Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 5, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 31 of 108 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 04-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C-N and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLG- 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 04-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29,69 acres in proposed R-4, C-N and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: CUP 04-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lots size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Our next Public Hearing consists of the Leeshire Subdivision application. I'd like to open these hearings, Public Hearing AZ 04-017, request for annexation and zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C-N and L-O zones for the propose Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. Also Public Hearing PP 04-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres. And Public Hearing CUP 04-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development consisting of single-family residential and commercial office uses at the same location. Again, I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Leeshire Subdivision is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, about halfway between Chinden and McMillan Road. It is contiguous with the recently approved Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is not showing up on our database yet with the color as annexed, but we have outlined it here for you. It has been annexed and the Leeshire project uses it as its point contiguity to be eligible for annexation. It consists of just under 30 acres and the proposal is for 89 building lots, two of which are nonresidential, as I will show you in a minute, and 20 common lots. You can see the Comprehensive Plan here. This yellow color is medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. That stands for a density of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed gross density of this project is 3.26 dwelling units per acre and is in compliance with the density required by the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding green color to the south and to the east is low density residential, which means less than three, There is also a neighborhood center to the north, which doesn't directly affect this project. You can see the aerial photo here. The properties to the north are mainly rural residential and agricultural land up in here. To the south there is Larkwood Subdivision, rural residences, and a church. They are all zoned RUT currently in Ada Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 320f108 County. To the east there are rural residences. Vienna Woods Subdivision to the southeast and Dunwoody Subdivision to the northeast. And as I mentioned to the west is the recently approved Saguaro Canyon project. I have looked into some of the densities of the surrounding projects. Saguaro Canyon, which was recently approved to the west, has a gross density of 3.29 dwelling units per acre. Vienna Woods No.2, which is the phase that's closest to the project here, has a gross density of about 2.27 dwelling units per acre. About one unit per acre less than the proposed Leeshire project. Larkwood Subdivision has about two acre lots in it, as does the Dunwoody Subdivision. This is the proposed plat. Locust Grove Road is on the right-hand side. You enter from the center of the project. There are two large lots here, one on the north, one on the south. The large lot on the north would be proposed for future office. The large lot on the south for future neighborhood commercial, and I have kind of looked at this project in three sections. That would be the first section. The second section are these smaller lots in here. One second. That middle section has a -- is proposed to have a mix of attached and detached homes. The lot sizes range from 5,900 square feet to 8,000 square feet. There are 23 lots right in the center here that are served by alleys and the remaining 35 lots in this section all front-loaded. The back section of the project, back here, has larger lots, 28 single family lots that range from 9,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet in size and, then, one large lot here for the existing residence, which is just over an acre. The application is for a planned development. The requested zoning is R-4, but as part of that planned development they are requesting the use exception for the office and commercial uses. Ordinance allows you to request no more than 20 percent of the land area in a use exception. This is just under ten percent of the land area. They are also requesting reduced side setbacks for the properties in what I call the middle section, to allow for zero lot lines or attached units and they have also requested a reduction of the lot frontage requirement, which would typically be 80 feet down to a 50-foot minimum frontage. Most of my discussion or issues to be resolved are -- begin on page 11 under special considerations in the staff report. The first item is actually -- I don't believe needing any resolution. Staff's not requesting a change; it's more for the Commission's awareness. That has to do with the street side setbacks for the properties that are adjacent to the common lots in -- that run east west on the streets in the middle section. They are ten feet wide. On other projects we have talked about increasing the size of those to be at least 15 feet, so that -- with a five feet setback. From that line there is still 20 feet from the right of way. In this case they are detaching the sidewalks and including, not only the buffer area, the street buffer, but the full sidewalk and then -- to behind it within the right of way. So, even with the ten-foot common lot beyond right of way, those street side setbacks end up being about 24 and a half feet from the curb, so we feel like they are still meeting the intent of that ordinance and are requesting approval of that as proposed. The second item deals with interior side yard setbacks. They have requested the zero lot line, zero for -- in order to attach units. We will support that, but with these caveats, only one side lot line can be made a zero lot line, so that there can be no more than two attached in a row and the line adjacent to the street buffers or the common lots cannot be a zero lot line, they have to have a setback. The third item is the existing trees. There are several existing trees on the property, mainly surrounding the existing house. Based on the -- this is a color rendering that was submitted Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 33 of 108 separately from the landscape plan. The landscape plan does not depict those existing trees and we were questioning how many of them would be removed, because there were significantly less trees shown on that plan than on the landscape plan, so we are asking the applicant to clarify the trees that would be removed versus saved tonight at the hearing. The fourth item deals with amenities. They are proposing several amenities for the project. The first includes a ten-foot multi-use pathway that enters the project and goes up and stubs to the north. During initial discussions with the applicant we had requested that pathway to match the Comprehensive Plan. You can see where this hatching represents the multi-use pathway and needs to cross through -- over the project. In recent discussions with the parks department, we have determined that this may not be the best route. We do have in Saguaro Canyon a multi-use pathway that follows the South Slough -- or South Slough -- I believe this is the North Slough. And it continues along the North Slough from this point on. Discussions have been the fact that we would look to get this property when it develops to bring the pathway and stub it at this location, knowing that it will require future discussions and negotiations with the existing homeowners here in order to. ever extend and connect that pathway through. But by doing so, it follows an existing natural feature, rather than going through an area that's basically undefined here. So, that's up for discussion tonight. They have proposed it to go through, but we are questioning whether that's really the correct location right now. The other amenities that are proposed include a tot lot and/or a basketball court. They are not depicted on the actual landscape plan, but they are depicted on this plan with the basketball court and a tot lot in these locations. They are also proposing passive recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo. Those are not depicted. We are asking the application that they clarify their intentions tonight regarding the amenities, because we need to tie those down as to what specifically the required amenities will be as part of the planned development. I have noted that in condition of approval number three. I have got a placeholder there under the Conditional Use Permit for required amenities. We need to have the Commission clarify what the required amenities are after the presentation tonight. Moving on. Item five is fencing. They are requesting that they be allowed to do six-foot fencing along the back of the common lots coming into the project. Staff does support that, with the understanding that they will taper down to three feet tall maximum within 20 feet of the road that they are intersecting. Item number six is a new stub street. Staff is requesting that Midnight Haze Lane, which is this road right here, be stubbed to the south to allow for connection to any future redevelopment of the property to the south. If I go back, there are two large five-acre lots in this location and it would stub to that location there. So, that it -- it would basically remove one of these lots and in order -- staff does support relocating that lot to the west end of this row of lots. That does have the effect of reducing the open space for the project to just below ten percent, but the -- only five percent is required and they have at least two other amenities that they are going to be doing. So, staff does support them being able to keep the lot that they would otherwise lose by putting in the stub that we are requesting. Item number seven is the street buffers out in front along Locust Grove. The city is requiring 25-foot wide landscape buffers. Let me go to -- and along the entryway they are proposing 20 feet - 20-foot buffers for landscaping and just as a point of clarification, we would like to make sure that these buffers are built and planted as part of the initial subdivision improvements Meridian Planning & Zoning Augusi 5, 2004 Page 34 of 108 and that that construction does not wait for the office commercial lots to develop. The final item deals with SSC, the trash company that -- for the city. They did have some concerns with logistics of trash pickup in here, because some pickup was alley loaded, some pickup was street and I believe the applicant has met with SSC and is ready to address that tonight. There have been several letters, e-mails sent in from adjacent residences. As I understand it, the main points of contention are two items. There may be others and I don't speak for everyone here, but I believe the main issues include the office and commercial designations along Locust Grove and, then, the density of the project in relation to other subdivisions in the area. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Good presentation. Borup: None at this time? Zaremba: I second that it was a good presentation. I have a couple of questions on the notes and these are more in the nature of typos, but just to make sure that I'm understanding. On page seven, under site specific conditions, paragraph three refers to Sanitary Service and the second to the last sentence says they will be subject to sanitary sewer latecomer fees. Paragraph four, the subject is water service, but if you turn the page to page eight, the first line says, again, this development shall be subject to sanitary water -- sanitary sewer latecomer fees. My question is is that just a typo as a redundancy or are they subject to water main latecomer fees? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that -- that is a typo. It should say water latecomer fees. Zaremba: Okay. So, there are water main late newcomer fees? Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. We will change that one. Freckleton: Latecomer fee. Zaremba: Latecomer fees. Then, actually, Steve, you answered my question. There is a typo on page 12, paragraph five, fencing. The last sentence there says such fencing should taper down to three feet minimum and, as you described it, that word should be maximum, so I would make that change. And that also changes page 13, paragraph four, for the same reason, the word minimum should be maximum. Then, my other question is, actually, a little more substantive than just a typo. On page nine, paragraph 12, you reference the CC&Rs and I would -- since it's being referenced, I would add a sentence at the end of 12 that says that the City of Meridian does not approve, regulate, or enforce CC&Rs. Just to clarify that. Any objection to those comments? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 35 of 108 Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Isn't there a neighborhood center, just for my own -- on Locust Grove now south? Was it between McMillan and Ustick? Siddoway: Between McMillan and Ustick. It is at the entrance to Heritage Commons Subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Didn't we approve a bunch of commercial light office lots? Siddoway: There have been several office and neighborhood commercial lots along Locust Grove on the west side between McMillan and Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Okay, Thank you. Borup: Okay, Anyone else? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, to finalize, I would show that they have provided some floor plans and elevations of the types of homes they intend to construct on the smaller lots in the project and I'll just let them speak for themselves, but did want to present them as part of the public record. I think that's it. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Mr. Nickel? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the developer for the subdivision. I'd like to thank staff for a very thorough analysis of the applications that are before you this evening. Borup: Maybe just for the public's information, the sheets that were passed out is the sheet that's on the screen and, then, also their housing elevations that we saw earlier. That's what the Commission is looking at now. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As staff indicated, this is an application request for preliminary plat, annexation and rezoning to R-4 and a PD -- a Conditional Use Permit for a PD application for the 29.67 acres, 89 total lots or total build-able lots, which, as staff explained, two of them are office commercial at the entrance to the subdivision off of Locust Grove and the remaining 87, including the existing house would be residential. The density of this subdivision as stated is 2.93 dwelling units per acre for the whole site. If you take out the commercial and office, it's 3.26 dwelling units per acre. That is compatible with the density that was approved in the Saguaro Subdivision. As you look at this design, we do have a stub street to the west into that subdivision, so we are providing access to that. We also have a future stub street to the north and in the proposed -- or the corrected stub street to the south that stCiff talked about. He also stated the different types, again, the office and commercial, we have got the middle portion, which is the attached and detached optional zero lot lines, alley loaded product. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 36 of 108 The developer builder is going to get up after me and he's going to kind of explain in more detail to you those -- those product types. I did provide you in that packet the display that staff had put on and, again, he will go through those in a little more detail after I'm finished. And, then, final area, the existing single family dwelling of the property owner and, then, the surrounding larger development, which as you -- if you know your PUDs -- or your PDs, we try to provide a diverse type of product. In this case you have both office and residential within the planned development. The average lot sizes for this subdivision are 8,724 square feet and that's if you included the existing house, which is on about a 58,000 square foot lot. If take that away, it's an 8,146 square foot average lot size. This development does meet the intent of your Comprehensive Plan, which calls out this area as a medium density residential. The R- 4 zone is a low-density residential designation, which we do meet that is outlined in your staff report and in the proposed Findings of Fact. The open space that is provided, there are 20 common lots located within the development. They total 3.54 acres or 11.9 percent of the site. Within that 11.9 percent is 3.05 acres, which is 10.3 percent that is actual open space that meets the intent of the PD ordinance. So, it's usable open space. The amenities -- to clarify those that staff brought up, again, we have the two large open space areas with pathways. There is going to be benches located in this area, more of a passive use area with full landscaping and, then, this larger park over here. There is going to be a full size half court basketball court, a tot lot located right here, and there will be scattered picnic tables and benches along the rest of the portions of the park. In addition, we have a pathway that meanders and connects these two areas right here. In addition to that, the subdivision does have detached sidewalks throughout and so, in essence, what you're getting is you're getting a subdivision that provides pedestrian access throughout the subdivision located along all the interior streets, detached, landscaping, pathways down to those parks and, then, throughout the subdivision. Regarding these special considerations that staff brought up, I think we have addressed each of those. I'll go into them very briefly. Number one was regarding the side setbacks and staff did a great job of explaining those, so I'll just stand for any questions you have on that one. The interior side setbacks, we do understand that we are -- if we attach units or attach structures, they will be only attached two at a time, as opposed to any type of rowing. The existing trees that staff spoke about on the existing -- or near the existing dwelling will either be retained or relocated on the site. That will be addressed in the final landscape plan that submitted the final plat for staff's review. I already discussed the amenities and if you have any further questions on that, I can bring that up. I also have some pictures of some -- of the amenities that we propose. We are okay with the fencing recommendations and, again, at the final plat stage you will have a fencing plan that will be part of the final landscape plan that we will submit for staff's review. The stub street, we did meet with staff and ACHD and are fine with that stub street location and that will be revised. We will probably revise that prior to City Council, so they will see exactly what that configuration looks like. Again, the street buffers that -- Moe: That lot will, then, be relocated down? Nickel: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 37 of 108 Moe: All right. Nickel: That's the proposed location. Regarding the street buffers, that's fine with staff's recommendation of the construction of those street buffers. And, then, the final was the trash company and I just handed staff a late approval letter from SSC, approving our application with some conditions of approval that we would be happy to meet for them. We are in agreement with all of staff's recommended conditions of approval. We did hold a neighborhood meeting out on the site prior to this meeting tonight. I'll stand for any questions you have about what I spoke of. Again, the developer and builder is going to get up and kind of explain the product type to you. And that's alii have. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: You have covered a lot of the areas and I appreciate that. Nickel: Try to. Zaremba: You're probably aware we have received quite a large number of letters concerning this and I guess that many of these people are probably here for this very subject. You mentioned holding a neighborhood meeting. Could you review for us maybe some of the issues that were brought up in the neighborhood meeting and what resolution you brought them to, if any. Borup: And maybe attendance at that meeting. Nickel: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. We did get the list from development services staff for the radius of the subdivision and that was what we used to mail out, in addition to -- I believe we got the representative from the Vienna Woods Subdivision. I believe only five -- five members of the neighborhoods showed up out at the site. We discussed -- we showed them this layout, which hasn't changed too much, other than the proposed stub street, from what -- what you have in front of you. We discussed some of the uses that could be seen on those -- on that commercial and office -- on those pads or on those lots. We talked about the open space and pretty much the gist of it. There was no real concerns brought up at that meeting. It was more an informative type of meeting at that time. Rohm: When was that meeting? Nickel: I'd have to look in my file. I can get you that. It was probably a month, month and a half ago. Rohm: I guess the point is is there appears to be a lot of concerns now that the opportunity for resolution would have been better if those would have been handled prior to tonight's meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 38 of 108 Nickel: May 19th was the meeting. Again, we are not required to hold a neighborhood meeting, we felt -- and this was before we knew there was any opposition, we felt that it was appropriate to hold a neighborhood meeting and we did. And, again, only five folks showed up. Rohm: Well, just speaking for myself, maybe you're not required to, but from this Commissioner's perspective, it is in your best interest to hold those and keep very good notes, so that you can present findings that are congruent to the thoughts of the developers and the neighborhood as a whole. Nickel: And, Commissioner, I believe we did -- we did do that. Moe: In the regards to the C-N and the L-O, what exactly are we anticipating seeing come before us in that? Nickel: I believe -- and I'll have to turn to staff. I believe any use that we propose will have to come back for some sort of review, whether it's a Conditional Use Permit, it will come directly to you, or if it's a principal permitted use, I believe it goes to design review. Siddoway: As a conceptual planned development, technically any use is required to come back for a detailed CUP. Moe: Okay. Nickel: And I guess to -- we don't have any specific uses in mind at this point. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I would comment for those that don't come to these meetings very often, when we use shorthand, CUP stands for a Conditional Use Permit and what it means to you is there would be notification of a Public Hearing. Borup: So, in other words, there would be another Public Hearing for any of the office use or commercial use. Nickel: Correct. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Then you said there would be some information on the -- Tepola: Good evening, My name is Barry Tepola, SWI Associates, 4700 North Cloverdale, Suite 214, Boise. This project, in the conceptual design standpoint, had a Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 39 of 108 lot of considerations for the neighbors from our perspective. We knew that the neighbors would be concerned with value, we knew the existing property owner and he was expressly concerned with the value and the size of the homes and the value of that property from the standpoint of completed neighborhood. So, we had to make some commitments to him as well, which we continued and are making in this consideration. In the packet that was delivered to you, we had some additional subdivision conditions. We want to make sure that everybody understands the product going in here is not a starter home product. You can't have ten to 14 thousand square-foot lots and access them through a starter home subdivision. The homes in the front are going to end up being high amenity, high quality homes that are designed for a mix of families and move down and move ups. There is a number of requests that have come out there for smaller lots, the people that don't want to have to maintain a large lot, but want a high quality, high amenity home. That's what these are looking to do. And on the front loaded streets that you can see here, the driveway accesses are going to be ribbon drives to the extent that they come up within 20 feet of the garage, which shows right along here. Right there. And you can see in the front to the extent we can have them in here, we will also do the same. The reason we wanted zero lot lines on these is in order to attach the garages in the back, since we plan on having a lot of garages located in the rear of the property. Attaching the garages on the property line allows us to have the flexibility of removing any dead space between the two units. Our CC&Rs will also provide that there will be a maintenance easement across each lot line to maintain the size of that zero lot line. Would you go to the alley, please? Same consideration comes with up on the alley loaded. As you can see here, the rear alleys will have a minimum 20-foot driveway between the alley and the garage. It leaves plenty of room for the people to be able to back out their vehicles, wash their vehicles, and there will be no parking in those alleys. The alleys are going to be 20 feet wide; there will be a ten-foot setback minimum from the point of the alley to a fence along here, which will provide for utility access as well. So, the corridor is going to be open. Each of the homes on the back will have lights on the back of the garages, which will be on a photostat control, so it will help with security and open lighting. The front of the property -- the front of the homes here are setback at a minimum of 15 feet. We haven't asked for any variance. It will be coming 15 feet from the property line or the back of sidewalk. Now, what we have done here is the back of -- the property line is right behind the back of sidewalk. We have come over the street design, a five-foot planting strip, and a four foot detached sidewalk. So, within that, the property line will be just behind the detached sidewalk, So, in that case the minimum setback will be 15 feet, but our goal is to vary it. Our goal on the product is to have architectural features on the front of the homes, including stone, stucco, various items like that. We are not going to allow any vinyl siding in the project; it is all going to be hard board, cottage lap, or something similar. So, it's going to end up with a high quality, high amenity type of product. Our initial designs in these homes, even on the alley and the smaller lots, are going to be minimum 1,600 square feet and we have got home designs up into 2,500 square feet and 2,700 square feet. So, they are not going to be small, inexpensive, starter homes. The other aspect we talked about was in the common areas. Our common areas are not used as storm drainage areas. Our common areas are going to be usable, they are not going to have any storm drain retention on them, they are going Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 40 of 108 to be available for the street use. They are not going to have -- our storm drainage system in this, our water level is so low down below the ground our main aspect is getting through the hard pan, which our storm drain trenches will allow us to do and we still have plenty of room under there to maintain it. In addition, we are going to have -- each of the lots are going to come up with a landscape plan. It will have the front yard landscaped. It will also have -- the rear yard will either have to be landscaped or they will have to provide a grading plan and the homeowners are going to have to be able to administer that, so we don't have any water issues running from lot to lot. Okay. I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Are you anticipating on these smaller lots something comparable to Heritage Commons? It sounds like from what you presented - Tepola: They are going to be larger lots. Heritage Commons has smaller lots, it will be there in concept with the same architectural flair. We are going to be the builder on those smaller lots. We are going to have country French, cottage, bungalow, and craftsman exteriors on them. It's going to have a mix of exterior and -- exterior looks on them. So, we are going to be the builder and we are in control of that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I was glancing at Mr. Freckleton to see if he concurred with the storm water retention plan. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, most definitely. Upon review of the report from the geo tech on this project, he does indicate that there is a pretty significant impermeable layer down roughly four or five feet. Soils below that impermeable layer were free draining pit run materials and they did not encounter any water when they did their test holes. So, I wrote probably a little more than I usually do, as far as soils and groundwater in this one, but the thing I wanted to just drive the point home was that there is that layer down there and the potential for perched water is really great. So, they are just going to have to be very careful when they do their engineering and I have confidence that they will be able to do that and have a good result. So, in the report from the geo tech, there were a couple of documents that were included that I thought would be very beneficial to have the applicant include in their CC&Rs, just to try and put the information out to the perspective home builders and home buyers, so -- Tepola: I'd like to clarify on that point, because that is a request of us to the geo tech to supply those. Those are important aspects and they will be part of the CC&Rs and they will be part of the contract process with each individual builder and buyer. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 41 of 108 Rohm: I don't have any questions of the applicant, but I just have a comment to you before you open this to public testimony. I think that something that might not be a bad idea in this particular application is to go ahead and take a recess here for about 15 minutes and give the applicant and the concerned citizens an opportunity to have an open discussion amongst themselves and see if there is some of the issues that, obviously, still remain that can be handled, as opposed to taking testimony from each individual -- and not opposed to testimony at all, but I think the best way is to come to resolve before, rather than us try to figure out the right answer after testimony. So, I'd like to see if we could just take a 15 minute recess and give you an opportunity to talk to the people that are in the audience and see if you can mitigate some of the concerns before testimony -- additional testimony. Tepola: I'd like to bring up one comment that came in on this. We did have a meeting out on the site, we did meet with the people that were out there, their concerns -- their concems were on the value of the homes going in there. Their concerns were in the starter home market. The people that we did meet with, that's what we discussed. We did converse with the Vienna Woods board of directors, two members -- and I'm willing to talk with him, but I just want to lay that out. We didn't receive the e-mails or the concerned information until 4:00 o'clock this aftemoon and that's why I'm saying I would like to -- I would like to have that opportunity to be able to talk to them, because I think that's important, but I kind of got blindsided at 4:00 today, so I didn't get a chance to do this ahead of time. Rohm: Well -- and out of respect to both sides, I think that that gives everybody an opportunity to get their wishes heard by the appropriate people and so with that being said, Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any objection, I'd like to have a 15 minute recess and we will continue. Borup: Do most of those here to testify on this feel that would be beneficial? It doesn't sound like there is anybody here that is interested, Commissioner. Rohm: Fair enough. Borup: Well, most of what I read in the letters there were many concerned on lot size, which -- I mean this is the application and design that's before us now. I don't think we are going to be here to redesign the plat, unless there was some other issues, too. I think it's beneficial that, you know, we have got an idea on the homes and the quality of the project and that type of thing. These arguments here are the same ones I remember hearing at Heritage Commons, all these little small homes going in. A year later after the homes went in the complaint I heard is the prices were too high, so a lot can change in one year. Newton-Huckabay: Can we ask what is the price point on one of these homes? What is the price point on one of these homes? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 42 of 108 Tepola: Well, if you look at a 160,000 dollar house -- or 1,600 square foot house, you're looking at 175 to 180 and you work up from there and 2,700 square foot is going to be 250, 270. You know, that's on the product in that middle section. You go to the other section, the back -- the one-third west side of the project and the price is open. It's going to be custom homes going in there and the price is going to be open. The minimum square footage will be the same, but I don't think you're going to have anybody putting a 1,600 square foot house on a ten or 12 thousand square foot home site. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the -- the main concern in the hearing is probably on the homes, but I'm still a little bit confused -- or I'm still -- I'm just still questioning the light office and the commercial use in there and just exactly why are you anticipating that you really wanted to go that route, as opposed to developing other homes in there. My concern to that is is because of the fact we already have a neighborhood center down on Locust Grove and we are already over capacity at that point for the Comp Plan in that area. So, I'm just wondering if some of the folks in here are a little bit concerned on what that element is going to be and I realize it's going to have to come back for a CUP, but I'd kind of like to get an idea of what the reasoning for that was. Tepola: Well, the reasoning is because of the existing property owner. He retains those two parcels. So, the use of those -- we can put some restrictions into a development agreement or we can talk about the actual zoning on those. His primary desire is to have professional office. He has a couple of kids who have graduated or are graduating from school and will have some professional businesses and he would like to have an office location for them and that's the primary. If it gets to be the commercial that's an issue, then, we are willing to convert a commercial parcel to an L-O parcel. But anything other than that we would have to get concurrence from the existing property owner. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with Commissioner Moe. I don't really think office this close to the neighborhood center down -- in the block south is -- I think we are going to have more lots -- a lot more office than we have need for in that area. I'm not sure need is the word I'm looking for, but -- Tepola; Any further questions? Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Are we ready to continue on or do we need a break? We have got a request for a short break at this time. We will try to make it about five minutes. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting on the Leeshire Subdivision application. We have had the report from the staff and the applicant; we'd like to now open the meeting for testimony from anyone else. When we have a crowd of this size, Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 43 of 108 we do need to follow some of the rules that we have and one of those is the three- minute limitation. Otherwise, we would be here all night. The other thing that we have made available -- and I don't know if this group is organized to that extent, if we have a spokesman here that would be speaking for the group or a large group, we are able to allow that person some extra time. Is that an issue here tonight? Do we have a spokesman for -- it doesn't look like it. Everyone is on their own. Okay. A lot of times the homeowners association will have a spokesman for that. Okay. So, those representatives are going to be speaking for your whole subdivision and no one from your subdivision will be testifying, then? Okay, I was trying to give you some extra time, but if others are going to be testifying, then, that kind of negates that. So you would be speaking for them? Well, okay, there is some of the testimony saying they will. We will take that as it comes up, then, I guess. We would like to go ahead and begin, then. Porter: Darwin Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove. Would it be possible to put a map up of the area that shows all the way out to Chinden? I want to thank the Commissioners here for their time tonight. I know you're going to be here a long time. I live directly across the street from the proposed Leeshire plat -- platted subdivision -- or subdivision here, Let's see. Right there. That's my little homestead there and as we were listening I heard some terms I'm not quite used to. Alley loading product. Out in our area we are used to terms like chickens, chukars, alfalfa and pheasants and so one of our main concems that at least for my wife and I -- and we, actually, are representing two other families here tonight, is the density of the subdivision. We have lived in this particular spot for about six years now. When we saw a similar subdivision come in, Vienna Woods, awhile back and it was one of our concerns then and a lot of the issues were addressed with the Vienna Woods Subdivision, in that we got larger lot sizes buffering the immediate rural ranchettes and I would like to ask for something similar to that with the Leeshire Subdivision. In going back here to - I don't know if there is a little larger map here, but we have got a lot of rural subdivisions around here. You have got Banbury to the north, you have got Spyglass that are one acre lots a half mile away, you have got Dunwoody. We talked about that. Shandee is another one that's got one acre lots and, then, there is a lot of one acre there on Jericho Road, which is just to the north of the proposed plat. Going to commercial real estate space, the Leeshire entrance is not listed on the Meridian future land use plat as being a commercial location. That's a concern. And also that it's in the center of a mile section. I think it would create some excess noise and some traffic. Also, the working hours of commercial or retail space is -- can be objectionable and I know that it would be, you know, ideal if we had dental or medical in there, but you just -- I did some research and I went over to Austin Creek, which is at the corner of McMillan and Eagle Road and they have a mixed use set up there where they have got four buildings and in the five years that that's been there there is still a total of five spaces that are unleased and if that's on one of the busiest streets in the state of Idaho and they can't lease that, I question whether or not they will be able to lease that. Now, if they have family members, that's another thing, but I can - - I'm concerned about that and, then, it may be becoming something that would be significantly objectionable being straight across the street from us. I would like to see the commercial space eliminated and I would like to see a six-foot grassy berm placed Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 44 of 108 there that would be similar to the Vienna Woods berm, a fence, and I would like to see some larger lots like you see on the north side of Vienna Woods there to buffer the other -- Borup: That would be your three rninutes. Porter: Is that me? Borup: Yes. Porter: Thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. We just -- yeah, just as fast as people can come on up, we will keep listening. Dvorak: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Tom Dvorak, I live at 5489 North Beethoven. I'm the vice-president of Vienna Woods Subdivision. We have 226 lots, so I'd request a little lenience in the time as a consequence of that. I realize some of our members are here tonight, but by no means are all 226 members, whom I speak on their behalf here. Primarily, we have two concerns about this subdivision. We think that Darwin Porter did a pretty good job in creating some nice livable space for us in terms of the larger lots buffering the ranchettes as he talked about and we'd like to see that continue. We feel that two aspects of this proposed subdivision are a real break from that. Those two aspects being, narnely, one, the commercial development along Locust Grove and, two, what's been referred to as the middle section here, which involves probably about a third of the actual acreage here, but by my count about 59 of the total lots. First, I'll talk about the smaller lot sizes. My concern with the smaller lot sizes is it's all well and good to talk about the pro forma for the sale of these lots and how many dollars that's going to generate, but what happens if that pro forma is not met, if those expectations of the developer are wrong for some reason, if there is a hiccup in the economy? Where do those lots go? Well, lot sales are simply a matter of demand and supply and if there is not the demand that's predicted for those, the price is going to go down and the CC&Rs that I was listening for, which I didn't quite hear, I think there was a goal of stone siding, other nice appearances on the side of these things, but I didn't hear specifically that there would be restriction or a requirement of those, like I heard against vinyl siding, for instance. And, in any event, the city doesn't enforce CC&Rs, the developer can change those at anytime. So, with these smaller lots, if they don't sell, those are going to be the first things that go and they are going to be starter homes in there. It's just a simple matter of economy -- economics if these plans don't work out. Those lots are not consistent and in harmony with the surrounding area. There are people that have been living there for a long time, like Darwin Porter, who have been working to keep that harmony and keep that consistency. This is a break from that and that's something that zoning laws are designed to protect. Secondly, with respect to the commercial and retail space, I want to make a point here. I was listening to Mr. Tepola's presentation and I noticed something very interesting. When Commissioner Newton-Huckabay asked him about his analysis for these commercial lots, he didn't Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 45 of 108 exactly give a direct answer in terms of, well, here is the market absorption for these type lots, he said it was a requirement of the property owner. He has a vision of his kids coming back from professional school and setting up shop there and that's a nice vision, but, again, is that really going to happen. What's going to happen if suddenly there is a hiccup and plans for his own sons or professionals to use that space don't work out? What's going to happen to those lots? Well, again, economics is going to drive it. Well, we have already heard from Mr. Porter about some of his studies on the other lots in the other subdivision that borders McMillan and Eagle Road of commercial lots where there is five -- five units that have not been filled in commercial space. Again, it's a simple matter of demand and supply. In an ideal world, if all works out according to pro forma, that would be great. But I just heard about a pro forma and some absorption analysis for the residential lots. I didn't hear any of that kind of talk for these commercial lots. These commercial lots seem to be a demand of the property owner that the developer agreed to just get the rest of the property to develop. And moving back on the commercial lots, too, this -- the Heritage Commons was brought up as an example of what this aspires to be and I liked Heritage Commons when it originally went in to some degree, but as I was driving down here from Vienna Woods, I looked at the four commercial buildings that are going up and what I noticed was that the view of Heritage Commons, especially the common area, is now