there. Borup: On the north end of it? Tealey: Pardon me? Borup: On the north end of the lot, the plat's dotted line? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 130f72 Tealey: Right up in here there is an existing easement from Packard Acres No.2 that does contain drainage right here for this ACHD street. I just didn't want you to think that we were going to use that as a storm retention pond. Borup: Right. That's the way I understood it, too. Tealey: The issue of Wingate Street -- or Wingate, the private lane, being expanded to 20 feet, originally when we went through the application that you approved a couple months ago we talked it through and you saw the same -- saw it the same way that we did, was just to keep that at 15 feet and we eliminated that condition in there. The reason for the expansion of Wingate to 20 feet just north of Challis there was to facilitate the ACHD getting back to that drainage pond. That's the only place where Wingate Lane is 20 feet for that half mile and it's some 100 feet long, I would guess, to get back to that common lot in there. So, that was the reason that staff originally requested the extension of Wingate to be 20 feet, instead of 18. And, again, the five feet that we grant to ACHD for their entrance into that pond was on the east side, so they wouldn't align regardless. And the emergency vehicle access has already been addressed with the fire department and they choose to use the public roads, rather than coming down Wingate anyway. So, the reason for extending it 20 feet isn't there and we would ask you to eliminate that portion of the conditions. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have a couple. In the ACHD report on page five, I believe it is, they are requiring that on Wingate Lane -- Tealey: Pardon me? Zaremba: They are requiring that you pave portions of Wingate Lane the whole width and 30 feet back from the -- you're aware of those requirements and -- Tealey: Yes. That's a standard requirement of the highway district for -- Zaremba: That they don't want gravel and dust tracked out onto their roadway. Tealey: Right. Zaremba: So you're aware of that? Tealey: We understand that. Zaremba: Okay. Then on page eight of our staff report, number one asks us to determine with you what the perimeter fencing is going to be. There is also a number four that specifies that the fencing that's going to go along Wingate Lane shall match the fencing of Packard Acres No.2 and I would kind of combine those two thoughts and ask Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 140f72 you is -- can you make your perimeter fencing match the existing fence in Packard Acres No.2 where ever you need perimeter fencing? Tealey: Yes. And I think the perimeter fencing along the south between the property to the south and ours is already there. Zaremba: Okay. Tealey: And, yeah, we would agree to match that fencing. Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff. Does this portion need to be fenced as well? Tealey: That's already fenced, though. Zaremba: That's already fenced? Okay. So-- Hawkins-Clark: South boundary would be -- Zaremba: Just between this property and the Sharp's property. And you're not asking that the applicant to reference it if it doesn't match the Packard Estate's fence or does it match the Packard Estates fence? Tealey: It matched -- oh, excuse me. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess just wanted to get that on the record to clarify tonight, so-- Zaremba: Okay. So, even if it doesn't match, the fact that there is an existing fence is satisfactory, I guess. Tealey: We built it according to the Meridian city standards when we -- I don't know the exact time, but it's been some months ago that we built it. Zaremba: Okay. And what you're going to build along Wingate Lane, that will match what's in Packard Estates? Tealey: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Tealey: I think we have an extension of a pole fence that goes down there now, but we will take that out and match whatever fence that's needed to be put in there. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 15 of 72 Borup: Do you have any questions, Wendy? Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you. Borup: All right. Thank you. Okay. Time for public testimony. Do we have anyone that would like to come forward and testify? Okay. Seeing none -- now is the time. This is the time for public testimony. Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane and we are not objecting to the annexation or the development of the subdivision, but we are objecting to any encroachment of Wingate Lane. We already have a dangerous situation when you cross Challis there. People are coming down there pretty fast and there is lots of kids and they open it up on East Meadowgrass and they were coming -- kids going to school and coming from school and cars don't mix on a 15 foot wide lane. So, we are thinking that should be expanded to 20 feet for emergency vehicles and for fire trucks. We have a residence south of that and they need to get down there to -- and as far as the common area, there is a common area on the west side between Challis and East Meadowgrass, that has been blocked off for use by the people in the subdivision, so those people are using Wingate Lane to walk down there, bicycle, and there is also cars coming from the subdivision and also coming from Ustick down and the two do not mix. It's a dangerous and hazardous situation and if you want take on the liability for this, then, we will be the first one to testify if there is any problems down there, that it's city, ACHD, and the developer that has caused this problem, if you cross -- keep crossing over Wingate Lane and using Wingate Lane. The people should be using the common area to the -- to the west between -- between Challis and Meadowgrass and so this is what we -- and any use -- any use by the contractors of Wingate Lane should be done, but off the public streets. And that's -- Borup: So, you're not concerned that widening Wingate will encourage traffic? Sharp: Right now we will get it either way. You are getting it, Mr. Borup. We don't have -- they finally put in barricades after my wife called ACHD and they should have done this a long time ago when they stubbed Meadowgrass and that stopped, you know, all those cars coming and going there from Challis and, then, also from Ustick down there and using Meadowgrass and we observe this everyday, the kids going and coming from school, and the cars that would come down there and use Wingate Lane and they shouldn't be. They should be using that -- the people walking should be using that common area to the west, but they got a fence across there and they got landscape there and I understand that should be just sod or pathway through there, so people can use that, rather than Wingate Lane. But, you know, that's what we are saying. We know that there is going to be a certain amount of traffic, which is -- they shouldn't be using it, but if you widen that to 20 feet, at least those kids might have a chance, if they are using it if a car -- and they -- those cars come down there fast, too. We observe it every day. Not since the barricades, mind you. Borup: Okay. So, the barricades have worked. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 160f72 Sharp: Oh, you bet you. It helped. Borup: Other questions? Zaremba: I do. I guess a suggestion. Have you thought of putting any signs up that would say private property, no trespassing? Sharp: We are putting them up. Yes. Zaremba: I think that would help. Sharp: Now, we got -- there is two -- one up to Ustick and there is one just on the north side of Challis and there is going to be two more that says no more trespassing, violators will be prosecuted by Idaho code and so the sheriff said that he would -- Zaremba: Enforce that? Sharp: -- enforce it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Barber: My name is Sonya Barber and I live at 2437 East Challis, so I live on the corner of Wingate and Challis. Can you put that other picture back up, please? When I purchased the home a year ago -- Hawkins-Clark: Is that the one you want? Barber: No. It had -- it was the alley. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, the photo? Barber: Yeah. There. So, this fence line right here, my property is right on the other side, so I am the homeowner right there. And there is no houses on the other side of this fence. And this rock alley here, I'm not sure on the exact length, but it's probably 200 feet long. It's my house and our neighbors behind us and, then, it is blocked off, they just put a block out there. So, as far as a lot of traffic going there now, it would be Mr. Sharp and, then, the people that rent the house that's going to be torn down. So, traffic is nill, there is not much at all, because it's only -- it's not that far and there is two homeowners that live there. My deal here is that when I moved in it was not disclosed to me at all -- there is nothing on this stating that they were going to take 21 feet of this property, which is my side yard, which is pretty major. I had no idea it was a commons area. The property line is right there and, then, there is 20 feet on my property, which when I purchased the house it was all landscaped, sprinkler systems, and the fence was put up. So, I had absolutely no idea, no reason to think that there was common area there. As far as the kids and the safety that he was talking about, there is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 17 of 72 sidewalk, the streets definitely are not a safe place for them, but as far as kids going down this alley and it being unsafe, I have four of my own, they use this alley every day, either bikes or walking. There is two homeowners on this street we are talking about that have access to it. Well, anyone has access, but it is private, that would use that road. But nobody else can really get to it. If they come down here there is a dead end. So, it is safer than going out on Challis or any of the other streets and there is a sidewalk to walk on all through the subdivisions. So, I'm sure you can see where I'm at, losing my entire side yard, my whole house -- I have a wrap-around porch, it all looks right at all of this land that I was totally mislead by my realtor and my builder who developed it and build it all. I don't see why they cannot take this, if they want to add more -- what, take the 15 feet to 20, do it that way. This is not developed over here. I mean I don't know anything about zoning and all that, but that's not done, you have two property owners that have landscaped now. It doesn't make any sense. And if you were to see it, you would know what I'm talking about. Borup: Okay. Barber: So, I'm just asking if they can, please, not move that common area, do it on a different side. Borup: Thank you. Okay. We had someone else? H.Sharp: Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane. I sympathize with her, but the area that she's talking about was the designated five percent common area and, of course, it should be and I feel sorry for her that they didn't notify her. But what I'm talking about is our -- what she considered an alley is our private lane. We have a private road easement agreement that was established in 1913. It's still on record. It has never been amended or changed in any way and still it's being ignored. One of the statements on this is that's to be for the owners and the use of the owners. But we find that that's not what's happening. The easement that was granted where the young man is standing in the picture is East Challis Road, was bisecting, of course, crossing Wingate Lane, the argument being that the developers say we own that part of Wingate Lane and they do, but when they sell off all those lots along Wingate Lane, they are not any longer the owners of Wingate Lane, where does that leave their easement. An easement does not grant ownership. We have easement on the south of our property for Nampa Irrigation. We also pay the taxes and maintain it. We can't do anything further with it, so -- but they are not owners, we are. If they grant an easement, which they have done to ACHD, they are not owners and it's specific in that document and it's recorded. There is also a document in the state of Idaho law library -- and I forwarded that on to the regular agencies, that states if the subservient, which is the developer, has caused a hazardous condition by an easement, it has to be addressed. They have caused a safety hazard by crossing Wingate Lane. Everybody knows where there is crossroads there is a potential hazard, excuse me, and that has been confirmed by the City of Meridian police department. As far as not addressing or ignoring this, I have a real problem. Do we get to pick and choose the laws, the codes, or whatever that we want to adhere to and I think it's time that we admit that we have to abide by a 1913 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 180f72 road agreement that has never been amended and would have to be amended by the property owners. The owners, technically, are the ones on the west side of Wingate Lane, because they have relinquished 15 feet of their property. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Come forward, sir. Gallagher: Good evening. My name is Chip Gallagher and I live at 3020 North Wingate Lane, which is the north end of the lane about 350 yards off of Ustick. About a year and a half ago during the construction of Packard Estates No.2, they crossed Wingate Lane with their public street. This was in defiance to a verbal agreement with ACHD and it was in defiance of a condition of approval that you placed on the subdivision. We, then, took that issue up with the ACHD board and had a Public Hearing. At that Public Hearing I asked to have a recess with the ACHD staff and the homeowners of Wingate to try to mitigate the potential problem of excessive traffic that we would incur on Wingate. The developer at that time agreed to pay for a private gate at the south end of Wingate Lane that the Sharps would have access to only and their guests and friends, but it prevents the rest of us at the north end from that additional traffic. We, then, went back to the ACHD board and during that Public Hearing the developer again reiterated his willingness to pay for that private gate to protect us on the north end. It, then, came before the City Council, because there was a condition placed that that Wingate Lane would not be crossed with a public street until the south properties were developed. In defiance of that they crossed the street. The City Council, I think, felt their hands were tied, because it was an ACHD issue. However, the developer came forward again and said that he would pay for a private gate to protect us. I'm asking you to place a condition on this phase that that gate be funded into an escrow account until those of us at Wingate Lane can unilaterally agree to maintain it. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Maybe questions? Newton-Huckabay: I just want clarification. You want the gate at the north -- northern most part of the Sharp property? Gallagher: No. We don't care if it's at the north end of the property, which is down by my house -- the Premos have agreed to give up the property there for the gate, or the south end, just that there be a private gate at one end or the other of that lane, because we are incurring tremendous traffic from Packard Estates and Packard Estates guests. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, you just want a gate somewhere on the north-south span of Wingate Lane? Gallagher: Right. All we are asking for is what was agreed to in those three public hearings be placed as a condition on this map. Newton-Huckabay: At the spot of your choosing or one -- or just agreed with the developer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page1gof72 Gallagher: Yeah. At the place of our choosing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Borup: And, then, it sounds like at this point you don't have a real preference as far as location? Gallagher: No. I think logistically it probably makes more sense at the north end. The Premos are right across the street from me and they own that section of the lane and they have agreed to give us an easement for that gate, as opposed to the south end, which I believe is owned by the property owners that back up to Wingate Lane all the way down the street, actually. It's the western property owners that actually own the lane and have granted the easement. So, in order not to have any conflict with the purchasers of Packard Estates, we are fine with putting it at the north end where we own that. Borup: North end of what? Gallagher: Wingate, down by Ustick. Borup: Clear down by Ustick? Gallagher; Yeah. Something that we can put dead end at one end, we could put dead end up at Challis, dead end street, privacy gate at the far end by Ustick, probably makes the most sense. Borup: Well, Challis is right here; is that correct? Gallagher: Right. I'll say -- so if you travel -- Borup: And you're saying put the gate clear up there at Ustick? Gallagher: Right. Newton-Huckabay: That would eliminate any homeowner of Packard Estates, because they couldn't access, and they wouldn't have -- Gallagher: Right. Borup: Well, but wouldn't that accomplish the same thing, putting the gate right here would keep Packard out and, then, all these homeowners here -- that would be at your convenience, but that would be up to -- Gallagher: Well, we are fine with that. That would be fine. I was -- we were just a little concerned that the property owners on Packard at the south end of the lane own the lane, the new homeowners, and they may not be as agreeable. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 20 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Now, they own it, but can't use it; is that correct? Gallagher: Right. Right. Well, they have it fenced right now. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But they don't have access to use it. Gallagher: Right. Zaremba: The same way that the Sharps would have to either have a key to it or a combination to it, those houses that back up to it could have a key. I mean if it's an easement on a portion that they actually own and if they have the key to it, that's only four more households that have a key to it. Gallagher: The south end is fine. We just -- you know, we have got young kids and the traffic is just completely out of control and -- I mean you can review the public record, this has been promised to us, but, yet, here we are again. So, if we put a condition on it, get the money set aside in a fund until we all agree -- Borup: So, you're not in agreement right now? Gallagher: We are all in agreement except the Sharps. The Sharps are having an issue with this gate. But we think we can get beyond that. Borup: Okay. Gallagher: But we want the funds set aside, so that when we do it's there to build a gate as promised. Am I making any sense here? Borup: I didn't realize Sharps were opposed to the gate. I thought they wanted a gate. I mean they said they wanted barricades, so -- Gallagher: Barricades are fine. We are all for the barricades, but the Sharps have an easement to Wingate Lane, so we are honoring that by saying a security gate with a code or a door -- or a garage opener opens the gate, free and passable. and we have all on the north end have agreed to maintain the gate. Sharps don't have to maintain it. Borup: And I was going to ask staff this, but maybe you can tell me, what was ACHD's attitude on the gate? Gallagher: They loved it. I mean that's why we had that little roundtable with their staff. How can we mitigate this, because the lane was crossed, the damage was done, how are we going to fix it? Well, the fix was put up a privacy gate for the use of the Wingate homeowners only and here we are. And my last conversation with the developer was, no, we are not going to do that. I mean that's kind of what has prompted this request for a condition. Not that they will listen to it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 21 of 72 Borup: Oh, you're saying they have changed their -- previously they said they would and now they say they won't? Gallagher: Yeah. Currently, as of today, they are saying, no, they won't. So, I'm asking on behalf of the north homeowners that you make it a condition of this map, have the fund set aside until we unilaterally agree -- Borup: And what if you don't agree? Gallagher: They get the money back. I'm fine with that. It's not -- it's not blood money, This is -- we are just trying to protect our lifestyles. Borup: And would there be any sunset on that, some kind of a time frame? Gallagher: Yeah, we can do that. That's negotiable. A couple of years. Because this may take awhile. No. I don't care. Put a reasonable time line on it. I'm fine with that. Zaremba: My comment would be that it's not unusual to protect private property by putting up gates and this easement is theoretically private property. I mean it's the same as if you needed to gate your own driveway. Gallagher: That's right. That's why the ACHD supports it. Zaremba: A gate is not unusual. Gallagher: Right. And it doesn't restrict the Sharps from traveling up and down Wingate, so I think we can get beyond that. Mr. Borup, you can place a time line on it that you feel is reasonable. I just want to make sure that the funds are there, so when we do settle this, the gate gets built. Borup: Yeah. Well, I hate to see things drag on too long either. Gallagher: Yeah. I agree. Well, we think we have the legal right to build the gate, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Gallagher: Okay. Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Borup: Brad, has that been discussed on staff level on the gate? I mean I know in the past, but have you got anything additional to add to the gate issue? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, a couple of things. One is if the Commission chooses to go that way tonight, there is a couple of implementation issues that staff would have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 22 of 72 on that. Number one is that Ada County ordinances prohibit gates on private lanes. The question is if they put the gate on a portion of Wingate that has been annexed, is that -- is that something that Ada County technically doesn't have jurisdiction on, because you have on Wingate Lane -- you technically do have property that is -- you know, that is in both jurisdictions, both Ada County on the north and you hit a portion of city limits and, then, you go out of it when you get next to the Sharps, so -- but in terms of the original agreement, there are reams of paper that we would be happy to share with you between the agencies. Our understanding is that -- that the public right of way portion cannot be obstructed. So, if I understood the testimony correct, the gate would actually be on the private lane, but I guess, you know, there is just questions that we have about -- since there is a code in Ada County that says private lanes cannot have gates, how do you deal with that. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else from the public to testify? Okay, sir. Battaglia: Dave Battaglia, 2527 East Lochmeadow, L-o-c-h-m-e-a-d-o-w, Street. I am the Packard Estates homeowner's association president, so I'm speaking as a president for the homeowners association, as well as a homeowner. I just wanted really actually clarifications and Brad you did bring that up. Article D from the Ada County ordinance, private roads, access to properties that do not have frontage on a public street, number five in section A, gates or other travelway obstacles shall not be allowed. So, I just thought you should know that. If we are talking gates, it is a public ordinance, as you mentioned, so it might have to be addressed further by whoever. Okay? So just FYI. Secondly -- Zaremba: That was an Ada County ordinance you're reading; is that correct? Battaglia: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Battaglia: Secondly, right here I just want clarification. This part right here, that will be- - or did I understand that it is a fence that will be supported by the Packard Estates? Right now it is a chain link fence. We are putting up -- the developer will be putting up a wood fence that matches the entire subdivision as it sits right -- is that what was said earlier? Zaremba: What I understood is that the chain link fence is new and that's what they propose. Borup: And it would stay there. Battaglia: Okay. As Packard Estates, our homeowners association, we would like to see noted that that is a like fence that should be up and I think that's not going to be a problem with the developer. Okay? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 23 of 72 Zaremba: We will get that clarification. Battaglia: Perfect. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Is that a six foot wood fence? Battaglia: Six foot wood -- or six foot cedar. Yeah. Postage stamp style. Borup: That is what's existing now you're saying? Battaglia: What's existing now is a chain link fence right her. Borup: Right. But isn't that a new fence? Battaglia: I think it is new. But I don't know who built it or put it or whatever. But if Packard homes are going to go in along this, I think there is like eight homes or whatever, we would like to see it as a fence that matches the subdivision. Borup: Okay. Battaglia: And I know that's going to blink soon. The house to be removed, Commissioner Newton, you had mentioned that -- is that house going away proposed or is it going away? I heard proposed. I just want to make sure that that house that sits right here is going away. Did I miss -- Borup: It's going away if this is approved. Battaglia: If it's approved. Okay. Great. Zaremba: The whole subdivision is proposed and they use that wording for things that - Battaglia: Got you. Thank you. Zaremba: But it is a condition that the staff has placed on, that it be removed. Battaglia: Okay. Great. Thank you. And, Brad, sorry, can you put up the one picture-- could you, please, put up the picture that had the plat on it? A question arose about a drainage here. This is an easement -- right now it's all dirt, but it looks like they are going to do something right here. When they mentioned sewer here, is that underground sewer is what they mean? Borup: No. They mentioned storm drainage there. Battaglia: I'm sorry, storm drainage. Is that underground right there? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 24 of 72 Borup: That's my understanding. We can get a clarification. Battaglia: Could we get a clarification on that to assure that it's under? Borup: Yeah. It's not big enough for anything else. Battaglia: Okay. Thank you. And the last one -- I hate to do this -- Wingate Lane again, the alley. It's been brought to our attention today by ACHD that, actually, Packard -- we want to make sure that we retain as the homeowners of Packard Estates, it's like 200 or so feet, because behind this house right here is that drainage ditch. Could you go to that one -- yeah. Thank you. Right here is a drainage ditch common area that we take care of, that we maintain. Whatever happens on Wingate Lane, we want to assure that we still have access to that and so there just needs to be some clarification, because the only access to this lot is out Wingate Lane, which is a private driver, and we just want to make sure that we adhere or obtain that access. Borup: Okay. So ita gate went up -- Battaglia: We would need a key. Borup: To handle that access. Battaglia: Yeah. Zaremba: Or the alternative would be if the gate were actually along this -- my hand's shaking. Battaglia: If it was right here? Zaremba: Yeah. You're doing that better than I was. Battaglia: Yeah. Zaremba: If the gate were right there, is that satisfactory? Battaglia: That would -- I don't think the homeowners would have a problem with that. Zaremba: Okay. Battaglia: And that's it. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 25 of 72 Borup: Okay. I think that concluded everybody that signed up. Was there anyone else that had any -- not unless there is any questions from -- there may be some additional questions from the Commission on the gate issue. I don't know. Is there anybody else we would like additional information from? Zaremba: Well, I'm going with staff's assessment that if it were, actually, within annexed property that's part of the city, then, the Ada County ordinance doesn't apply. It sounds like all parties would be greatly comforted if the gate were there. Having it put approximately on the north boundary of what I think is Packard Acres No.1 crossing that lane. Yes. Right where that's being indicated -- would still put it within city limits and not be subject to the Ada County ordinance and, actually, if it were there I'm not sure keys would even need to be supplied to the four people that back up to it, but that's possible. The only other issue would be -- if, you know, the fire department has already said they don't plan to use Wingate Lane, but would they need to be able to get through it if they had to? I see staff nodding yes. Hawkins-Clark: It's a good question. Obviously, there is -- it's a more direct route to get into this area to use Wingate Lane and -- but as I was told by Deputy Chief Silva, they -- Zaremba: That wouldn't be their first choice. Hawkins-Clark: That would not be their first choice. Correct. Zaremba: Because the roads are wider and not gravel and -- Newton-Huckabay: Could we go ahead and close the Public Hearing and have our discussion, then? Zaremba: I would let the applicant respond. Borup: Yeah. He hasn't had his chance yet, but -- Zaremba: We are bringing up questions that he may want to respond to. Borup: But I would be interested in some comment from the Sharps on the gate. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Would one of the Sharps care to come forward, if you'd like? And my -- H.Sharp: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. Borup: Okay. Go ahead and maybe state your name again, Mrs. Sharp. H.Sharp: Oh, Helen Sharp. , . I Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 26 of 72 Borup: Okay. Earlier you had said something about that it -- that it had barricades up and I'm not sure where those barricades were, but you like the idea of the barricades it sounded like. H.Sharp: As we all know riding around in Meridian, if it's a dead end street that butts up against a field, there is a dead end, they put a barricade there. Borup: So that's what you're talking about? H.Sharp: And that's at the end of Meadowgrass where it butts up to -- Borup: That's because it doesn't go to another street. H.Sharp: Yes. It butts up to Wingate Lane, a private lane. Another thing, too, since I've got the mike, Ada County also says that you cannot have a private lane if you have a public road at either end. We have Ustick at one end and we have Challis at the other. If you do, then, it has to become part of the system, brought into the system, and brought up to code. They also state that you cannot have more than four houses on a lane 400 feet long. Ours is a half-mile long. If you are on the fifth house you are to bring it up to standard and make it part of the roadway. The City of Meridian -- Borup: Well, ma'am, that wasn't the question I brought you up here for. H.Sharp: But, anyway -- but, no, it's -- Borup: My question is, then, you're not in favor of the gate; is that true? H.Sharp: No. Because also on our private road agreement that was established in 1913 it says it's to be opened and maintained. Borup: Okay. You were concerned about traffic down there and you want to prevent that. H.Sharp: Well, they said how about posting signs and they just posted a sign that says maximum speed ten miles, no trespassing, private lane -- Borup: Okay. H.Sharp: -- and, then, the Idaho Code. So, they are hoping this will stop some of the traffic, because prosecutors -- or they will be prosecuted is they bypass or use the lane. The sheriff has said that they will. So, I guess we sit there with cameras and take pictures of trespassing on our private road. Borup: So, do you see any possible -- any. possibility that you would ever agree to a gate? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 27 of 72 H.Sharp: They can buy us out. Borup: All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Groves, are you speaking as the final rebuttal or as public testimony? Groves: No. I'll let our representative Pat Tealey speak final rebuttal. I wanted to -- my name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise, Idaho. I'm a managing member for Packard Estates Development, LLC. I wanted to encourage the Commission here this evening to -- a lot of what -- the discussion you have heard really doesn't belong in this land use arena here, it belongs in a civil arena, and we had a meeting two and a half years ago now at ACHD, a work session with owners on Wingate Lane, with Mr. and Mrs. Sharp, everyone at the meeting agreed to put up a gate. I agreed to fund it. Okay? I had an agreement drafted, I delivered it to Mr. Chip Gallagher, nobody on the lane would sign it, the Sharps immediately backed out of the deal, you know, there is no coming to resolution on this. If you want us to put money aside for the gate, fine, we will do it, but I really encourage you to put a time line on it. You know, no more than six months. We have been dealing with this for years. It's not a land -- it's not part of your land use application, as far as I'm concerned. Secondly, there is no pleasing Mr. and Mrs. Sharp under any circumstances. We have offered to deed fee title from Meadowgrass to the Sharp's residence 20 feet. Right now they have a 15-foot easement. Build them a permanent gate and pave their property from Meadowgrass to their -- from Meadowgrass to their property. Well over a year and a half ago. We are now several hundred thousand dollars down the road and still talking about the same issues. I would encourage you this evening to look at the merits of the plan, 20 home sites, nice home sites, 300,000 dollar houses, make your decision, move it to Council. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Tealey. Tealey: Originally, addressing the concern of the next-door neighbor there in Packard Acres No.1, she did buy that house there that -- on a lot and there was a common lot next to her and it's a numbered lot and it's on the plat. Now, her builder may have tried to include that in there and landscape and it does appear as though it's part of her property, there is no doubt about it, but there is a platted common lot there for her -- for us to use for a path. Borup: That's what I assumed. Tealey: Our alternative was -- and in the first plan that we presented to you was to put the common area adjacent to Wingate Lane so it could be used for a walking path, that people wouldn't use that 15-foot easement to walk up and down. City Council didn't see it our way and wanted us to move it over to the west to where we show it now. So, that we thought we had a solution for that, but that got changed. All of what Craig says is -- you know, I'm there with him. This has all happened -- we started this in 1995 and it's been exactly the same argument since 1995. I was at that meeting at ACHD, we did sit down with the adjacent landowners to Wingate Lane, we thought we had something Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 28 of 72 worked out, but it was all predicated on everybody signing it and that -- there was not one signature that came back on that agreement. As a matter of fact, the Sharps went out the next week or two and filed suit against the developer. This went to court and all you're hearing from them tonight is a reiteration of what they tried to get in court and in court they were shut down and told that they didn't have a case. They lost it. And they agreed -- because we paid their -- the developers paid their lawyer bills, they agreed not to appeal. What they are trying to do here is come back to you and get what they couldn't get in court. We are here for -- as Craig said, this is a land use issue, we want an R-4 zone, which you had already approved before, we are asking for two less lots, and I guess if Craig's willing to put that escrow out there that's fine, but I don't see a solution to it and it -- and if you give it too much time for that solution to happen, for example, one year or two years, it's just going to get put off to the very end anyway. I would give them a month. You know, make them come together. You know, if that's what they want and that's what will satisfy them, maybe we will get over this hump. But I really don't think that's part of -- part of the issue tonight. The issue is the rezone, annexation, and our preliminary plat on this five-acre parcel. We have faced all this argument since 1995 and we have gotten over it until tonight and I don't see why we need to change tonight. The last issue is the chain link fence that we just built recently along the Sharp's property line. We went to the city and to the Sharps, we asked them what kind of fence do you want there, they said we want a chain link fence, the city okayed the use of the chain link fence there and we have got records to that if you want to see it. We don't really want to build another wood fence adjacent to that chain link. Borup: Okay. That's what I was -- Tealey: Any questions? Borup: That was my original understanding. Commissioners? Questions from any of the Zaremba: No. I was going to ask about the fence, but let me just confirm with staff that the chain link fence does meet the code and in that location that's acceptable? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing AZ 04-005 and PP 04- 006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 29 of 72 MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Okay. I don't think we have any discussion on the first issue, but go ahead. Zaremba: Well, I feel as I did before, this is a project that is similar in nature to the projects around it, with the exception of the one parcel to the south and the recommendation for approval of the annexation and zoning that I made earlier on the last one, I still feel that way on this one. My comment on the preliminary plat, I think the applicant has addressed the issues that the City Council asked for it to be remanded back to us. On the specific staff comments, turning to page eight, I would substitute for paragraph one under site specific conditions of approval, preliminary plat, that there is an existing chain link fence along the south perimeter and I believe it was a wood fence along the west perimeter and that those can remain. Under paragraph three, item B, I would delete the requirement to change Wingate Lane from 15 feet to 20 feet and substitute for it a requirement that the applicant put into an escrow account a fee enough to build a gate across Wingate Lane at what would be the north property line of Packard Estates No.1 and that -- and I would suggest that that escrow account stay active until either the fence is built or the first certificate of occupancy on this new application, whichever comes first. That's probably a longer time period than the developer wants, but -- Newton-Huckabay: The fence that runs north and south? Zaremba: The gate across Wingate Lane would -- the money for it would stay in escrow until there is either an agreement made and it's built or until the first certificate of occupancy. If there has not been agreement of all parties by the time the first certificate of occupancy on this development, then, the developer gets the money back. Borup: Do you think that extra time is going to make any difference? Zaremba: Well, I'm willing to hear other suggestions. That's what I was going to suggest. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: It's clear that the chairman thinks that one to two months is plenty. I'd like to hear from Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with the developer that a shorter time frame than a year or two years would be acceptable, but I think it is an issue that does need to be resolved expediently for all parties. I would say six to eight months is a reasonable request. Zaremba: I could go with that. Newton-Huckabay: But I would also -- I would not agree, though, to -- I would say that they would also in that agree where the gate would go, if they agree on a gate. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Se"-"16. 2004 Page 3D of 72 Zaremba: Well - and thal's what I'm saying, if agreement hasn't been reached, then, the developer gets the money back and that's - Newton-Huckabay: Right. But you were saying put the gate on the north of Packard No.1. I would not put that as one of the suggested conditions. Zaremba: In order for the gate to exist it needs to be in the Meridian city limits. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. So it can't be at the north of say Packard No.2? Zaremba: And I would still like them to have access to their drainage, which is that upper lot off of Wingate Lane. To me thal's the only place that we can put it. Borup: You're saying right there, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Yes. Thafs where I'm aiming it. I don't see that it can go anywhere else. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, with that point, then, I agree with Commissioner Zaremba. Borup: Well, it couldn't go any further north. Zaremba: It can't go any further north, because it would be a county - it would be surrounded by county land and be subject to the county ordinance. I wouldn't put it much farther south, because that eliminates access to the drainage lot and if you put it south of Challis, it doesn't serve the purpose of keeping people off of that section. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, do we have to specify that the house has to come out, the- Zaremba: No. That's condition number two that already exists. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the city council - Holinka: Chairman, Members of the Commission - I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt you. Borup: Yes, Please. Yes. This is discussion time. Holinka: I just wanted a clarification on site specific condition number three, sub C, and I guess maybe this is directed at staff, but it talks about a requirement to forbid gates or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 31 of 72 removal of permanent fencing. Is the gate specified there, a gate in the fencing or is that talking about a gate across the lane? Zaremba: I would think that's a gate from a lot onto the lane. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Not the gate we are talking about, but I can clarify that. Holinka: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That was our intention was -- yeah. Holinka: The other thing I wanted to mention, I did speak with the developer's attorney late this afternoon about this specific condition. I guess it was probably more directed at the first part of it, and his recollection with the prior two Packard Acres developments, about the release and the access issue, was it was more done with the lot or the plat condition sub A there, in addition to a reference in the CC&Rs that there would be no access -- direct lot access, rather than as it stated in the first sentence of paragraph -- of sub three there. Zaremba: Say that again. A-- that you're talking about, direct access to Wingate Lane is specifically prohibited and I didn't catch the difference in what you were saying? Holinka: Well -- and in addition to that, that would be specifically referenced in the CC&Rs and, I'm sorry, I didn't have an opportunity to check back to see what -- if that was, in fact, accurate, but that was his recollection from the prior application, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Is a motion in order? Borup: Yes. I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-005, request for annexation and zoning 5.27. acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 32 of 72 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-006 -- and I comment, again, that this is the preliminary plat drawing dated 7/22/04, stamped received by the city clerk August 13, 2004, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential building lots and one common lot on 5.27 acres in a proposed R-4 subdivision for Packard Estates Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with the following changes: On page eight, under site specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, paragraph one, essentially can be deleted and replaced with a ,statement that says: Applicant has provided a chain link fence along their southern border and a wooden fence along their western border as perimeter fencing and these fencings may remain. Under paragraph three, subparagraph A -- Borup: That doesn't delete the requirement to have fencing along Wingate? Zaremba: No. And that's addressed farther down. Borup: Okay. There we go. Zaremba: I believe. Borup: Yes, it is. Number four. Zaremba: Yeah. Number four. Okay. So, paragraph three, subparagraph A, reads as it states: Direct lot access to Wingate Lane is specifically prohibited and will add to that sentence: And this prohibition shall be referenced in the subdivision's CC&Rs. Paragraph three, subparagraph B, delete the current statement and substitute a statement that says: Developer shall put adequate money into an escrow account for the building of a gate across Wingate Lane at the north property line of Packard Acres Subdivision No.1, such escrow account to remain until such time as the Wingate Lane homeowners have all agreed to the placement of the gate or until six months has elapsed, whichever occurs first. If the time elapsed without an agreement on where the fence should -- Newton-Huckabay: Gate. Zaremba: -- on the fence being there -- I'm sorry, on the gate being there, the money shall be returned to the applicant and no further discussion of the gate will ensue. On paragraph three, subparagraph C, near the bottom, the last paragraph, also provide a recorded copy of deed restrictions to prohibit access to Wingate Lane and forbid gates, add the words: From adjoining lots. And, then, the rest of the sentence remains. Paragraph four is already satisfactory as is. No further changes. Newton-Huckabay: I would second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 33 of 72 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 1.6 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodward Estates Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC - southwest corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 1 ih Street: Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Do we want to continue on, Commissioners, or -- well, no, let's do Item No. 12 at least. We have a request on Item No. 12 -- let me remember again -- did they just withdraw or they asked for -- Zaremba: I think it was a request to continue, unfortunately, due to the untimely death of the developer. The difficulty is they don't necessarily specify a time and we can only continue to a specific time. Borup: Well -- but they are talking about a re-notice. Maybe some staff clarification. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, clarification on the next item? Borup: Yes. Yeah. The letter says they are asking for a re-notice, but are they withdrawing -- I mean it sounds like they are also changing the plat also. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They would -- at this point they are not withdrawing the application entirely, but conversations with staff have been that they are intending to continue it on, just that due to an untimely death they had to make some different coordination's between the applicant and the developer and et cetera. So, we have not received the new application, which the Planning and Zoning Commission asked for them to add that new property where the tennis courts are -- you remember they had that tennis court and you asked them to go back and add that property and they haven't come back to us with that and once they do, then, we are going to have to send the notice around again to everybody within 300 feet. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are talking at least 30 days. Zaremba: At least a month, maybe -- Newton-Huckabay: If not a month and a half. Hawkins-Clark: Probably more like two I would say. Newton-Huckabay: Sixty days? Zaremba: Okay. So-- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 34 of 72 Borup: But we will need -- if we are going to continue it -- so you're saying we should continue it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Continue -- it sounds like it's going to go to like November 18th. That's two months. Hawkins-Clark: They did not submit a requested date. I don't know if anybody is here representing them tonight, but -- Zaremba: Yeah. There is nothing on the note that requests -- Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: Is there a representative for this application here? Don't see any. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue PFP 04-007, to our regularly scheduled meeting of November 18th, 2004. Newton-Huckabay: I second that motion. Borup: Motion and second to continue the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do we have a request for a break? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I would like a break. Borup: Okay. Okay. We will take a short recess -- a break at this time. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 04-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 04-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 350172 and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Bqrup: Okay. We'd like to open the next public hearings, Public Hearing AZ 04-024, request for annexation and zoning of 47.66 acres -- am I disturbing anyone out there? Thank you. From RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, and Public Hearing PP 04-031, request for preliminary plat approval of 143 single family residential lots, 19 common lots, on the same property. And Public Hearing CUP 04-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, consisting of a school lot, single family residential lots, and reductions of the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage, all this for Silverleaf Subdivision. Again, we would open these three hearings and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject 47.66 acre site is located on the south side of Chinden and on the east side of Ten Mile Road. I'm going to breeze through the staff in the interest of time. There are only a couple of issues -- I guess let me give you the bearings a little bit better first. Lochsa Falls is to the south and to the east of the subject site shown in bold black there. And here is the aerial view from 2003. Obviously, some more lots in Lochsa Falls have been developed since this area was flown. To the north there are three undeveloped parcels. One of them, the large one, being a 37.6-acre site right on the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Chinden, currently zoned RUT in the county. Spur Wing Subdivision is across Chinden Boulevard and to the west are agricultural properties. This submitted preliminary plat, there are 143 single family residential building lots, 18 common lots, and a large school lot on the west side there -- or, excuse me, on the east side of the plat, about ten acres. The applicant is proposing to construct one public street entrance to Ten Mile Road. That will serve the nine acre parcel and, eventually, feed through the Lochsa development when those final plats -- plat and feed the northeastern portion of the development, providing interconnectivity. They are seeking a temporary access to Chinden Boulevard should Lochsa Falls stall, that would be located in this -- generally in the alignment with this road here out to Chinden. There are conditions in the staff report stating that if ITD approves it, staff is supportive. It needs to go away when one or all of the other stub streets to Lochsa Falls are provided to this portion and access can be granted to that site. The gross density of the subdivision is 3.0 dwelling units per acre. This density is in accord with both the proposed R-4 zone and the Comp Plan, which designates a low density residential near Chinden Boulevard and medium density residential further south. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan designation bisects this property north-south, half of it, approximately, is medium, half of it is low density. The applicant is requesting, as noted in the description, reduced lot frontages and reduced lot sizes. There are 89 lots that are below the 80-foot street frontage requirement in the R-4 zone. There are 85 lots that are below the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-4 zone. The proposed amenities for this development include a tot lot area with playground equipment and a gathering area with picnic tables and barbecue equipment on Lot 8, Block 5, which is right here. This is Lot 8, Block 5, this large common lot. There is the tot lot and, then, the associated amenities around it. I did want to point out, as I noted in the staff report, that there are 4.59 acres or 9.65 percent of the site set Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 36 of 72 aside for open space that the applicant calls out. City code does require that if you want to count open space as an amenity, you need to provide ten percent. There are some other amenities that the applicant hasn't called out in their submittal letter I thought that were pretty important just to note. There is a micro-path type pathway -- it's a micro- path when it's a lot or two in depth. This would just be a pathway internal that feeds up to the future school site, as well as connecting in an east-west direction to this future school site. That, in conjunction with the sidewalk system, creates a pretty good pathway system, so I did just want to call that out, and also ask the applicant to clarify here at the meeting tonight the amenities and how they came up with that open space percentage. I was a little bit shy of their -- what they were proposing as open space. Just to further expand on that just for a second, is this pump station drainage lot here, there is an access road that goes back and that definition in city code of landscaped open space is green and so any -- if it's not green or is paved it, obviously, couldn't be counted in that requirement, as well as any required street buffers are not counted in that landscape open space requirement. Just real quick, I'm going to show you some of the elevations that the applicant submitted. They did submit ten; I think I scanned in two or three of them. That's that. I did want to make note that the applicant did write a response letter to the staff report dated 9/14/04 and just confirm that you all have that. I had one on my desk, so I think you should probably all have that. They didn't have any issues. They said they will clarify. One other thing has come up is the -- actually, two things have come up. The sidewalk on Chinden Boulevard, the Comprehensive Plan states that all arterial streets shall have detached sidewalks. Speaking with the applicant before the hearing, they wanted to know if they could either keep their 35 foot wide landscape buffer or if we were requiring sidewalk. We don't have any correspondence from ITD, so I don't know what their standard requirement is. The Comprehensive Plan appears to require that on all arterial streets. I'm not quite sure what Lochsa Falls did. The applicant may clarify that they had a 25-foot wide landscape buffer, but I did want to make that note there. They were showing a sidewalk. The other thing was the one-acre parcel located in this area here. This is kind of right in the heart of the development. There is an existing home on it. My understanding is that that homeowner is going to retain that one acre lot and they do have a waterfall right here that would be within the ten foot wide public utilities and drainage easement, so they are wondering if that can go away. I talked to Mr. Freckleton before this hearing; he seemed to infer that anything is possible with the right amount of coaxing and money with the joint trenching people. So, I'll let that person testify if they'd like to, but I just did want to call that out. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Would you put up the aerial view again for a minute? Just to refresh my memory -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- this area just south of this portion is an eventual public park, because of Lochsa Falls; is that correct? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 37 of 72 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that is correct. There is a one acre -- 1.4 acres, I believe it is, church site right here, but, yeah, Lochsa Falls' large city park is right here. Zaremba: And, then, is this the entire school site or is a portion of it into Lochsa Falls? A recollection was that a portion of this is, actually, going to come out of Lochsa Falls and, then, their permanent roadway is roughly in this area; is that -- Hood: No. Actually, the permanent roadway for Lochsa Falls is just on the other side of this black line, which is the school site almost bisecting -- Zaremba: That's the entire school site; there is no more to it? Hood: Correct. And, then, that residential collector street will be not right adjacent to, because they are constructing a landscape buffer, but there is a stub street here to the school and, then, that residential collector comes in like this and feeds down into Lochsa. Zaremba: Then, my recollection is discussing landscape and sidewalk, that this, actually, was going to be either a commercial or L-O, I forget the zoning, but it's not residential in Lochsa Falls, I don't believe, is it? Hood: I do not recall and, I'm sorry, I didn't look further into that matter, it just came up before the hearing. It is zoned R-4. They may have requested a use exception as part of that, so -- Zaremba: I think that's true. Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. The question I had is on the zoning designation. Was R-4 to stay in compliance with the Comp Plan or -- or was that a necessity? Hood: The Comprehensive Plan -- Borup: You mentioned the low density and medium density. Hood: Yeah. Low density on Chinden and medium density further south and out towards Ten Mile. The requested PD, actually, is -- will establish those lot sizes and setbacks, et cetera, if required more than just an underlying zoning district. When you have a PD, you know -- you know, you take those lot sizes and frontages and you can basically throw them out the window and propose something, but their density is 3.0 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the R-4 zone. Or low density -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 38 of 72 Borup: Right. I understood that that is, but the subdivision as proposed wouldn't even comply with an R-8. It would still need -- it would still need the requested changes, even in an R-8 zone, so I wondered why the request was even for an R-4. Hood: You may ask the applicant that question. I'm not quite sure. Borup: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Amar: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address is 114 East Idaho in Meridian, here representing the Silverleaf Subdivision. I will also try to be brief. I know there is a lot of neighbors here that probably could care less about this subdivision, so we will try to get through it quickly. With respect to the staff report, we are generally in agreement with all of the conditions within the staff report. There are a couple items, as Craig indicated, that -- more clarification than anything and I will also talk about the open space and the amenities within the open space. This project, as you are aware, is 132 lots on 43 acres. We have been working with the school district, had a meeting as recently as yesterday with them in finalizing our agreements with them for the school site on this property. We understand the school is experiencing significant growth. I believe that's what their letter says. This will allow, similar to the project we did in Birchstone, an additional school site for the school to maintain the ability to keep up with the growth or keep no further behind with the same amount of growth, maybe, is the way Wendell would rather have that. But we are willing to work with the school and, as a matter of fact, we are working with the school. We have a layout of the school if you'd like to see it, but we have worked with their architect for, generally, conceptual matters to make sure that the school site that we provided works for their building plans. With respect to our temporary access, that is in the event -- could I have the preliminary plat? Thank you. That -- the access -- and I spoke with Lochsa development, Farwest Development, should be built this winter. We have requested a temporary access and have received permission -- I have given a copy of the letter to Craig from Idaho Transportation Department for that. We will comply with all the conditions that staff has requested of us for that temporary access. At this time I don't see that that will be necessary. In the event that Lochsa does stall or slow down, I am preparing for that by having the temporary access, but I don't think it is necessary. The school site is on our site completely and they have an additional access -- you can see it here for the -- for them and they will use that as a secondary access or maybe for bus access. So, they are coordinating, if they need to move that, with Lochsa Falls and we will help them out, obviously. With respect to the open space, we are providing ten percent, we just didn't put it on the map. It was always my of intention. of putting ten percent open space, so there will be ten percent open space in here, which will be one of the amenities and, as Craig indicated, we will have the playground structure, similar to the ones I have -- we have done in the past and we will also have some sort of gathering area for parents to watch while their kids play. Also, as Craig indicated, we will have the pathway through the subdivision leading down to this city park. We thought that was important for kids to be able to get those, especially since there is a school site. We have located our open space on the property in such a manner that it is directly across from the school, providing an area for the kids to be in case -- it's an Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 39 of 72 elementary school, so they don't let their kids leave without parents showing up, but it does provide a nice open space. We have also put no houses fronting this street. We have tried to keep that off, so the traffic from that won't interfere with any driveways or any houses that are on the street. We are requesting on Chinden, to be consistent with what Lochsa Falls did, they also gave a 35-foot landscape buffer. They do have -- I think your memory is correct; they have some commercial lots shown up there. I don't know if they have sidewalk or not. I know as I drive up and down Chinden a lot of the subdivisions along Chinden do not have sidewalks, no. Meridian hasn't gotten to that point where they have any subdivisions on Chinden yet. Lochsa, I believe, Paramount, but they aren't built. So, we are requesting that that 35-foot be allowed with a sidewalk on there or to be consistent with Lochsa Subdivision. One question that arose in this meeting is why the R-4 zoning. Again, that was simply to be consistent with Lochsa. Lochsa is zoned R-4 PUD, we have a similar density that Lochsa has and we chose the R-4 just simply to be consistent with Lochsa. That's what they were approved under, so we chose the R-4 also. With that -- and I have a copy of the Lochsa Subdivision final plat number 12, which shows this road and also the open space, if you'd like to see it. My engineer is here, who has spoken with Briggs Engineering, they are the company doing Lochsa Subdivision, if you'd like more information with respect to where Lochsa is. He as better information than I do or more up-to-date information than I do. I think with that I have tried to answer all the questions; if you have any others I would be pleased to answer them. Newton-Huckabay: Chinden? You wanted the sidewalk or you don't want the sidewalk on Amar: As I understand it, it's the city's requirement to have sidewalks on all arterials. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Amar: So, I don't have a problem putting the sidewalk there. What I would like to do is have the same landscape width, which is 35 feet, as Lochsa had. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: And, then, the sidewalk is within that; is that correct? Amar: That's what we are showing now. Zaremba: And that's acceptable? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, on page 13, number seven, I did ask the applicant to add an additional five feet, because you weren't -- code doesn't allow sidewalk to be counted in that landscape buffer, so the applicant is just requesting to be approved what they have shown. The second bullet does require five additional feet, because that 35-foot wide landscape buffer is just that, so it would be a 40-foot wide common lot, with a five foot -- but it seems to make sense to me that if Lochsa did a 35- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 40 of 72 foot wide total width common lot and included in that was a five foot wide sidewalk, it seems to make sense to me that they be allowed to do the same. Borup: That's also going to a meandering sidewalk? Amar: Yes, sir. It will be held off the right of way, especially on Chinden. I think that's important. Zaremba: Works for me. Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to see with the interconnectivity with Lochsa, if you have that plat. Amar: We have -- I'm going to speak and, then, let my engineer get up and correct me. This portion here, I believe, is called phase nine or ten. They are building that now. In fact, curb, gutter, and sidewalk are going in. This portion in here, the roads have cut in and, as I understand it, will start construction now, that will give us connectivity with the stub road out of this property and also connectivity with the stub road in this location. So, this year those roads should be installed and that's, as I understand it, from Lochsa or Farwest Development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Amar: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Do we have any -- you didn't have anything else from the engineer; is that correct? I don't think we had any questions. Right. Do we have any public testimony on this application? Commissioners, seeing none. I don't think Mr. Amar needs a rebuttal. Zaremba: No, I guess not. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that public hearings AZ 04-24, PP 04-031, and CUP 04-033, be closed. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission SepIember 16, 2004 Page 41 of72 Zaremba: I think this is appropriate and matches the other things going on around it. Any alternate opinion? Newton-Huckabay: I was just - Borup: I don't think it does as far as the lot sizes. Newton-Huckabay: Did you want the picture of where the school goes? Did you say you had a picture where the school goes? Zaremba: We closed the Public Hearing, so I'm not sure you can ask him that. Newton-Huckabay: I'll ask the questions and they will correct me. Borup: Your question was if there was a site - a school site - Newton-Huckabay: No, irs not - irs okay. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious where it was going to go. Borup: Back to your statement that it complies with the surrounding. It doesn't as far as lot sizes. I mean it does as far as zoning and - Zaremba: But now Lochsa had some smaller lots - Borup: Did they? Well, I guess it depends on what section. Zaremba: Yeah. Irs not right abutting this, but I think some of these over here were - Borup: Fifty-foot lots? Zaremba: - quite a bit smaller. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: In the variety. Less than half of these are smaller. Borup: More than half. Zaremba: Or close to half. Yeah. A little over half. And, personally, I find that acceptable. Borup: Okay. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comrniss on September 16, 2004 Page 42 of 72 Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-024, request for annexation and zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-031, request for preliminary plat approval for 143 single family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 3, 2004, with one change. And that is on page 13, paragraph seven, the second bullet, which starts out depict a minimum 40 foot wide, I would leave that as is, but add at the end of that paragraph an additional sentence that says: If it is shown that the adjoining Lochsa Falls Subdivision has the sidewalk within their 35-foot landscape buffer, this project may match that project, and that needs to be shown before this goes to the City Council hearing. Newton-Huckabay: What about the waterfall? Zaremba: Did we need to make a decision on that? Newton-Huckabay: The waterfall on the one acre lot. Zaremba: Is that an engineering issue or - FreckJeton: Mr. Chainnan, Commissioner Zaremba, that's something we can handle when we get closer to the final plat. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, my motion ended with the change to page 13, paragraph seven, second bullet. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 43 of 72 to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include staff comments from their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 04-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family residential building lots and 21 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that application. Our next item is our final project for the evening, Public Hearing AZ 04-023, a request for annexation and zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the propose Kingsbridge Subdivision by Visions First, LLC. And Public Hearing PP 04-030, request for preliminary plat approval of 237 single family residential lots and 21 common lots by proposed -- well, is that correct? R-8? Get some clarification on that. And Public Hearing CUP 04-032, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions in the minimum requirement for lot size, street frontage, and block length. Again, we will open all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It appears to be a typo on the agenda. Borup: On the preliminary plat? Siddoway: Yes. The requested zone is R-4. Borup: That's -- that was what my understanding was. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 44 of 72 Siddoway: I'd also point out that there is a correction to the acreage. It's very slight, but the agenda shows 76.72, which was their original stated acreage, but we had them submit revised legal descriptions that changed it to 76.777. So, it's just slightly larger. But the 76.777 is the acreage shown on the revised legal description, just for the record. Location of the subject property is on the east side of Eagle Road, about halfway between Victory and Amity Roads. You can see the surrounding subdivisions. They include Dartmoor Subdivision to the immediate west. To the north is Golden Eagle Estates. To the east is Bridlewood Subdivision. To the south is Koontz Hollow, and Zaldia's Ruwa Subdivision is to the south. All the property within this square mile is currently in the county. Their point of contiguity with the city is right at this corner. They are touching the corner of the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision project and that is what gives them their path for annexation. This is the aerial photo view. You can see the subdivision at Tuscany Lakes across the street. Dartmoor Subdivision immediately to the west. And, then, the surrounding lots, which are roughly five acres in size, mostly one to five acre lots surrounding the property. This is the Comprehensive Plan. Again, to orient you, the subject property is in this area. The northern two-thirds of the project is shown as low density residential. The southern third of the project is shown as medium density residential. There are 237 proposed building lots and 23 common lots. The gross density of the proposed project is 3.09 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 3.88. And I'll follow up on that in just a moment when I get into some of the findings. The project is a planned development. They are requesting reductions to the minimum lot size for the R-4 zone. The minimum lot size for R-4 is 8,000 square feet. They are requesting a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Minimum lot frontage is 80 feet. They are proposing a minimum of 70 feet. And, then, block length, they are proposing to exceed the minimum -- or the maximum 1,000 foot block length within the subdivision to allow for the streets as proposed, their longest being approximately 1,300 feet. In the past the Commission has asked for a breakdown of how many of the lots are being reduced and by how much and on page two of the staff report there is a breakdown, which I don't need to read the entire thing, but roughly half of the lots are smaller than the 8,000 square foot lot size and the other half are larger than. The average lot size is just over 8,500 square feet for the subdivision. They do have a mix of lot sizes, many of the smaller lots internal and some of the larger lots on the west and north side of their project. Going to the landscape plan. They are proposing several amenities with their project, including ten percent open space, a swimming pool, clubhouse, basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, and barbecue stands in a central community park. There is also a second park connected by a micro-path up in this location pictured here. That's difficult to see, but it includes a gazebo in it as well. As I mentioned, the micro-paths connect them. The Ten Mile feeder canal runs along the -- about the midpoint of the project in this location and they are proposing to improve that with landscaping and a pathway. They do have a boulevard entry with no lots that front on it. There is a landscaped entry with a bridge that crosses the Ten Mile feeder canal and, then, runs into the open space park just above it. They are proposing ornamental streetlights, detached sidewalks, street trees, and they are proposing to increase the minimum house size from the standard 1,400 square foot of the zone to 1,600 square feet. One of the main issues or legal questions associated with this project has to do with the fact that this property is part of a non-farm development that Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission Seplember 16, 2004 Page 45 of 72 was done in Ada County. The property for the Dartmoor Subdivision was originally platted in 1994. As part of that subdivision these acre lots were platted. The remainder was dedicated as open space at that time, with a 15-year open space restriction. It has been staff's understanding of Ada County code that if property is annexed or urban services are made available, the open space restriction is no longer in force and the city's conditions take effect. Now, that point is disputed and there are -- this is the first time a non-farm subdivision has come to the city. So, this is a new issue for us. I did speak with city attorney Bill Nichols about this issue and he suggested that we add the condition of approval to the plat. I'm going to skip forward and reference that for you right now. It's on page eight of the staff report at the bottom. It's site-specific condition number two. He did make the determination that the city could move ahead on the annexation if the Commission and Council so choose, but he recommended conditioning any approval such that they have to either have written approval by a majority of the Dartmoor Subdivision homeowners or a favorable decision by the district court saying that they have a developable lot prior to submitting a final plat. I believe that is the one condition that the applicant has the biggest issue with and wishes to discuss tonight. So, I point out that one in particular. Any questions on that before I go on? Zaremba: Yeah. I had -- I was going to ask for a clarification on just exactly what's included in the non-build agreement. Is it this entire upper area? Siddoway: The entire upper area, yes. The lower two parcels are separate from that. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Staff does agree that they -- there are many things that make this a quality subdivision, which you will see tonight. They have one of the largest list of amenities that I have seen and I believe the major issue tonight is not necessarily the quality, but the quantity or the density that is being proposed and that's one of the issues we have to wrestle with tonight. I will go through some of the findings, beginning on page four, item A, this one deals with the Comprehensive Plan and just point out that they are requesting the one step density increase for about two-thirds of the project. That would be the area currently shown as low density, that they would propose to be a medium density per the Comprehensive Plan. Our definition in the Comprehensive Plan is that medium density is three to eight dwelling units per acre. They are just over three. So, they are at the low end of medium density, but, nonetheless, a medium density. There is also, I would point out, a note on the Comprehensive Plan that allows an applicant to request a one step change in density without requiring a Comp Plan amendment, but it does have to be justified and considered by the Commission. Next I will skip to item D. The finding D asks has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. I note that this may be one of the most difficult findings as the property is surrounded by one to five acre lots. I did note that Tuscany Lakes just to the west is platted at about 2.4 dwelling units per acre at a gross density and that the density that they are proposing, which is 3.09, is just slightly higher than that, but quite a bit lower than the surrounding properties. However, as a medium Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 46 of 72 density project, it's clearly within the range for a medium density project and moving back to the Comprehensive Plan -- where did that go? Right here. Additional medium density in this yellow is anticipated by the plan to the south. Next I would skip over to page six on Finding I, which asks if there is any uses that may be detrimental. I think that the traffic impacts on Dartmoor Drive, which goes through the existing Dartmoor Subdivision, is likely to be one of the major issues for tonight. The applicant has done a traffic impact study, which I have asked that they review the findings of tonight. I also believe they have come with a proposed change to this layout that would reduce the number of vehicle trips. I would point out in item G I did say that ACHD staff report has not been received yet. It still has not been received. I did talk with ACHD yesterday, but they have not held their tech review, they have not written a staff report, and it has not gone to the ACHD commission. So, I would request that the -- we should go ahead and have the hearing tonight, but I believe that the issue should at least be continued until we are in receipt of ACHD's final findings. Going over just a couple of the conditions of approval. Number six on page nine asks that a-- it goes over the fencing plan and I would point out that they are proposing a 20 foot wide common lot along the north boundary to provide a buffer between these lots and the larger lots to the north. That 20 foot buffer also continues along the east boundary down to the stub street and we -- at the request of the police department, we have requested that the fencing along the back of those lots adjacent to the common lot be restricted to four feet in height, solid, with the ability to do two feet of lattice on the top, so that the common lot doesn't become a no-man's land and can be -- have some natural surveillance from the surrounding properties. The plan also does not depict any fencing along the east boundary south of the stub and we have asked that they include that. And, then, there has been quite a few comments or questions that I'd just ask the applicant to respond to as part of their presentation about the proposed fencing along the south side. The landscape plan shows it as wrought iron. I know many of the homeowners wish to have it screened and would ask for solid fencing in that location. The last things I want to go over are the special considerations. There is only a few. There is four. And, then, I wanted to go over one condition of the fire departments. But on page 12 are the special considerations. The first one deals with the open space and lot removal. The large central park is in this location right here. There is two lots that front it right there that we have asked to be removed. We feel like it would open up that open space quite a bit as you come across the bridge and into the subdivision. Item number two deals with setbacks. There were no requested reductions to street side setbacks or rear setbacks, but the plat has a table on it that shows ten-foot street side setbacks and five foot rear setbacks, which is smaller than ordinance. So, we have asked the applicant to clarify whether they intend to abide by ordinance for those setbacks or they are requesting reductions and we can have them clarify that at the hearing tonight. Item number three deals with stub streets. Being surrounded by large lot subdivisions, there is not much opportunity for stub streets. They are proposing one to the west or -- sorry, to the east in this location. Generally, we would try to get stub streets in all directions and we have asked the Commission to consider and the applicant to talk about their investigation of opportunities for any additional stub streets or if any of the adjacent homeowners would want such a thing, but one potential location was to the north -- there is a stub street -- not a stub street, I'm sorry, there is a cul-de-sac to the north here that is Terry Drive, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 47 of 72 that if this area were to ever redevelop, it's conceivable that it could connect out that way as well. The last item deals with storm water pond design. Going to the landscape plan. Here. Okay. Yes. This is the northwest corner. Sorry, it's all -- it's broken up into pieces, but the northwest corner of the project includes a storm water lot. It shown with a gravel access drive and 40 feet of cobble and we would just ask that they comply with the landscape ordinance in that location and it also showed fencing cutting it off from the 20-foot landscape buffer and we have asked that they make sure that those are connected through. The only fire department condition that I wanted to point out that's kind of above and beyond standard is the first one that says that a fire flow analysis modeling will be required and that if any point, specifically Lot 11, Block 6, which is the far northeast corner of the property, if any of it's less than 1,000 gallons per minute for fire flow, then, that water will have to be looped through Dartmoor Subdivision and out to the water mains in Eagle Road to keep a consistent water -- fire flow available. That's alii have at this point. You have many letters, I count at least 23 from residents surrounding with concerns and, as you can see, the room's filled tonight, so I'll stand for any questions and move on with the hearing. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Zaremba: I have no questions. Borup: Okay. Maybe just a quick question on Dartmoor Drive. It appears that there is only one lot that would have access to Dartmoor? Is that your understanding or do you know? Siddoway: With a driveway? Borup: Right. Siddoway: I am -- well, I'm not sure. Most of them take access off of the cul-de-sacs, but -- Borup: That's what it looked like. Siddoway: We could ask the homeowners association, maybe, about that. Borup: Okay. presentation? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their Elliott: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Elliott, E-I-I-i-o-t-t, I am legal counsel for Vision First, LLC, the applicant. I'd like to begin tonight by putting a revised site plan in front of you that staff did not have the advantage of reviewing at the time the staff report was written and submitted, because it was -- the revision was made in response to ACHD's comments that we received on Friday. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 48 of 72 we have just drawn it up. We think that -- we hope that it will make the Dartmoor neighbors feel more comfortable about this project going in next to them, but I'd like to submit it to the clerk. Borup: Does staff have one that they can put on their overhead? Okay. Elliott: We will have it on Powerpoint, but I thought it would be helpful for each of you to have one in front of you. Just an introduction, because we are new to the community and to the state. Vision First was founded by Randy Quarno in 1998 after an 18 year career in city planning, project management with an engineering firm, and as CEO of a large residential development firm in Portland, Oregon. The company had its headquarters in Vancouver, Washington, until 2003, and we have opened an office in Eagle just about a year ago. We have two communities under construction in Nampa, Vista Ridge and Creekside Park. A third project in Caldwell that is just in final review prior to construction of phase one. I'd like to begin tonight by talking a bit about the non- farm use covenant, because I think that the record, we hope, includes two letters that were written, one by Robert Burns on behalf of the neighborhood, and a response written by Ed Miller of Given Pursley, that was submitted bye-mail this afternoon. Do the Commissioners, indeed, have both those letters in your packets? I guess I could ask the clerk if that got to you and whether it was -- the attachments were forwarded to the Commissioners. Zaremba: That doesn't sound familiar to me. Newton-Huckabay: No, it doesn't to me either. Zaremba: I have read the package thoroughly. I don't think those are there. Elliott: It would be an addendum that would have been added this afternoon, early afternoon, bye-mail from Givens Pursley. Johnson: I haven't seen anything come in. Elliott: Okay. Well, I have one original of it, I'll submit it at the conclusion of the hearing into the record, but the city attorney, we understand, has reviewed both letters and is ready to make a brief comment on it. I'd just like to say, though, that Mr. Nichols' initial recommendation of the condition of approval was based just on Mr. Burns' letter, which was written last May to one of the neighbors. We only received a copy of Mr. Burns' letter on Monday of this week. We looked carefully through the covenants of Dartmoor and determined that his letter and analysis left out a couple of critical points. There is specific language in the -- on page one of the declaration that's attached to the letter that we submitted that states each owner, which is talking about the Dartmoor -- the 15 Dartmoor owners, shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2. Our property is Lot 11 of Block 2. And consents to the re-subdivision and development of those two lots in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect, including such re-subdividing and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 49 of 72 development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, will be provided by the public rights of way within Dartmoor Subdivision. We submit that based on the waiver of each of those landowners when they purchased their lot and built their homes, we already have unanimous consent of Dartmoor for this project and with public access through Dartmoor. That being said -- that being said, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have attempted to design a project and redirect traffic in such a way that the impact on Dartmoor will be minimized. You will see a cul-de-sac just to the west of the park. Prior to last Friday when we met with ACHD, that street connected through to Kingsbridge Drive, the main entry boulevard along the southerly part of the project. We obtained the fire department's consent to limit Dartmoor Drive to an emergency only access cut through and had, in fact, drawn up a plan that had a gate and signage. ACHD reviewed that plan and said it does not comply with ACHD's code. If we had more than 100 lots, we have to have two public access points and so with the original plan of Dartmoor, the street was stubbed out and it contemplates connection into the back 56 acres of the project, that being Lot 11. So, we have connected it, but we have made a cul-de-sac and by doing that our traffic report establishes that the trips that otherwise would be going through Dartmoor are cut in half from 800 vehicle trips per day to 400. And I'd like to submit the design of the cul-de-sac and a traffic quieting bulb that we have created at the end of their -- Dartmoor cul-de-sac, along with the revised traffic study from Dolby Engineering based on that cul-de-sac. And I would hope the city attorney might chime in at anytime appropriate, but we'd like to continue now with our presentation. The site meets all criteria for annexation to the city. It is within the Meridian city impact area. It is within the urban service planning area, and as the staff report noted, it is contiguous point to point to the Meridian city limits. We are seeking a planned development and, as the staff report noted, there are many amenities. We have a split zone between these two portions of the project and by blending the density across the 76 acres and we can get down to an average density of just over the low rural density residential standard of three units per acre. We end up at 3.09, where if we did two straight subdivisions, we could have up to eight acres -- or eight units per acre on the south section and, then, three per acre on the north section. Let me try to get -- we will go back to -- to contiguity and the justification for annexation. We are contiguous to what I read on the map -- perhaps it's changed, but Messina Village Subdivision No.1. We meet it at the center of Eagle Road. This discusses the split density in the future land use map between the two sections of the property. Again, the north portion is low density; the south portion is medium density. Where we are asking for a step up in zone on the north portion, we are, in effect, asking for a step down on the south, and blending density throughout the project to create a harmonious community. We think that that's far preferable than putting a medium density project, up to eight units per acre, out the south part that would, otherwise, be allowed by the plan. We also added the south 20 acres to the project, because it gives us that access point, so we don't have to take the bulk the traffic through Dartmoor. With the 20 acres to the south, we can -- we can build the Kingsbridge entryway. It meets ACHD spacing requirements and with the stop signage within the project we will be directing the lion's share of the trips out through that entryway. You can see here the figures that with two separate subdivisions under the present future land use map, we could have up to 160 lots on the south 20 acres, 168 lots on the north 56 acres, so a total of 328. With the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 50 of 72 planned development we hope the Commission will agree that blending the density across that line and ending up with a density that's far closer to the lower end than the high end, will meet our requirement under the Comp Plan to show compatibility and harmony with the neighboring property. As I mentioned, the step up zoning of the north 56 acres to an R-4 zone would permit this planned development. The blended density is only slightly higher than three units per acre, which would have been permitted outright on the future land use map on the north 56 acres. In summary, Kingsbridge is a planned development with 236 units proposed. One other accommodation we made to a neighbor to the southeast in the Koontz Hollow Subdivision immediately adjacent to our bridge, they are building a brand new home tucked up into the corner of their five acre lot, she asked that we consider limiting the cul-de-sac that's directly adjacent to her lot from five lots to four and we have redesigned it to just have four lots. We believe that the low density of 3.09 units per acre provides a transition to the medium density residential use that is called for in the Comp Plan map, both to the west side of Eagle Road in Tuscany and for future development of the properties to the south. We feel that Kingsbridge meets all conditions for preliminary plat approval. We conform to the applicable criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. Public utilities are available to the site. Water and sewer exist in Eagle Road and we will be extending those services into the property through our flag pole, which is also the point of contiguity, we will be able to bring utilities in adjacent to the Ten Mile feeder canal without tipping any sort of annexation decision for Dartmoor and because we will be extending all the public utilities, we also will be improving the Eagle Road frontage, widening it to provide an acceleration-deceleration lane and a left turn turning pocket southbound. We think that -- that that will ease the traffic flow on Eagle Road and will further encourage our future residents to use the main entryway on their way home from work, rather than cutting off through Dartmoor. We also plan to strategically place stop signs with the project to create Kingsbridge Drive as a through route both to and from work. As you will hear, no doubt, in the minutes or hours ahead, the two main concerns that we have heard expressed by the Dartmoor neighbors are, first, the compatibility of this urban density project with a rural community and, secondly, is the traffic mitigation. First, the compatibility issue. We have attempted to address that by locating oversized lots immediately adjacent to Dartmoor. We have a total of eight lots that adjoin Dartmoor. They range in area from 12,000 square feet to 19,000 square feet. The average lot size is about 15,000 square feet or over one-third of an acre. Staff discussed our perimeter landscape buffers and privacy fencing. We will abide by the recommendations of the police department and design it in such a way that those become landscape amenities without being a danger to folks using them. We have detached streets and sidewalks throughout the project. You can see on the plan map there is an eight-foot wide landscape buffer between the streets and sidewalk on each side and street trees will be planted throughout the project. The Dartmoor project is also close to open space and the landscape pads that we are going to install along the Ten Mile feeder canal, we have also agreed with the neighborhood that we would pipe the tail ditches to eliminate or reduce, at least, the weed problem that they have with the ditches right now. The second concern is traffic mitigation. I see my light is yellow. The fear is hundreds of trips coming through the Dartmoor neighborhood from Kingsbridge and we believe the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 51 of72 traffic study, based on the new cul-de-sac design, establishes that we will only be adding 400 to the existing 200 trips per day that Dartmoor generates. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: May I just say our traffic engineer is here, Pat Dolby, and if the Commission has questions on the traffic mitigation, he will be prepared to answer them. Borup: Okay. Mr. Elliott, let's see if any of the Commissioners have any questions for you at this time. Zaremba: I had one. I need clarification on Lot 11, Block 2. Elliott: Yes. Zaremba: I didn't quite understand the timing of the -- whatever it was you were reading from. It sounds to me like the Ada County planning and zone commission and Ada County commissioners said on the one hand that the -- that lot and block could not be developed for 15 years and, then, at the same time said that as soon as any of the other lots were sold that didn't count. Where did you get the timing on that? I can see that 15 years later it could be deemed that those lots had agreed that 15 years later it wouldn't count, but how did you interpret that that meant immediately when the lots were sold? Elliott: The statement that you're referring to, Mr. Chairman, is -- or, I'm sorry, Commissioner Zaremba, is the note nine on the plat of Dartmoor. It makes specific reference to the Ada County open space code provisions that were, then, in effect. What those provided and now provide is that upon the extension of public utilities to the property that is being held as open space and provided that it be developed at a density that's no greater than five units per acre, the property owner is able to go ahead and file an application and if the project is in compliance with the code at that time, which is now April of 2004, then, the property can be redeveloped in accordance with the plan and code. Subsequent to the county's approval of the plat, when the developer wrote up declarations of restrictive covenants for the project, recorded that document, each of the landowners after the project was built, then, took their lots subject to the declaration. The declaration is what further qualifies the plat note by saying that no matter what the county code says about it, we, as the purchasing owners, waive our right to object to future development of Lot 11, provided that that development complies with. the code that exists at the time of the development and that's why we are here. We feel that this application is supported by the open space code that existed back then and as modified now. The other key events that have happened since 1994 are the area of impact agreement. This land is within the area of impact, it is now contiguous to the city limits because of the expansion of Meridian to the south and it has public utilities in Eagle Road out front, all three of those are the criteria for annexation. So, we meet the criteria of annexation. The staff has said that the city's opinion and the opinion of our counsel is that once the land is approved for annexation, then, the city code and plan govern development, not the old county code that existed prior to the area of impact Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 52 of 72 agreement. So, we think that under the pure language of the note we can go forward, but even if that were called into question, the Dartmoor neighbors have agreed to this development, provided we can show that we are in compliance with the laws that exist now. And I'd like to submit that letter and the attachments, since you all did not have the benefit of any advance reading. Borup: Okay. Mr. Elliott, had there been any consideration to reducing the amount of lots, just to comply with the three per acre? Elliott: Well, we feel that on balance we have 20 acres of land, which is almost a third of the site, that is zoned for -- from anywhere from three to eight units per acre. Borup: And that's why it applies to the -- not zone, but -- Elliott: Plan. I'm sorry. In the future -- that's correct. In the future land use plan. But it calls for medium density development, rather than low density. We thought that because we need the access through the south, that it makes a better access point and abetter neighborhood by blending the density, rather than having high density at the entryway and low density on the back. So, as a result we come up with 3.09, which, as the staff pointed out, is at the very low end of the medium density. Borup: And did you verify that 3.09 or staff come up with that number? Elliott: We calculated it and I believe staff concurs with it. Borup: I may have done something wrong. I came up a little bit different. I will double- check. Elliott: I believe if we divide 200 -- well, 237, now 236 lots, into 77 -- or 76.77 acres, it will come up real close to that number. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Not right now. Elliott: Thank you. Borup: I get 3.25. I just tried it again. I still get 3.25. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, are you using the total lots, including the common lots, or just the building lots? Borup: 236. The number he just spoke. Siddoway: Because I -- I'll double-check it, too, because I had and I thought it was correct, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 53 of 72 Borup: Okay. Okay. This is the time we have for public testimony. We'd like to proceed. There is -- I think we went over kind of our guidelines at the beginning. There is one aspect I didn't mention and that is if there is a representative for a subdivision, neighborhood association or someone that would be speaking for that entire group, we do allow some extra time. I don't know if that is something that's come up. Who are you speaking for, sir? For the entire Dartmoor? So, no one else from Dartmoor would be speaking; is that correct? Well -- but that's what we are saying, if they are speaking for the entire neighborhood, we can allow some extra time. Ten minutes. If you want to go ahead and come up first, then, we will just start with you. Stott: And, then, I'll query them if I miss something in the making, tell me. My name is Rick Stott. I'm a resident of Dartmoor. I live on 3684 South Caleb Place in Meridian and we have been having a dialogue with the developers for quite some time. Borup: Before we start, let's establish now long we are going to be speaking here. You're representing how many people? Stott: Fifteen homes. Borup: Okay. And they have all designated you as their spokesman? Stott: More or less. Yes. Borup: Anybody here that does not? Stott: That's a good question. Borup: That lives in Dartmoor. Okay. No one raised their hand. I think that answers that. Thank you. Stott: They twisted my arm to be here, so -- yeah, my wife wanted me to do it, too, so didn't have much choice. I can ignore the neighbors, but I can't ignore the wife, so -- are we ready? Borup: Yes. Stott: Okay. We have been having discussions with the developers for quite sometime and to a large degree our requests and concerns have been ignored, with the exception of the most recent addition, which is quite amazing that it would show up on the day of the hearing and not allow for real review and response, but I'll do my best wing it as I can. As has been mentioned, there are, basically, three issues at hand. One is the impact of the rural character of this area. This is not only concerning Dartmoor, but all, if -- many, if not all of the neighbors surrounding this subdivision. The second issue is the traffic and the third issue is the legal rights that the Dartmoor Subdivision has, the owners of that division have. On the first point, the impact of the rural character. There Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 54 of 72 are two main things. One is the density of the house and the second is the lack of the buffer zones. And the density of the houses, it certainly doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan of less than three -- R-3. And, in fact, it's closer up in medium density and as your calculation is 3.25 or 3.08, that's not really all that relevant in that it's in the lower end of the medium density, therefore, it's justified. The realty is that every property around that is up to 20 acres and ours is the smallest at one. So, going from one acre to over three is a huge transition and is definitely contrary to what the environment is in that area and the character of that area. In fact, close to 50 percent, as was pointed out by your staff -- and I want to compliment your staff on the fine job of outlining the issues at hand. But as was pointed out, close to 50 percent exceed the R- 4 density rating, so it's like a -- you know, I'm an accountant by trade, so numbers are kind of a thing and it's like the statistician who measured the depth of a lake at two feet and, then, fell out of his boat and drowned. You know, it's all in the numbers and that's what's happened here, is the density is a lot more intense than the 3.08. The second issue is the lack of buffer zones. In the lack buffer zones, as, again, the staff pointed out, which wasn't addressed by the representative, in their CG&Rs they say that they can have -- they can be within five feet of the back fence. That's a serious concern, particularly in our subdivision. My lot, in particular is -- Borup: Let's correct that right now. The ordinance is 15 feet and the staff brought that up just to make sure that they weren't requesting a reduction and I guess we didn't clarify that answer, but -- Stott: No, that wasn't clarified, but I suppose it will be. Borup: Well, I, for one, would not approve anything other than a 15. I'm not sure about the other Commissioners, but -- I think we probably would be safe to say that would stay at the 15. Stott: Okay. And at the 15 as well, if you look at the elevation -- for example, in my lot, which is in the -- it would be the northwest corner next to the pond, the runoff pond, my elevation is approximately 20 feet lower than the ground level where my house is. The ground at my house is about 20 feet lower than the ground level of that lot right behind us. So, having a two story house 15 feet from the back fence means that I've got no privacy into my house, because they can see clearly in to all the back bedrooms. I'm concerned. Certainly there is no buffer zones, unlike the rest of the areas, no buffer zones around the Dartmoor Subdivision. Clearly half of the Dartmoor homes, like mine, are below -- elevation is below. We have a horse, soon to have a cow in our backyard, the official mascot of the Mountain View Mavericks and I hate to see what happens -- I'm actually in the cattle business and understand how neighbors move in and don't appreciate flies and manure and smell and we clearly have that in our neighborhood surrounding the entire subdivision. So, having buffer zones, having deep lots, having people more than 15 feet away, is going to be clearly important for the new subdivision, so that there isn't future conflict. There are no fencing requirements adjacent to Dartmoor, unlike the rest of the area within the buffer zone. These are all concerns related to buffer zones. So, we propose that the lots should be consistent with the rest Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 55 of 72 of the area and that is in the one or two -- R-1, R-2 kind of zoning and include buffer zones. The second issue that we have talked about is traffic. The original traffic study was, obviously, prepared and -- prepared for the person who paid them, because any driver that is on their way to work on 1-84 isn't going to go through that south entrance, they will go through Dartmoor, which represents about 75 percent of the houses. And even on this proposed, if you look -- and you look at from that -- if you were to live in this subdivision and you were to live on anything north of a line. that goes along those common areas, which way would you drive to go to 1-84? I certainly wouldn't drive south -- all the way down south in through there, I would drive north through Dartmoor to get to that. And I suspect that the traffic study doesn't show that exactly, because it certainly didn't do that the first time. In fact, I calculated that rather than their calculation, that it would be over 1,700 trips a day in the regular calculation and they estimate today that under this revised that it was only 800. So, the practical nature of it that they underestimate it by 50 percent. Yeah. Four hundred now. Right? Now. But previously they had 800 and I calculated 1,700. So, they are saying 400, so I suspect that it's probably double that, in reality, or more. Not seeing it as kind of unfair to be able to make that judgment. The traffic is of serious concern for several reasons. One is the children -- we have a fair number of children in the neighborhood and one of which is -- five of which are mine and one of which is profoundly deaf and on the way to going blind and they walk through the subdivision from my house out onto Eagle Road to catch the bus. In our subdivision there are no sidewalks and the developer has proposed no sidewalks to be put in. That puts those children at significant risk when you're talking about 800, 400, I don't care how many cars that go on there, the vast majority of them are going to be in the evening and in the morning. It's a serious concern. There are no streetlights in our subdivision, so most of the time most of the school year it's dark when those kids are out there on the street. And, of course, back to the rural character, it's built that way, because it's built around a rural character and a subdivision that was built around openness, which certainly wouldn't be maintained. The solution, I guess, is a more realistic design or even a gate and, obviously, they have researched the gate -- we have a previous discussion earlier, I guess, about a gate and we would be happy to adopt that gate that you guys wouldn't allow the other ones to have, but -- but, apparently that's not a viable option. So, obviously, designing it appropriately in the real sense to be able to restrict the number of cars that will, from a practical standpoint. The last point is on this legal issue. Mr. Bob Burns prepared a letter, a review, for a clarification standpoint -- and this is from a non-attorney, so, hopefully, I can explain it the way it's been explained to me and that is that there are two issues. One is that the CC&Rs, which we signed up for, have conflicting language within that CC&R. It's very confusing. Bob Burns addressed that, unlike Mr. Elliott, said he did not, but, in fact, he did in that letter address that issue, that it is conflicting. The position that we have is not related to the CC&Rs, nor is it related to the regulations that are between the city and the county, but it has to do with common law and what the courts have said related to our rights under our deeded -- registered deeded property rights. And so those deeds were registered with that covenant in it, with that provision within it, and so it's an agreement between Lot 11 and the rest of the Dartmoor provision that it would not be subdivided for 15 years and it's registered and deeded and so it's a legal common law issue and the covenants have conflicting language. Certainly the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 56 of 72 regulations have changed for the city and the county, we understand all that, and so we believe we have a position, enough to be able to file an injunction for the subdivision if it goes through. Mr. Burns has told us that we do a have enough position to be able to do it to that point. That is not our point. That is not our objective. It is not to stop a subdivision. We understand this will be subdivided. We understand that and fully comply. We think and believe that these developers have a quality development. We believe that if they would work with us, would listen to us, and would consider our concerns, which they have not for the last six months, then, they would perhaps work out a viable solution, one that gives them a return on their investment and gives us a neighborhood that is consistent with the rural character that it currently is. And I think that there was an opportunity here to have this as a very high level, very nice, above average neighborhood, an area in the City of Meridian that is certainly needed. This subdivision is higher density than Tuscany, which is across the street, which has very few neighbors around it. It's out of character. The land that they propose south -- they are saying that is high density, if you look closely at those plats, there is only one piece of property south until you hit Amity that's open for real development. The rest are -- have lots on them, houses with five acres, 20 acres, so on, so forth, so-- Borup: Okay. Stott: Anyway, that's the basic -- did I miss anything? Borup: Any questions or comments from any of the Commissioners? Maybe just a couple that -- your statement on consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, I agree with that. I think one aspect we are looking at is consistency with the Comp Plan. That's what this Commission would be looking at. So, the consistency of the Comp Plan. And buffers are normally intended between unlike uses is when we talk about having buffer areas. But just also for your information, they are proposing a six foot vinyl -- tan vinyl fence along the west property line. So, there is a fence proposed around the entire subdivision. The area that the staff has talked about were some clarifications on the fences in those areas, but the fencing -- Stott: I didn't see that in the details of the -- Borup: Right. I think -- well -- and he just mentioned that as proposed in the landscaping plan. That's why I just want to clarify that to let you know that there is fencing proposed. Stott: I would say that there is a reason for the buffer zone -- like I said, I have got a horse and many of the neighbors -- a couple of the neighbors have horses in Dartmoor. Cattle. We are in -- the CC&Rs within the new subdivision doesn't allow that. So, there is a transition. Borup: Yeah. There is a vinyl fence. And I think the other thing that does provide buffer is just lot depths and normally people want their back yard to be as large as they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 57 of 72 can. With 136 foot deep lots, the houses will be up towards the street, which will add to that depth, too, but -- Stott: I can appreciate all of those things, but I think, you know, the medium -- or the low density housing is between one and three and since all of the other lots around it are five, 20, one, a consistency in that particular area for low density would be closer to one than it would be to three. And so within the Comprehensive Plan, being able to be consistent with the surrounding area and the environment around it, you know, if we were talking about houses that were already R-3 or R-4 and going from a low density to a medium density kind of thing would be certainly consistent, but when you're talking about property owners that have larger lots, the one or two R-2 would be probably more consistent with that environment and that nature in the low density. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Stott a question just for clarification? Borup: Please, Bruce. Freckleton: I just wanted to clarify; I hope I misunderstood you when you were talking about the elevation differential. Did you say that there is 20 feet of elevation differential between where this drainage lot is and your lot? Stott: My house -- and the front yard is even more, but my house is about 20 feet elevation between when I'm standing on the patio to where the house would be up above. I believe it's around 20 feet. And I haven't measured it exactly, but I know I put in a waterfall and a pond and it was a big event -- it's a big event, they -- it's a big fall. And so it's - it's an elevation. And that's a concern with the -- with the retention pond as well, because -- yeah, because you got -- I don't know how it's spec'd and I don't know that, but if it's spec'd based upon a ten year event, 25 year event, or a 50 year event, you know, that would make a big difference, because, quite frankly, it's not going to go into my neighborhood -- into my yard, but it's going to go into Brady's yard, I can guarantee. We have already had that event several times from irrigation water and so -- and there is no place to go, other than through his house, perhaps, or around it and into the ditch and then -- anyway, it's a whole elevation issue. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? We'll just have you each come on up just as soon as the one is finished. Becker: Commissioners, my name is Lisa Becker, I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. If you could put my first slide up, please. The first thing I'd like to let you know is that the developer did not contact or discuss any of this with either the Briarwood or Bremerton Subdivision. We found out about it first from your notice. I wanted to familiarize you with the character of the area. If you could move it down a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 58 of 72 little bit, please. We have five-acre estate lots that are just to the east of this development. The developer has actually clustered his highest density lots along our property line, 7,000 -- or 7,000 acre -- or feet lots. And I wanted to point out the Comprehensive Plan talks about how existing land use development patterns provide the basis for future land use development, so I wanted to give you a feel for the density in that area. These are all five-acre estates, ranging in value from about 400,000 to 750,000 dollars. The next slide, please. The Comprehensive Plan also discusses buffer or transition densities. The plan for appropriate uses within rural areas requires new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential provide landscape, screening, or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot size to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural level densities and I quoted the goal there, Goal 1-D. The Kingsbridge Subdivision also has one other issue that we are concerned about, so we are very concerned about the transition of densities between our five-acre lots and the smallest lots that they have proposed for this development along the eastern edge. Our second issue is a proposed stub street. In his proposal he indicates that the interior street is stubbed at the easterly boundary to provide further connectivity to Victory Road. We want you to be aware of an agreement that was developed when the neighborhood went in and it says the developer shall extend South Selatir as a dead end cul-de-sac within the interior of the residential lots with no reservation right of way easement over the residential lots for future expansion of the street to other properties. That is a dead end cul-de-sac and the property all around it is owned. So, if the developer thinks that he's going to go down Selatir Road to get to Victory, we feel like we have a legally defensible argument against that. So, I would be happy to just urge you to follow your Comprehensive Plan and I wanted to compliment you on it, I thought it was well written, it gave me good guidance on what I can expect from you as far as the decisions that we will get out of you and my final comment, just a little political one, I have lived in Idaho all my life, I'm proud of living in Meridian, I think we have a beautiful area here and we just don't want Meridian to look like the ugly step- sister to Eagle. Borup: Thank you. Becker: Do you have any questions? Can you put the plat up and I'll just show you where our lots are. Borup: You said you're to the east. Becker: Five acres are all along here. So, he's put the smallest density lots along our property line. Borup: Thank you. Becker: Thank you. Johnson: My name is Daniel Johnson, I reside at 3501 South Selatir Place. My almost six acres has about 400 foot of frontage on the east boundary of this development. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 59 of 72 understand this developer is new to the area. It shows, because around here we don't just put in developments like this and just kind of talk to Dartmoor, which is kind of what happened. The largest transition lots that he's proposing abut Dartmoor and that's lovely. None of the rest of the neighbors around this developed were ever contacted, which you have heard. I don't think that's a very good idea. That's just not the way we do things here. I think that all of us that have these large acreages deserve some involvement before we get a notice to a hearing. I just haven't seen that done very often and I'm an architect and a land planner with 30 years experience. I'm a little bit shocked. The density is completely wrong. We have in this stretch of Victory --on both sides of Victory a pretty special area that I see disappearing from the landscape of Meridian and I read in the Comprehensive Plan now there is 3,000 acres of very low density residential in the impact area. I think these properties that have been here for maybe generations that all are small farms should have some consideration by the Commission and the Council for buffers and whether that's a lot density shift from five acres to one, to a half, to whatever needs to happen, that is what is commonly done in the other markets that I have been involved in. You don't jam the highest density possible against what is going to probably stay for many many years low density, small hobby farms. That's part of the fabric of Meridian that's alluded to in -- but I also agree with Lisa Becker is a very well written Comprehensive Plan that addresses these things. The developer, who, again, is new to this area, didn't address any of that, never called any of these large acreage properties that bound this development into any sort of meeting, any sort of discussion and we are ag based. I've had up to 14 horses on my property, it's totally set up for a horse facility, I've got hot fence, and you don't put 7,000 square foot lots next to that. It's -- you know, it's just not right and I would think if this goes through, we are not saying -- and I know that you hear this all the time, gee, not in my backyard. That happens all the time with people that come up and testify. Well, I'm saying not in anybody's backyard. No one that has a five or ten or 15 or 20 acre parcel anywhere in the City of Meridian should accept that sort of density transition, because we are really not talking all this calculation, three to one, you know, 3.2, that's not what it is. We have got -- Borup: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Borup: And I -- well, okay. Well, just a statement, looking at it from the perspective of maybe this Commission and the city, that the type of applications we have been seeing in the last several months are five acre lots that are transitioning to townhouse, commercial type developments and so, yeah, sometime in the future some things do change. I don't see that in this area, but that's been -- Zaremba: I would qualify by saying that most of them have been closer to the center of the city, than -- Borup: Yes. I agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 60 of 72 Zaremba: - on the very far outskirts. Borup: Okay. Go ahead, sir. Seegmiller: My name is David Seegmiller, 4080 Bott Lane, and I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed that this development does not meet the goals in the Comprehensive Plan and I have some concerns about traffic issues along Eagle Road, which is currently a two-lane road. Entrances to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision and also Zaldia Drive, which is the entrance to Zaldia's Zarrua Subdivision and Koontz Hollow Subdivision. And I'd like some clarification as far as landscaping on the irrigation district right of way concerning the micro-path and what -- landscaping is proposed for the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal. There is a head gate for irrigation for the Koontz Hollow Subdivision on the south side of that Ten Mile feeder canal and that also the impact of this subdivision on the agricultural use in the area, plat for Koontz Hollow Subdivision specifically states that it is for agricultural use and the concerns that our future neighbors may have regarding that. Also, clarification of the fencing along the south side of the subdivision adjacent to the micropath on the Ten Mile feeder canal, which would be opposite the Koontz Hollow Subdivision. That's it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Depin: You might -- my name is Bradford Depin and my wife and I are building a home on Zaldia Lane right where the letter B is on the little bridge diagram here in the blank white space. We own a five-acre parcel here. We had pursued purchasing land in this neighborhood for about six years before finally securing that property last year. Of course, I'm very emotional this evening. Regarding the property here, you'd think that perhaps we all orchestrated this visit to work. Clockwise, all the way around and all of our concerns are completely consistent with the fact that the density plan -- I don't even need my notes -- places the smallest lots around the perimeter and a nice little smattering of the biggest lots right toward that left side to balance out and provide the -- I guess the balance that they were looking throughout the entire neighborhood. I'm very concerned about the fact that there has been a proposal to blend the rating of both of these neighborhoods in order to balance out the density arguments that they are finding throughout the whole neighborhood. I did, indeed, find out about this whole procedure via my neighbor who lives to my south who knows a lot of families in the Dartmoor neighborhood. So, our information about this procedure also arrived secondhand and quite a bit later than we had anticipated. I'm very concerned about my ability to operate a small farming operation and mirror what was said earlier about the smells and sounds of farmland. The other concern, I guess, is the -- to make sure that I still have water. I do, indeed, plan to irrigate. I have a big interest in the homes being built to my north. Just in regard about the value that really small lots tend to command. They tend to attract more budget minded builders and more budget minded homeowners. Quite often the smaller lots and smaller homes will attract budget minded people who only want to live in them for a few years before moving onto something bigger as their families grow. So, I'm, therefore, very concerned about the quality of their homes, the maintenance of their property while they are planning on living there in such a short Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 61 of 72 term. The rest of the considerations regarding traffic, the rest of the considerations regarding the notice of this new slide as of just today is -- I mirror everyone's feeling in this room regarding the shock value to that and the method that Mr. Elliott has put forth in presenting this latest material. I guess as far as -- my only question would be is -- has Mr. Elliott visited the neighborhood at all? Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Well, we'll try to answer all the questions and give the applicant time to respond to those at the end. Those at the podium will have opportunity to address the Commission. Shoemaker: Okay. Thank you. My name is Frank Shoemaker and I own a five acre parcel on the south side of the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision and like those before me, I heard secondhand of the development. We were never approached with our concerns. As market dictates -- Borup: You did not -- you say you're adjoining this property? Shoemaker: On the south side -- if you look at the phase two of-- Borup: You did not get a notice? Shoemaker: No, sir. Well, we got a notice for the Meridian city department, but as far as the developer, like those before me -- Borup: Okay. All right. I understand. Shoemaker: -- we were never - so, we had heard of the potential development that might be taking place there, but we had never been asked to our input into the project. My property is -- if I leave Zaldia Lane in the morning -- what is proposed right now are 12 residential dwellings on 7,000 square foot lots. This small of lot and their concern -- or their statement that a 1,600 square foot minimum size house will be built, dictates that only a two story building will be built on this side of the street. Therefore, as I leave my property in the morning, what I'm going to see is like driving down an alleyway and looking at 12 two story houses and it's my understanding that the covenants need to address that there should be no RV parking or campers parked in the backyard. If so, then, we have an additional detriment to the view of those on the Zaldia Lane. We now have two story houses on the property and RVs parked in the backyard. That's my view every morning as I leave my property. The developer, for a landscaping buffer, he has a see-through wrought iron fence and no landscaping. So, obviously, our concern does not matter. What I would like to see is a continuation of those lot sizes that now exist in Dartmoor to be consistent and harmonize, as the developer has stated, with those of us with five and ten acre lots. Therefore, they would continue around to that degree to where we would have the larger lots backing up to our five-acre parcels. He does make reference to larger lots butting up to Dartmoor, which I think the most.is 20,000 square feet into their one acre project as a buffer zone to kind of harmonize, which I don't understand that and, then, we come down to our phase and what we have, five acre lots Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 62 of 72 and to buffer us as a harmony we have 7,000 square foot lots. It's not in line with the intent of the neighborhood and I think that should be addressed. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Who is next? It looks like we are done. No? Lewis: Like everyone else -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm Sherry Lewis. My husband and I own the 20 acres just south of the Koontz Hollow, the lot within the lot. That's -- the parcel within the larger parcel. That's our 20-acre -- we heard about it through the Dartmoor folks. We were not informed by Mr. Elliott of any proceedings that he was planning. Our first reaction was to go into pig farming. We talked about it. Our second reaction was to sell. Our third reaction is it's going to happen, so let's make it the best for everybody. I got a kick out of Mrs. Sharp earlier. We live behind a gate. I should have told her that it's a great experience. She should indulge in that. . Some of the things that I'd like to address are -- we currently have a number of houses that we have to take all of our children down to Eagle Road to access the bus and the only way to accommodate the bus coming back would be for that road to be a county road and I know that that's not going to please a lot of people, but it would be a lot safer. We had an incident last year where we almost had some children hit by a car on Eagle Road. We contacted the bus department and they didn't do anything about it and we contacted ACHD and they couldn't do anything about it and they wouldn't even slow the speed limit down on Eagle. So, the only way to fix that is to make Zaldia Lane a county road. I'm not thrilled about that, but it does have line of sight for 20 years in the future, not now, 20 years in the future it does have line of sight access to Bott Lane, which is a county road accessing Cloverdale. It would be a straight through shot. I don't want it now, but I think in 20 years when I'm ready to retire, I think it would be okay and I think most of our neighbors at that time would be willing to retire at that point, too. I'd also like to know where the sewer access is going to be for the rest of us. And I, like Mr. Shoemaker, would like to see that the CC&Rs for that subdivision require that there are no campers, playground equipment, storage units or anything that exceed the height of the fence. And my proposal for the fence is that they not be the wrought iron fence that was suggested where we can see in their backyard. Down around the Boise zoo they have a large ten foot chain link fence that is covered with beautiful ivy and Honeysuckle and I think that would be a much better option for those of us that use Zaldia Lane. That's what I have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hicks: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is George Hicks. I don't live anywhere near the proposed subdivision. Some of the folks who do have asked me to come up here and speak. I'm an attorney. My address in Boise is 1471 Shoreline Drive and I'm here on behalf of some of the folks at the Bridlewood and Bremerton Subdivisions east of this development. The first thing I would like to say in the short time that I have here is that I want to, for the record, object vehemently to the last minute submittal of this different subdivision than what we were thinking we were going to come here and talk about tonight. Secondly, I think it would be important for you all to consider that I believe, in my opinion -- and I have only looked at this for about a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 63 of 72 week, but there are some serious legal issues that will probably be considered by the courts, unless -- and we all hope this would happen -- unless this developer is willing to work with the people who have lived around this proposed subdivision for many many years. They have developed their own lifestyle and your Comprehensive Plan is pretty clear, it seems to me, and well written, as has been said before. This subdivision just doesn't seem to fit, but it could. It could if it's, I think, planned with some help from some of the folks who live around it now. One of the points I'd like to make that hasn't been made that I know of yet and that is will the proposed use not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses and it says you're specifically -- that the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony, oral and written, to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighborhood uses. You have heard plenty of it tonight. I hope you consider it very carefully and I would suggest that this subdivision either needs to work with the neighborhood or go back to the drawing board and I would support or urge you to recommend denial to the Council in this particular configuration. Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Quick: Hi, my name is Troy Quick, I reside at 3677 South Caleb Place. I just want to make a quick comment. I just wanted clarification -- when I ran the numbers, like Chairman Borup did, I come up with the 3.25 lots per acre, not the 3.09 that has been stated on the submission. And to reiterate the fact that the Tuscany Subdivision, which is across the street, is only 2.4 and though staff said that it was only a slight increase, if you actually run the numbers from 2.4 to 3.25, you're talking about, you know, a 33 percent increase, which is not slight, that's extremely significant. I feel like that we could have a great subdivision here. I am pro sub-division, I am a building contractor and I just think in this case that a lower density of homes would match better with all the surrounding areas. And that's alii wanted to say. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Are we finished? Anyone else? Okay. No. One more Krasinski: I'm Chantelle Krasinski and we have a five acre property on the north side and I echo all the feelings tonight about the differing size of the lots. All the perimeter lots are very small. We have seven actually bordering our property. One thing that hasn't been touched on tonight is schools. This subdivision is going to be in the same school boundary for elementary and middle school and high school as Tuscany and I had gone to all the boundary -- the redistricting and redrawing of the boundary lines and already the middle school was left slightly overcrowded and they have way more students, because the projections are so far above what they thought and the elementary school as well is adding classes. So, I would just like to point out that, you know, Tuscany has a school set aside, but that's -- it's a bond issue. Any developer can set aside an elementary school, but it has to be passed by bond and the school district Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 64 of 72 actually said Tuscany probably would not be the next site for an elementary school. So, that's just what I wanted to say, is to consider the density for schools as well. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Let's hold the applause until maybe the end. Do we have anyone else have anything new to add? Okay. Mr. Elliott, would you like to conclude? Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, for the record my name is Ken Elliott and I represent the applicant Vision First. The last minute cul- de-sac, rather than creating consternation in the opponents, I guess we thought would please them. That is the only change in this plan from the one that we talked with the neighbors about approximately four weeks ago. The reason the cul-de-sac is there is because our attempt to convince ACHD that the agreement the fire department made, which is what we agreed with the neighbors we would try to achieve, the emergency access only. That was rejected by ACHD based on its code. And so as of Friday we got the comments from the traffic planner at ACHD, who suggested the cul-de-sac. We think that the traffic study demonstrates that it will work remarkably well and that it cuts the trips in half from what would have occurred if we had a street connecting there. So, I guess although it may be a surprise to the opponents, I hoped that it would be a happy surprise, because we are only adding 400 trips to the existing 200 trips that come out of Dartmoor right now, the average, then, become about 40 per hour in the evening peak, which is less than one every minute and that's a long time. That's -- our traffic engineer points out that meets the street hockey threshold in old traffic engineer language, which is 500 trips per day, you can still have the kids playing street hockey in the street safely. One thing I didn't get to mention that our diagram showed is that ACHD also said that it will paint stripes on the edge of the Dartmoor Drive within Dartmoor to create a safe pedestrian path four feet wide on the pavement for the kids to walk to and from Eagle Road. So, we put in our traffic calming device at the end of the cul-de-sac, extend sidewalks up to the cul-de-sac and, then, ACHD will stripe the existing pavement. We will meet all code setbacks. I can only explain the five foot as an error onthe plat note. That will be corrected and we do not intend to seek any variances to the code setbacks. The statute protects farm practices. There is an Idaho law that will put all of these new residents on notice as they are coming into an area that has some farms and they will expect that and be on notice, so the mascot of Mountain View can remain. As to Mr. Stott's traffic analysis, he didn't state any basis for 1,700 trips a day through Dartmoor, except his own opinion for that calculation. I would submit that our qualified traffic engineer is the one who should be making that judgment and we will rest on the conclusions in his report. The comments about the covenant again -- again, Mr. Burns' letter ignored the language that I read in into the record tonight. He didn't even consider the fact that the declaration contained a waiver and consent from each of the property owners. There is no conflict in the language within the declaration. If one reads it carefully, one sees that every provision that talks about the 15 lots within Dartmoor has an exception clause that says except as otherwise provided herein and, then, except as to Lot 11 and Lot 1 of Block 