blocked. All you see from the road are basically the four box structures going up there, the commercial buildings in the front of that, and while that development may be something the Commission was experimenting with, we don't think that the end result is something that we want at this location that's directly in front our subdivision. We would like to preserve the residential character of our subdivision and we would like to keep with larger lot sizes and transition to smaller lot sizes towards the west. In fact, this just seems to be the reverse of that, it has the largest lots, which would seem to be the lots that should be closest to the large lots on the west end and the smallest lots on the east end. And so I would like to just note for the record the objections we have on behalf of the Vienna Woods Subdivision, its 226 members, primarily to the commercial designation here, but also to the smaller lot sizes. Thank you, Borup: Thank you. Battazzo: My name is Dan Battazzo, I live at 5306 North Larkwood. That's right here. The reason that I point that out is because I have some specific and different objections to this process. I appreciate what Commissioner Rohm brought up in terms of the idea of a 15-minute break, but I would more appreciate a specific request to continue this matter to allow a meeting to take place to include all of the people who are going to be affected here. So, that's the first thing I'd ask. The second -- Borup: Did you attend the other neighborhood meeting? Battazzo: I knew nothing of the other neighborhood meeting and I'm sure I'm outside of the technical radius that is required for me to be invited. The second thing that I would ask is that not shown on this map, but material to me is that stub road that comes out of that subdivision and what I'd like to acknowledge -- like to ask you to acknowledge here Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 46 of 108 is that we can't really close our eyes to the fact that there is going to be development on those two larger lots, which, by the way, is an exception to what we were told in the CC&Rs and by the developer when we moved into that subdivision, which included those two larger lots, and that 44 acres or so that is just to the south bordering Locust Grove and McMillan, all of us know that's going to be developed as well and what I'm asking you to do is to continue this matter and take this thing up as one composite plan, because nickel and diming it and having this thing creep into different development zones is problematic for all of the residents as well. My concern about the density in the middle there, when you keep spouting off about the 3.25 average number of homes per acre, is that the peak density looks to me to be closer to eight or ten. That's material to me and if you use that as an excuse to extend that same sort of planning to those areas to the south, this thing all of a sudden looks like something very different. So, I really appreciate the attitude you have shown tonight in terms of looking forward and asking about what's going to happen on various other lots when you were dealing with the previous subdivision and when you have deal with this one as well and what I'd like for you to do is to exercise more of the planning part of this thing and maybe take a little bit more time to have some people have an opportunity to look at the composite plan for this entire area, rather than just each bit, one little section at a time. Okay? Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Miller: Chairman Borup and Members of the Commission, my name is Mark Miller, I live at 1906 East Dunwoody Court. I have notes from six other citizens on my street asking that I speak for them tonight. I also was the homeowner's association president until the end of April. I'd request some extra minutes in accordance, if that's okay with you. Borup: Are these people here tonight that you're speaking for? Miller: No. People I have notes from. Borup: Okay. Continue. Let's see if we can get some of the information. Miller: Okay. I'll try to be brief and I appreciate Commissioner Rohm's statements also. I think it would be appropriate to have a meeting with everybody. As the president of the homeowners association, I was never notified of any meeting just across the street from this area. We were never notified and our viewpoints have never been heard until we heard about the meeting tonight. I guess our first issue that we'd like to speak to has already been initially addressed, is the appropriateness of the size of the lots that are adjacent as we increase lot size out towards our lots and in Dunwoody Subdivision and in Eagle that it just doesn't seem like a reasonable transition in terms of lot size. I suppose if you think about the consideration -- and maybe you can put up -- can you put up the actual plat of the lots for us? Notice that the park area and large home lot is kind of in the back, but the only cul-de-sac home is the large lot. It just seems a little odd if you review the whole subdivision outline, it certainly would be better and maybe more in the favor of all the other neighbors that you reverse that and put the larger lots up where it would buffer our side and put the smaller lots around this area by the park, so that Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 47 of 108 they could all access the park. It seems like the park has very limited access in this subdivision as well. We should have larger lots buffer our subdivisions as was required in Vienna Woods. Also, we'd like to oppose the commercial use. Again, there is vacant areas in -- just in nearby -- next to Eagle Road and so we are unsure of the future of that, possible smells and other issues that come up from whatever is put in there in terms of food services has not been fully delineated. Also, the other thing we wanted to bring up is that -- is the safety of children in this area and this has not been addressed. This whole area is rural, so across the street from this area there is no sidewalk. The children that are in Dunwoody and the children in Vienna Woods go to the same school, so tend to play together and these children have to walk where there is no sidewalk along a street that's fairly empty now to get to each other's homes. My child, an eight year old, is one of them and now with this subdivision going in and cars turning right and left out of here, is a real safety issue. The other issue is because of the rural nature, the bus pick up for the children is on Locust Grove Road right in front of here and with all these cars turning in and out and I have children there, I'm a little bit worried about the fact of the road. I called Ada County Highway District to find out what the plan for the road was. There is no plan on widening Locust Grove Road in the next five-year or 20- year plan and the quote from the staff member there to me was everyone knows what we need in north Meridian in terms of roads, but there is no funding for what we need. I'm concerned about my safety. I have triplet boys, one of them is deaf, and the safety concerns, obviously, become more and more of an issue. Dunwoody Subdivision is a deaf child area and I don't know how that affects somebody else's development across the street, but when it comes to safety issues, I think it's a real problem. We also request that appropriate landscaping and berms be put in front, just as was required at Vienna Woods, so that the area generally matches, it doesn't become a hodgepodge of different types of small subdivisions, but that there is some continuity in the area that would keep land values and appropriateness -- I don't think any of us opposes development, but just realize that in the style of this development, what's good for the Lee property, this kind of generally large property, at the other end is also good for us. We would like to have the larger lots on our side and have the smaller lots on his side, if you require the same density there. The final couple of issues are schools. My child, which is eight years old, and my children who are going to be going to school soon, are already in an overcrowded school at Discovery. This is a school that will also be applied there, as in Heritage Commons. Razzberry Crossing and Copper Basin, the school is already overcrowded and I'm sure you could probably discuss with the Meridian School District those issues, but we talked to them today and they still are unaware of how many kids are going to be overwhelming the school, which is another issue. I had to avoid the third road construction on Locust Grove, which, of course, isn't a widening today, which has been delayed over a month what was planned. Our road has been ripped up at least two -- at least three times, I think, in the last year that we haven't been able to use it for reasons unknown, but none of them are to make traffic flow better, as far as I can tell. The sewer flows better, but we have no sewer, we are on septic. The other question is the multi-use path. I would ask the Commissioners not to change the multi-use path. We have all been favorable for a greenbelt around Meridian that was accessible to all residents. The change that they request will actually Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 48 of 108 decrease the access of Dunwoody Subdivision residents to such a greenbelt and put it very far out of our reach and we would request that that not be approved. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Miller: Thank you. Borup: I guess we don't have anyone else, Commissioners. Okay. Weiser: You do. My name is Bill Weiser, 1842 East Dunwoody, and I was not aware of a meeting until Darwin Porter gave me a map and told me what was going -- planned to be put in there. And when I saw that I just -- it hit me in the gut, it's like you got to be kidding. This has no character of anything around the existing subdivisions, Even Vienna Woods was oppressed, but now it's looking pretty darn good compared to this. And Dan Battazzo brought up a good point of the macro planning in this whole area and I think that's an excellent suggestion. And I'm going to dwell on the macro planning and, you know, it's a careful balance between the landowner, his developer, and zoning and you got to reach a balance. But if you look at here, we have got, obviously, very dense housing in the front and blatant surroundment of the existing home with a park, for pete sakes, in his backyard and larger lots and I speak from experience, when these homeowners move in and have to pay dues to mow his backyard, there is going to be some way who approved this and you guys are going to have to answer to that. So, I know it's kind of a gray area between zoning and what the owner wants to do, but think about the people that are going to live there and what they are going to feel ten years from now when they are paying to mow his backyard and the disparity between the size of lots here just, you know, shouts like there isn't any planning in this little square, so I beg you to apply your zoning rules and capabilities to direct this development in a better direction for this area. Also, just traffic. With that many houses and homeowners going to work in the morning, I think they are going to be lined up trying to get out of that one road, because turning onto a 50 mile an hour road takes a little time when cars are coming and you got potentially 120 cars trying to get out of that one little road between two commercial properties. Perhaps two roads onto Locust Grove would be a better suggestion for traffic and maybe some advisement from the Ada County Highway District would be warranted here. So, anyway, I hope we are just at the beginning of working through to bring this plan to a better fit for what we are trying to do out here in the northeast corner of Meridian, which used to be farmland, which I still help farm hay in my backyard and when I see this -- and, by the way, this used to be a very nice horse barn and arena that went downhill over the last 12 years and so any development is better than what it is now, but I don't think this is. So, thank you for listening to what I had to say tonight. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? McMillan: Commissioners, my name is Skip McMillan, I live at 2037 East Comisky Court, Vienna Woods. Mr. Dvorak and Mr. Porter pretty well covered most of the points that I was going to make or a lot of them. The only thing I can add is I, too, am opposed Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 49 of 108 to the commercial development. I do wonder what type of buildings, what would they look like if they would go in there. That's a question that I would have. Also, Locust Grove and McMillan is not in the ACHD five year widening plan. I have a concern with traffic. Even now the intersection of McMillan and Locust Grove i.s pretty well backed up in the mornings out there, but - my mind went blank here. My concern, too, if the commercial development is allowed in this area, then, will more follow right on down north or south down Locust Grove? I would also like to see the lots in the middle portion be equivalent to the lots in the west portion, the larger lots in the back. I think that's about alii have to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Olsen: Hi. My name is Drew Olsen. I am on the board of directors for Vienna Woods Homeowners Association. Would you, please, put that Comprehensive Plan up? Thanks. I live in the product that is right here and I have some concerns, because I am very close to Locust Grove, but one of my major concerns is really not some of the micro managing or the micro problems that we have been looking at, but the macro problems. Or not problems, but issues, shall I say. When I moved into Vienna Woods I reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and I took a look at what we are looking at here now and I see that this is zoned for no commercial, not industrial, all the way down the line. And that was what led me to make one of my decisions to move into this neighborhood. I felt that Meridian had a good plan for the future, I thought they knew what they were doing, I put a lot of thought into it, had professionals and engineers go through this and figure out where neighborhood centers should be, where commercial should be, and how housing should be broken down by density. Seeing this opposed, I question that at this point. I see a lot of deviations from what more or less I bought as a bill of goods when I moved into Meridian into this neighborhood and that's one of my major concerns. I'm very concerned about the density of the homes and also about the commercial. That's really my two main issues. It's completely out of sync with the existing architecture, so to speak, of the area, as everyone else has said. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to look at this and just use common sense and say why are they going to stick a couple of commercial buildings here when they don't need them. I understand that the owner has an idea that some day his sons or daughters may graduate and may choose live next to him and make their way there, but, in reality, that very -- may well not happen and I think we all know that. They seem to have a lot of goals that they are looking for. They have goals for their architecture, they have goals for what buildings will go in there, they have goals for where they are going to put a stub street, or maybe they are going to put a basketball court there instead or maybe they are not sure of what they are doing there. Well, all I see is a lot of goals and no real concrete -- concrete plans that they are putting their finger on right now. Everything is pie in the sky at this point. And I think that Meridian did well in originally building this plan and making a Comprehensive Plan, a plan for the future, but I am very unhappy with the thought that they could deviate from that plan into a hodgepodge type manner, especially into transition area here between Eagle and Meridian, this is an area where I think that we can slowly move to, you know, a different type of neighborhood where there is one acre or two acre lots, but we are going to take a step backwards if we go Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 50 of 108 ahead and allow these smaller lots and commercial building in this space. Thanks for your time. I know you all have a thankless job, because I'm on the board of homeowners, too, so good luck. Borup: Mr. Olsen, maybe just -- Mr. Olsen? Olsen: Yes. Borup: Just a quick question. I understood your testimony on the commercial, you feel - - do you feel as strongly on office -- on the office space as you do on a neighborhood commercial? Olsen: I do. And the reason as was brought up by Mrs. Newton-Huckabay when she said why do we need another one, we have got one right down the road, it's well planned, everything has gone according to plan. Now, we want to mess with the plan that we finally -- looked like things are going good on. Borup: Okay. Thank you. The only other question I had was you said you had looked into the Comprehensive Plan when you moved in and, then, was that your understanding that was from three to eight lots per acre and that -- in the Comprehensive Plan in that area? Olsen: Well, that's a great question. Borup: Your statements seemed to contradict each other. You said you looked into it and you understood what the Comprehensive Plan said and this is at the bottom end of the Comprehensive Plan, but, then you said it didn't comply with it, so I -- Newton-Huckabay: I think he was talking about the office -- Olsen: I'm talking about the commercial and the office space as not listed on there. But also you bring up a great point in that the three to eight density -- the average density. I think the key word there is average. When you take a look at their subdivision and, obviously, it's very hugely skewed by the big lots in the back and that's where they are getting their average. Borup: That is true. Olsen: It's ridiculous. I mean I could make a subdivision and I could put my own house on acres at the back and have a bunch of those crammed together in front and I would meet your average requirements. That's what I feel is being done at this point. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Olsen: Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page51of108 Borup: Do we have anyone else that had anything new to add? Lee: For or against? Borup: Well, we have had a lot of against. Do we have somebody for a for? Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. If you're not going to give me more time, tell me now, so I can adjust myself. I'm one of the few people for here, so thank you for the additional time. I was here not too many months ago for Saguaro Canyon, which bordered my property. At that time I talked about the Larkwood Subdivision, which was built by Darwin Porter's dad and the Dunwoody Subdivision. The first two developments were built under a new concept that was a one acre split concept, but the developers kind of skewed around that and got one and a half and two and three acres out of that deal, which was not entitled, and immediately thereafter those subdivisions were approved when I approached the same authorities and they said, no, we made a mistake, you can't do that. Now, we have two subdivisions that want to hold us to their standard that should not have been approved, but were approved. On Locust Grove -- we have on McMillan and Locust Grove a man that sells rain gutters and has three or four trucks. That's a commercial use. We have ball fields, the LDS church, we have a commercial horse facility, even Darwin Porter rents his pasture out to a couple of horses in front. Next door there is a large shop and arena for Del's Towing, the alternative high school, and a church at the far end. In this same square mile as Dunwoody and Vienna Woods across the street, each of the three sides has office developments. Now, it's been mentioned that the Austin Creek side, oh, there is a couple of vacancies there, five vacancies. Well, whoop dee do, they just built the fourth building. Give them time to rent it, please. The reason they built the fourth building was the other three buildings justified building the fourth. Mr. Galloway, our dentist, lives in Dunwoody across the street. He has his dental office surrounded on three sides by Bristol Heights Subdivision. Austin Creek on a side and ball fields on another side, and there is office space -- those two both take up approximately two acres apiece, which is what I'm asking for, for limited office is what we asked for. One of the staff planners changed one of the lots, for whatever reason, to commercial. Yes, I do have sons that are in chiropractic school, yes, I have a son in Time magazine, financial planner, and doing quite well, thank you, yes, I'd like to have limited office space that matches the three sides. Now, somebody that says I live in Dunwoody, I want my office in the same square mile, bounded by nine homes, but I don't want you to have office, I don't agree with that. Now, you say, well, Heritage Commons has office space. That's fine. Heritage Commons is another subdivision. Does that mean we are not going to have anymore subdivisions in our property? Do I get just a little more time? I want to share with you traffic congestion, property values dropping, noise increase, home density, similar future high density developments, being incorporated into the City of Meridian for high taxes, reduced privacy, the placement of the proposed subdivision just doesn't fit. I personally would like to see nothing smaller than acre lots in this area. This is what Darwin Porter wrote six years ago against the Vienna Woods Subdivision. Have property values gone down? Darwin, I'll buy your place for what it appraised for six years ago. Darwin's meeting with three of his neighbors, each of whom have five Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 52 01108 acres, he's planning on subdividing that property and so are they. Where are they going to funnel 60 homes? Through the stub street into Vienna Woods? They talk about berms and landscaping in front of our property, how about replacing the dead trees that have died over the years in front of your property on your berms? You want a higher quality of life? Be annexed, hook up to the sewer and water that runs in front of your street. Borup: Let's address this project, not to the neighbors. Lee: Okay. Darwin says this should be ideal for medical and dental. I agree with that. We plan to retain the ownership of that, we plan to retain the ownership of the