2. So, we think the -- if the neighbors are determined to take an injunction action to court, we are willing to defend that vehemently. We don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 65 of 72 think that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to put itself in the place of trying to settle a private covenant and just would remind the opponents that in order to enjoin this project they need to show the court that they have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and we think the clear language of the declaration would refute that. The increase in the number of lots from our initial drawing of 224 up 236 now was because the neighbors asked us to eliminate the patio lots. We had 60 by 110-foot patio lots, the narrower frontage; we got rid of those at the neighborhood's suggestion. In so doing we created more 70s than 80s and so we ended up on average having about 13 more lots. But that was an effort to get rid of what the neighborhood considered to be undersized lots. So, to say that we have ignored the comments and suggestions and the requests of the Dartmoor neighbors, is not supported by what has happened between our first meeting with the neighbors and tonight. And I would submit that the cul-de-sac is the best evidence of our attempt to address their key concern, which was the traffic circulation. Our storm retention parcel is designed in compliance with the city code to hold back a 50-year flood event. So, if the engineers decide at a later date that because of a grade differential that that should be relocated or resized, we will certainly deal with that at the appropriate time. In response to the neighbors over on Selatir, Mrs. Becker and Mr. Johnson, it's true there are 7,000 square foot lots on our east boundary, but they are separated from the open fields on those folks' five acre estates by a 40-foot buffer and there is a 20-foot canal easement along the property line and, then, we added another 20 feet landscape buffer inside that to attempt to mitigate any adverse effects that the estate owners might feel from having smaller lots across their field. On the south side all the way along Koontz Hollow there is a 50-foot canal and easement, as you see on the plot there. So, those 7,000 square foot lots are 60 feet away from the nearest property line and that area is what we propose to improve over what is out there now and try to enhance the canal area as something that people would like to walk along, instead of just trying to keep down the weeds. The stub street to the east, we put that in and I believe there is a statement in the initial narrative that contemplated we would be looking to connect to Victory, potentially. We have analyzed the property ownership and the gentleman is correct that they did put a spite strip down alongside Selatir and so it. would be very difficult to connect. There is a large acreage to the east and we are in discussions with that property owner and we hope that if we can reach an agreement to purchase that land, it would allow us to connect down to Bott Lane and, then, easterly to Cloverdale. So, our primary goal is not to go north from that stub street, but, rather, east. The Eagle Road traffic is a problem right now and ACHD knows it's a problem and they have got the widening of Eagle Road from the south end of Silverstone to Victory Lane in their project schedule for '05. The Victory and Eagle intersection will be improved in '06 and widening of Eagle Road between Victory and Amity south of our project is in the capital improvements plan for ACHD. In the meantime, we proposed to take care of our frontage and go ahead and widen it to three lanes to provide the necessary entrance to the project. We don't intend to build entry-level homes. We expect that these homes will be comparable to Sutherland Farms to the north of Victory, due north of this project. We expect the prices of the lots, depending on what the market does between now and when we first start selling lots, to be anywhere from 60,000 to 75,000. We expect that will support homes in the price range of anywhere from 250 to 400 thousand dollars. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 86 of 72 We don't intend entry level homes and we don't think that there will be any sag on the property values of our neighbors. Finally, for those who live on the five and ten acre estates, I guess we just have to go back to the Comprehensive Plan. We have attempted where we adjoin the one-acre lots of Dartmoor to create the large lots with large backyards. On every other perimeter we either have a buffer or the existing canals that we will be improving and we don't think that with that combined with the privacy fences, we think that we will be a good neighbor. I have one picture, I'm not sure if Michael can find it, but we read letters from the Zaldia Lane neighbors and we did realize that the landscape on our south side of the 20 acre parcels is not as extensive as elsewhere. I didn't know the reason for that when I spoke on the phone with one of the neighbors, but it's because there is going to be a pipe along that, an underground irrigation pipe, so we can't put in large trees, but what we propose is to put the privacy fence on the top of the berm and, then, have landscaping on the south side of the fence and lawn. We have got a 20-foot landscape buffer now from the right of way to our fence line, so this is the way it would be improved. We have a total elevation, then, of a three-foot high berm and a six foot privacy fence on top of it and landscaping in the backyards on the other side. So, we hope that that will present a better front to the folks on Zaldia Lane. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? I had a couple, then. The question was raised on landscaping along Ten Mile canal, .if that could be clarified on what was proposed there. Elliott: Well, what we are planning is there is an existing tail ditch that goes from the corner of the field, the southwest corner of Lot 11, along the south lots of Dartmoor, we are going to put that in a pipe, underground it. That's the. major weed-cultivating problem along the south side of Dartmoor. We will also, then, pipe it northerly along the Eagle Road frontage to the Dartmoor irrigation pond. It's had its way with the landscape over the past ten years and does not flow as directly as optimal and is backing up and causing problems along Eagle, so we are going to pipe that. Borup: Okay. That will be piped up to -- Elliott: Yes. Around the core of Dartmoor up to the north end of.the Dartmoor entryway, that's where their irrigation pond is, so it will be piped from our southwest corner up to there. Then, over the pipe we -- with the ditch company's permission, we are going to propose that we scrape and get rid of the weed seed and, then, put in lawn and a path and have the lawn in such a way that we can take care of it with the homeowners association. We will mow it and try to restore that as a nice walking path for all the neighbors. Borup: There has been some discussion on the fence on the south. Is that the wrought iron fence that has been discussed? Was that because of the irrigation district's requirements on noncombustible? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 67 of 72 Elliott: No. As long as we keep it on our side of the property line, we can use vinyl. We thought initially that with the cleanup of the canal and the adjoining pathway that it would be more of an open feeling to have wrought iron and we hoped that this canal will be treated as an amenity and not just as a nuisance, so we suggested that originally. If the Koontz Hollow neighbors feel strongly about it, we can go to the solid vinyl subject to the recommendation of the police department that it be four and two. Borup: Okay. Elliott: Just a quick response to the neighborhood in the northwest corner of Koontz Hollow where the capital B is, he said he had never been approached by us, never talked to us, his wife was at the most recent neighborhood meeting and the result of her telling us that they are building a brand new house in that corner is that that little cul-de- sac used to have five lots and that's where we lost a lot, we at her specific request changed that from five to four to make larger, more premium lots backing up to their home. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Was there any other questions that were brought that you felt need to be answered? I have got one on the -- you had stated that originally the design had 224 lots? Elliott: Yes. Borup: And you eliminated 55 and 60-foot lots and that increased the number? Elliott: Because we had more 80-foot wide lots and a combination of 80 and 60 and so we created more -- we eliminated the 60 footers, put in a lot of 70-foot wide, and we ended up with 13 more. Borup: So you decreased the 80s? Elliott: Yes. Borup: Okay. You would have been well under the three per acre at the 224. Elliott: That is correct. Borup: I come out about 230 with that. Elliott: I did the long division again and I -- it's been a long time, but I still came out with 3.09 just now, but I wish I had a calculator. Borup: Okay. No other questions, then? Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 88 of 72 Borup: Commissioners, do we want a little discussion first or close the hearing or -- Newton-Huckabay: We should close the hearing. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of comments before we close the hearing. I appreciate -- the staff has put a lot of time in this and made some excellent suggestions about how to deal with some of the issues that are in here. I also appreciate that so many people have taken the time to participate in the process. For those of you who don't come to these meetings very often, I'd like to describe what some of our choices are. If we think that there are issues that need to be resolved and, along with those issues we feel that they can be resolved in a short space of time, we would continue this hearing to a specific date not too long from now and specify what those issues are that need to be resolved. The second choice is to close the public hearing, which ends the opportunity to make any further changes to the proposal and, then, we have two choices. One is to recommend to the City Council that they approve this and to do that we need to find that it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and some other things that have not been mentioned, that this is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to incorporate this project into Meridian and the Comprehensive Plan also has language which I believe has been brought up about transition areas. I'm well known as an advocate of high densities, but I feel that those densities need to be closer to the center of the city and I'm very comfortable with low densities as we go towards the exterior of the city, particularly as they surround existing low densities. The other choice if we close the Public Hearing is to recommend denial to the City Council. To do that we would have to decide that this is not in the best interest of the city, first, to annex it or to approve the other elements of it. That decision is based on a number of things and to me the number of things are elements which do exist in this case. My personal feeling is that there are a number of legal issues that aren't as clear as the applicant would like to state that they are and I think there is an absolute legitimate opening for the people who disagree with that to bring this into the legal field. Taking the position on behalf of city that we are making the legal decision that those issues don't count, opens the city for being a party to that suit and I personally am not willing to hook the city into that problem. I think those issues need to be resolved before the city takes on annexing in this piece of property and I don't see that as being a quick resolution. The choices that the staff has suggested are that the neighbors sign an agreement that they don't have a problem with this. I think we already know that's not going to happen quickly. The other choice is to settle it in the courts, eventually, perhaps, going for a decision of the supreme court of the state of Idaho. That's a process that would probably take longer than it would take for this provision to expire in March of 2008 and you all know that it will expire at sometime. All of those elements to me -- and I will ask my other Commissioners for their comments -- I don't believe the city -- I don't believe it's in the best interest of the city to open it up to legal difficulties. I think they need to be resolved certainly before we take any action certainly before we would recommend approval to the City Council. I will say to the applicant there are a lot of elements in this proposal that I think are very nice, there is some nice touches, but I feel there are enough issues out there that are not going to be resolved soon enough that my position is for denial. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 69 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to comment that when we have a Public Hearing and, I have counted, there is over 70 people that have come out to give testimony tonight, and it makes it very difficult as a Commission to make a decision, like you said, based on one -- like Mr. Stott, I am not an attorney, I'm an accountant, and I'm not comfortable making decisions based on ambiguous legal issues -- well, I don't think we can, actually. And so I will agree also to recommend denial. I would possibly agree to a continuation and give everyone a chance to maybe meet in the middle, if you will. I do think there are issues that could be worked out. This seems like a group of homeowners willing to sit town at the roundtable with the developer more and we've certainly had rooms full of people who are not willing to sit down at the roundtable and do that. So, I also would recommend denial. Borup: And the chairman normally doesn't vote unless it's the case of a tie, but -- which could have happened tonight. I think I agree with most of that. A couple things that weren't mentioned that staff did request that we wait for the ACHD report, which we have not received yet. His request was to at least to continue until that came in. I don't have quite the concern on the set-aside agreement, unless I'm mistaken, but I believe part of the reason for that is so there -- not have a lot of acre subdivisions out in the county that when the sewer and water services come to that area within -- within the area of impact, that it wouldn't be practical to service those areas and so I think -- I mean from years ago my understanding of that is when the services did come, it would be more normal urban density in those areas, rather than have the sprawl that everyone likes to talk about. So, I don't have a concern on that provision. I think when those services do come I have to agree with what that stated there. I do have some concern on the -- on the -- on the density of the project, though. I still don't feel that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. You know. This -- if this did that or if it was standard R-4 subdivision, I think I would have different feelings about it also. A standard R-4 without -- you know, without any request for changes would be hard to argue against, considering what's intended for the area, but that's not what's before us tonight. I think that's all I've got. Zaremba: Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman -- Holinka: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. We have talked about a lot of legal things and -- Holinka: We have and I just -- I wanted to make a couple of comments for the record. Borup: Please. Holinka: I only found out about this issue today and I know that Mr. Nichols has known about it for some time, I'm not sure how long, but I was able to review the letter from Mr. Burns and also from Mr. Miller at Givens Pursley and I was able to speak with Frank Lee of Givens Pursley this afternoon and -- late this afternoon, actually, so it's -- my Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 70 of 72 review of it has been very brief, but I do know that Mr. Nichols' intent behind the original site specific condition number two that's in there in getting the approval was to kind of avoid the legal conflict that really is readily apparent, I think, and without further -- more in depth review by our office -- I mean I don't -- I think it would be better to error on the side of caution, like Commissioner Zaremba said, and not get into that fight at this time. It does appear that there is conflicting language between what's on the plat and what's in the CC&Rs, but there may be a waiver there, but it -- again, it's just -- it's a little bit unclear and we would probably want to look into that further, so that we would not be subjecting the city to liability at this time, so -- Canning: Chairman Borup, might I remind the Commission, given the -- Borup: Yes. You may have some -- Canning: I have been quiet all night long. Just given your conversations so far, I just wanted to remind you that if you do make a motion on the preliminary plat, it is for denial and you need to direct staff to provide findings to you at your next hearing. Zaremba: Thank you. I, actually, did remember that this time. Canning: Okay. Good. Zaremba: I think with all that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on AZ 04-023, PP 04-030, CUP 04-32 be closed. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: There were none, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All we did is close the hearing. Zaremba: There is more to come. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to the City Council denial of AZ 04-023, on the basis that it is not in the best interest of the city to annex this property at this time. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. , , . Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 71 of 72 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny PP 04-030 on the basis that if it is not annexed we do not have jurisdiction over this property. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, you need to provide the applicant with some idea as to how to remedy the deficiencies in this subdivision. Zaremba: The deficiencies in the subdivision can be provided with a legal decision that there is no need to remain the open space until March of 2009. Borup: That's the only concern you had with the whole project? Zaremba: Well, I could list other -- let's see. Transition between this project and the other larger lots around it. Borup: Densities. Zaremba: There was an issue of whether or not the access stub road could actually go east to those properties. There is an issue of the amount of traffic that would go through the other subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Dartmoor. Zaremba: Dartmoor, I believe it was. Newton-Huckabay: The density. Zaremba: Any other things that need to be -- density. That's what I meant by transition. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I thought you were talking about the perimeter. Zaremba: Well, perimeter lots and all lots of -- the total density. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And as a part of the motion I would ask the legal staff to provide facts and findings for denial of PP 04-030. Newton-Huckabay: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-32, for the same reason stated for denial of PP 04-030. . , . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 72 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. And thank everyone for staying so late keeping us company. Canning: Commissioners, for the record, as of Tuesday planning staff is doing findings. You didn't know, but just so you know. We switched it on you. Borup: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Meeting adjourned at 11:10. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~!~N JLL.J:.JJJ1.. DATE APPROVED ,-",