lots in the rear portion of the property surrounding our home. Our lot size has been cut down from two and a half to a little over one acre. Is there a park near our property? Yes, there is. Should it be in front of Darwin's property? No, I don't think so. He says what's good for the Grant Lee family should be good for him. Well, join the club. Put in sewers, gutters, all the things you don't want me to mention and you can improve your quality of life. Is there an extra danger for kids? There is danger with any subdivision. You voiced that concern six years ago. What have you done in your subdivision to address that concern? I had Steve Smith approach me. I had Sam Thompsen approach me. I have had -- Sam Thompsen lives in Vienna Woods. I have had several people approach me to develop our property. The people that I chose, yes, were willing to work with me to accomplish my goals. For 30 years I have had rental properties, about a 30-mile drive. It would be nice to have some rental properties in my front yard. Is limited office a sin? It's on three sides of that square mile already, should it be on the fourth side, along with the rain gutter man and the ball fields and the churches and the schools? I think that's a compatible use. Did Vienna Woods turn out okay? Sure, it did. Did Larkwood and Dunwoody turn out okay? The fact that they all sold shows that there was a need for that and I think if my property had been allowed to develop in that same aspect 12 years ago, we wouldn't be standing here today. But I'm faced with the issues that we have. All I asked when Saguaro Canyon was passed was that whatever you allowed for Saguaro Canyon you allow for my subdivision, I was neutral to that, I remain neutral, and I ask that you stand with what I perceived was that commitment was that what you approve for Saguaro Canyon would also apply to my property. Thank you, Commissioners. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Nickel, did you have any final comments? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Very briefly just to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, Commissioner Rohm, we did send out 22 letters. That list was provided to us by the city. Included within that was the Vienna Woods Homeowners Association. We did not get a name or an address for any of the other association groups in that area. Of those 22 letters, four people showed up to the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Lee did a really good job of bringing up Vienna Woods. I was the land use planner when Vienna Woods went through the county and I heard the exact same things when Vienna Woods went through. As far as economics and marketing -- and market with this subdivision, same Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 53 of 108 thing was brought up for Vienna Woods and I think it turned out to be a very nice development, so I don't know why we wouldn't be allowed the same opportunity to prosper in that way. Regarding the stub street to the south, that was a recommendation from your staff and from ACHD. We did not initially design that stub there, but we were asked to put it in by those -- by both agencies. With regards to safety, safety and traffic are always a concern whenever any type of new development goes in. The gentleman was right, the Locust Grove improvements are not in the five year work program, but as you know from years of doing this, that work plan is updated every two years, depending on future approvals and future development along certain corridors. So, just because it's not in that five-year work program today does not mean it will not change in two years, depending on the safety aspects. And if I do recall, there was a stop light recently put in at Locust Grove and Chinden. Very briefly regarding the Comprehensive Plan. That was a plan that was approved and recommended for approval by this body and by the City Council. Again, Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup did bring up that that designation or that density was a three to eight dwelling unit per acre density and that's -- again, we are on the low end of that three -- three to eight unit range. Regarding the single access issue, the fire department is limiting us to 50 building permits until Saguaro Creek -- or Saguaro Canyon provides that access to us on the west and, then, we can get the rest of our building permits. So, we have to have that second access on -- on the west side of our property. In addition, it's my understanding that the Jericho -- the Jericho stub, which we are providing a stub to the north, is in the process or the design process and so you're probably going to see an access to the north sometime within the next year from our property to -- out to Chinden. Regarding the commercial designation versus L-O, as the developer did bring up, we would be more than happy to change that commercial to an L-O and have L-O on both sides. Again, you heard from the property owner who is going to retain those lots and his intentions are for office uses, so we would be more than happy to commit to that through the L-O zoning and get rid of the C-N altogether. Regarding the amenities, those amenities are a requirement of the PD application, so if we are saying we are doing basketball courts, tot lots, open space, berming, landscaping, buffering, pathways, we have to do that as part of our application. And, then, finally the density -- if you take out the commercial lots and just focus on the attached and detached smaller lots, it's 4.5 units to the acre. I'll stand for any other questions you may have. Newton-Huckabay: Are you saying this middle section? Nickel: The middle section is 4.5. If you want to strip out everything else and just look at that middle section, It's 4.5 dwelling units to the acre. Newton-Huckabay: That's actual? Nickel: Actual. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 54 of 108 Borup: Questions from any of the Cornmissioners? You're thinking, Commissioner Zaremba: Nickel: Mr. Chairman, could I bring up one more thing -- Borup: Yes. Nickel: -- that I forgot to bring up and you reminded me by flipping through your packet. There is a sheet in that packet that I handed out earlier to have some addition -- that's entitled additional conditions of approval and that's something that the developer builder is agreeing to not only put in the CC&Rs, because we know those can be changed, but also as conditions of approval through the PD to require that upgrading of sidings and roofs and landscape and everything that he talked about. So, I think it was brought up, you know, we are saying -- we are talking a good talk now saying we are going to do this. We have provided some additional conditions that we are agreeing upon on our own to put in this development and you can, if you like, put it as a condition of approval, attach it to the PD, in addition to us putting it in our CC&Rs and our architectural review committee. Thank you. Borup: And it looks like these are the same items that was mentioned in the testimony as far as material and that type of thing. Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Siddoway, any final comments? Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Do we need a motion to close the hearing? Borup: If that's what we want to do. Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we close hearing -- the Public Hearing on AZ 04-017 -- do all three of them? PP 04-024 and CUP 04-026 for Leeshire Subdivision. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the three hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Would we like a little discussion first? I think right off, you know, Mr. Nickel mentioned that they are not opposed to deleting the C-N zoning. Zaremba: Changing it to L-O? Borup: Changing it to L-O. Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 55 of 108 Zaremba: I don't know if I have anything to add, but I guess I will discuss a quandary that I had as I went through this project in preparation for the meeting and further reinforced by testimony from both sides, actually. I'm a well-known advocate of greater density. I think there is some benefits to it, both in the future of public transportation and the provision of public services within the city and I'm very much in favor of greater densities. That being said, I'm very much in favor of them closer to the interstate, closer to Old Town area -- this area out here is not anymore very much farmland. It is developed with larger properties and this is actually an in-fill property. We usually think of those as being downtown and being a, you know, 16th of an acre parcel, but it does have development around it and it is in-fill and I struggle to justify this kind of density. I like having a variety of products available within the City of Meridian and I don't have a problem with there being an area where the project is all larger properties. That being said, I have both opinions. I said it wasn't going to be very helpful. I could go either way. Moe: Well, you're a lot of help there. Zaremba: Yeah. Sorry. Moe: I guess I'll just chime in. Quite frankly, looking at the development and whatnot, I - - quite frankly, the only thing as far as the R-4 and whatnot and the layout and whatnot, it does meet requirements of the Comp Plan. My biggest concern has been the C-N designation in that area, due to the fact we do have the neighborhood center right down the road. It was brought up earlier when we were discussing, I guess, going light office in that area might tend to be somewhat of a buffer between the subdivision and such, so I'm not so sure that the light office would be such a bad idea, but I am definitely in favor of getting rid of the C-N designation for sure. Borup: I think at first glance I had some concern on looking at -- at the density and the lot sizes. The alternative to that in an R-4 zone is to have what's often referred to as the cookie cutter subdivisions with every lot exactly minimum 8,000 feet. The number of lots -- the density comes out about the same, you know, that 3.26, that's about what we see in most R-4 zones, but they are all 80 by 100 lots, no variety, number of homes going in comes out about the same. I don't know if this is the best place for it or if there is a market for it, but whether there is a market for it is probably not up to us to determine. Commissioner Rohm, do you have a comment? Rohm: Only that in -- as kind of support of Commissioner Moe's comments on the commercial development portion of this project, if, in fact, you took that out of the project altogether and just put in residential lots, the transition from the large lots across the road to this subdivision would be more obtrusive than by having the commercial lots, their -- to offer up that buffer and so even if we can get rid of the C-N and just go to the L-O, then, you have that transition and it breaks it up a little bit, so that you don't have the small residential lots right adjacent to the larger lots of Vienna Woods, so -- and that -- I think I'm in support of that. Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 56 of 108 Borup: Okay. Are we to the point for a motion? Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to say I don't -- I don't think the commercial lots work in this part of the -- with the neighborhood center. I feel like we are not getting the essence and spirit of the Comp Plan, if you will. And I think the green area being limited to the west side of the property, I don't think that that is also -- I can't think of the analogy. I would like to see it moved more into the middle of the subdivision where it's accessible by all of the residents who live there. I think that's one feature of Heritage Commons that makes it appealing is that you have the green, if you will, in the middle of the development. I think something similar to that would -- would work better in this part of town. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I'm not much closer in my personal struggle. The one difficulty that we often face is that at this level our responsibility is a little different than the City Council's responsibility. We are pretty much tasked with deciding whether something meets the ordinances and meets the Comprehensive Plan and this does. I have not seen any analysis. The Comprehensive Plan does not include a light office .in this area, but our ordinances for planned developments include a 20 percent use exception, which means even though the Comprehensive Plan designates this as a residential, that use exception allows -- it would allow the L-O and the C-N, but I agree with the others, if this is going to go forward, I think only L-O should be there. And I guess my struggle is at the Planning and Zoning Commission level our biggest task is to decide whether this has met all the rules and it probably has. Any other opinions on that? Rohm: I think that's exactly right -- Newton-Huckabay: Can we compare this to other developments that have come through that have been denied by City Council? Zaremba: We certainly can. We help the City Council by anticipating their objections. Newton-Huckabay: The one that was supposed to be on the agenda tonight, Chestfield Borup: Chesterfield. Newton-Huckabay: Chesterfield. Zaremba: Essentially met all the rules and they -- Newton-Huckabay: And it was extremely dense like this. The green space was-- I felt at the time ill placed throughout the development. I think we have a similar situation here. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 57 of 108 Borup: In that part I think we do. I think the other one didn't have much variety in the lot size was all part of it. Moe: That was one of the reasons why they brought it back to us, was the fact that -- Borup: There was no diversity? Moe: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: Well, there was the diversity, because you had the open space issue with that one. And I see a lot of similarities of this development to that development. Rohm: Well, personally, I think that the City Council could act on this after our actions tonight and provide direction to us one way or the other if, in fact, they see it differently than the specifics of the Comprehensive Plan and, from my perspective, the proposed development meets the ordinances as written on the books and as part of the Comprehensive Plan and I hesitate to anticipate what City Council mayor may not do. And if the City Council wants to remand it back to us, that is certainly their prerogative, with their goals and objectives, but I don't feel comfortable anticipating what those might be, Are we ready for a motion? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Well, I was going to comment that even if we move this forward to the City Council -- well, with approval or denial being recommended, there will be another hearing before the City Council and notice given to everybody. But my suggestion was going to be that perhaps another neighborhood meeting might be in order before it gets to the City Council. There are subjects, maybe, that could be discussed and maybe some common meeting ground met or satisfaction on both sides. I'm not making that a requirement, but just a suggestion. Borup: As long as you're making suggestions, if that is done, I would say that mailing list should go out to the two homeowners associations, either president or secretary. Zaremba: Yeah. And, then, if they would notify their association members of a time and place and if one of the homeowner associations has a community clubhouse -- I'm not aware of that, but if one of them does, if you could offer that for the meeting, might even be helpful. Rohm: I suspect that everybody is aware of what's happening here and will be readily available for attendance, Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, if you like, I will make the motions. Newton-Huckabay: Were you going to add this -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 58 of 108 Borup: I think Commissioner Rohm was started on one or was he? Rohm: No. No. I -- Dave, he's our motion man. Zaremba: I'm reviewing the notes provided by the applicant. Moe: The only thing before you would make your motion, I would request the one thing we really haven't talked about was the condition in regards to amenities as to what we were going to want to require in the amenities. Zaremba: I actually wrote down the list when the applicant -- Moe: So, it will be two of those listed. Zaremba: Yeah. Moe: All right. That's great. Zaremba: Pathways and benches, basketball court, tot lot, and picnic benches. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: In the two areas. Moe: Perfect. Zaremba: Or some in one and some in the other. Moe: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Okay. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 04-017, request for annexation and zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C-N, and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC, 5603 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo -- their revised memo for the hearing date of August 5th, 2004, with the following change in regard to annexation and zoning that there be no C-N zone and that that become an L-O zone, so that there are -- all properties adjoining the street, Locust Grove, are L-O designation. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Three ayes. One nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 59 of 108 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 04-024, request for preliminary plat approval for 89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, C-N, and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC, 5603 North Locust Grove Road, to include all the staff comments of their revised memo for the hearing date of August 5, 2004, with following changes: On page eight, this is part of paragraph four, which begins on the previous page, but the first sentence on page eight shall be changed to read: This development shall be subject to water main service latecomer fees. That's a change from the word sanitary sewer, becomes water main service. On page nine, paragraph 12, add another sentence at the end of that paragraph that says: The City of Meridian does not approve, regulate, or enforce CC&Rs. And, then, add a paragraph 13 that references the applicant'S additional seven points that they are agreeing to, it says Leeshire Subdivision additional subdivision conditions that was provided at the hearing tonight. Does the clerk have a copy of that? Okay. So, I will include that by reference. End of preliminary plat. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8, CUP 04-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development consisting of a single family residential and commercial office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, side yard setbacks, and minimum street frontage for the proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC., 5603 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their revised memo for the hearing date of August 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page 12, paragraph five, next to the last sentence should read: Such fencing should still taper to three feet tall maximum, instead of minimum, within 20 feet, et cetera. On page 13, under site specific conditions, paragraph three, will read: Two amenities are required for this application. The amenities in the two separate open spaces are pathways and fixed benches and basketball court, tot lot, and picnic benches. Paragraph four will be changed, the second sentence reads: Such fencing shall taper to three feet tall maximum, instead of minimum, within 20 feet, et cetera. And I again reference for inclusion in the CUP the applicant's seven points provided to the meeting tonight. Moe: Is that number nine? Zaremba: That - this would be on page 14, adding a paragraph nine, referencing the seven points made by the applicant entitled Leeshire Subdivision additional subdivision conditions. Rohm: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 60 of 108 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Borup: All right. Thank you, Appreciate everyone being here tonight. We are going to take another short break. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 04-008 Request for a Rezone of .23 acre from R-8 to proposed O-T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed 0- T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with our next project, Public Hearing RZ 04-008, request for rezone of .23 acres from R-8 to proposed OT zone Larry Knopp at 713 North Meridian Road and Public Hearing CUP 04-019, request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail professional office in an existing building on the same property. And we will open both public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This property is adjacent to the Old Town area on Meridian Road in what is shown as Old Town on the Comprehensive Plan. The property is outlined in black. It's located right here. It is directly across from the Farmers and Merchants Bank building that is currently under construction on the east side of Meridian Road. City Hall where we are here tonight is on this lot kitty-corner to the northeast. The lot is .23 of an acre. It's currently zoned R- 8, as are the surrounding properties. The request is to rezone the property to Old Town. The Old Town zone does comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation, which is also Old Town, Before us tonight, in addition to the rezone, is a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is for an office retail remodel of the existing home. This is an aerial photo. The existing home sits on this lot right here. The surrounding uses to the north. There is an existing residence that's still in residential use to the north. To the south is the American Legion Hall. I mentioned the Farmers and Merchants Bank project. And, then, in the rear are additional existing residences. The Conditional Use Permit is requested to convert the existing home to office retail, as I mentioned. The Conditional Use Permit is required in the Old Town zone for all office and retail uses. What you see before you is the proposed site plan. Meridian Road, again, is on the right-hand side of the screen. This area here is the existing home. This area here is the existing garage. And this area is the proposed expansion of that garage. The rear of the property is proposed for the parking. This is an elevation. The top is a rear elevation. The bottom is a front elevation as you see it from Meridian Road. You can see the elevation of the existing house and the converted garage. They