Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1. 2005 Page 19 of gO that point. We have a handy light system here -- well, and, then, after that, theoretically, we close the hearing and we deliberate among ourselves and staff and make a recommendation to City Council, where there will, again, be a hearing and you will be notified about that the same way you were notified about this one. We have a handy light system here. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When it goes to yellow we ask that you start to wrap up. And when it's red your time is up and we ask that you conclude. We may after that ask you some questions, but we do ask that you conclude or turn it over to somebody else and that helps us operate in an orderly manner. Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Zaremba: That being said, I will open the continued public hearings for AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033. All these relate to Hollybrook Subdivision and we said at the last hearing when we continued it to this that our subject of discussion would be limited to the narrow area that connects the two halves of the barbell looking thing. We will only be talking about the center area and modifications to that and that being said we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The design that we are looking at tonight is dated August 23rd -- I received August 23rd. The applicant and -- excuse me. Something happened to our presentation. The applicant and staff, as well as the applicant and Weaver Acres neighborhood, have spent extensive time over the past two weeks in order to bring this presentation to you. And the design that the applicant has chosen is what is referred to as a chicane, which is a traffic control measure that ACHD, as well as the applicant, will speak to in greater detail. This brings the roadway down to 20 feet of paved surface. This is an acceptable method for traffic calming, but it creates additional problems for the land use and the density issues, as well as driveways on that section. The applicant -- the applicant's engineer drafted a rendition for what potentially could happen in there if they lost a couple of lots. And with this they would take the four lots that would be the width of the chicane and create Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 20 of 90 common driveways at the portions of the chicane that would touch those lots as -- the chicane, as you can see in front of you -- I'll point out -- there is the chicane. So, at these points here and -- actually, this would be flipped around, so it would be these points here and here -- would be the shared access driveways with side loaded garages. That would eliminate the backing out concern of staff onto that chicane. Typically, with a parking lot we require a 25-foot paved drive aisle and that would address the concerns for the backing out onto that roadway. The section currently shows 14 lots of approximately 4,400 square feet. As shown in their rendition, they would have eight lots at 4,800 feet and the four lots would be approximately 5,700 feet. This was handed to us prior -- just prior to this hearing and staff really hasn't had a good chance to address this as well as we would like to. The director has stated that she would like to see more lots with shared accesses and maybe lose another one or two, however it needed to be accommodated. But, again, this is not addressed in the staff report and we haven't had the time in order to discuss this. However, staff and the applicant and the applicant's engineer and ACHD and the neighborhood have spent a lot of time on this in the past few weeks. At that I believe the applicant has quite an extensive presentation. Hang on one second. Canning: Just -- I wanted to make one thing clear, that the reason the applicant has provided a hand drawn drawing is I met with him at 4:30. It wasn't his fault. We had a hard time coming up with a good time to meet. We finally did get together this afternoon. I did recommend he lose four lots there. The intent was to take every third lot, basically, take three lots, combine them into two, so that all those lots would share driveways, they would all -- kind of the side of each of those lots would face the road, rather than the front of them, so that there wouldn't be any backing out on there. And that's what we had discussed. He was able to do a hand drawing of a portion of that, so it wasn't what we had talked about previously, but that's why it's hand drawn. It wasn't the applicant's fault that it's at the last moment, it was as much my fault, but that is what the idea had been. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: Questions of staff? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Well, nothing of staff, no. I guess the concern I have here is is that at the -- at our last hearing one of the main things that we did come away with that we did want to see that they were going to reduce some lots of this area and I'm a little bit surprised that the plan that we have got here is really not showing any reduction. I'm glad to hear that it looks like that they are willing to do that. I'm a little surprised it wasn't done before this meeting tonight, so, although -- you say they have got a presentation they want to do, I can anticipate that we are not going to get very far tonight in approval of this, because I'm going to want to see what they have done and having said that I will be quiet. Zaremba: I would comment that I like the idea of the shared driveways and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 21 of 90 Moe: Very much so. Zaremba: -- I actually would envision that for the whole length of this 900 foot section, because it would cut the number of driveways in half, and as the director said, it may mean widening a few of the lots and losing one or two more, but I agree with Commissioner Mae, our take away from the last meeting was that there needed to be fewer lots along this -- and that was a separate issue from the shape of the street. So, I'm proposing the applicant to come forward and, then, as we already learned, we do have Ross Oyen here from ACHD, Ada County Highway District. . After the applicant has completed, he will be the next speaker to discuss what went into the traffic calming ideas here and, then, we will go on with other public. So, let's begin with the applicant, please. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As staff did state, we -- at the last meeting we were -- director -- oh, Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street, Eagle. Sorry. So excited to get up here and -- as you directed us to, you told us to go back, work with the neighbors, have another neighborhood meeting, look at the options of trying to make this strip pleasing to traffic calming to the neighbors, to the developer. It's taken us quite a lot of time to do that. We have had to meet with the fire district, we looked at the options of cul-de-sacing both sides, as was suggested by one of the Commissioners. That was not really supported by ACHD or your staff, but we did look at that. We didn't have that information at the last meeting. We have also met with the fire department to find out what they would accept with chokers, with islands, with chicanes, to provide emergency service for the subdivision. And, then, we have met many times with ACHD, many different designs back and forth with staff and, finally, had a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday night to show the results of all the work to the neighbors. We had 27 people show up at the neighborhood meeting. The consensus was that we had done -- we were told we had done a pretty job of trying to address those. We did not in that design -- and that's the planning out in front of you and we did submit that I think last week to staff. Did not show any reduction in lots. We thought that we had done a good job at calming that traffic and without having to lose lots. Now, I know that a couple of you did mention reduction in density. Mr. Campbell is here and he'd like to get up after I'm done and kind of explain to you, again, what -- or I guess explain to you for the first time what the product is going to be on that strip, because I think it's very important for you to understand what he's put in there. Now, with regard to what happened today -- and we did have a couple days where we couldn't get with staff and try to get this resolved -- a result which Ross, my engineer, sketched out in the lobby a couple minutes ago, was a reflection of your staff's desire to not have the backing out into the traffic of those houses and we thought it was appropriate to try that where that chicane was, because that's, really, the part of the strip that is abnormal from the rest of a normal street, because of those zigzags and the landscaping there at that. So, that little sketch that Joe showed up there to you showed the reduction of two lots, the shared driveway of -- is it four or six? Four lots with shared driveways with those side entry garages. So, the lots that are along that chicane would not be backing up into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 22 of 90 traffic where that road does narrow down to try to get you to slow down and the traffic calming. Zaremba: Essentially, they would be able to come out of the driveway forward. Nickel: Exactly. Exactly. The rest of -- the straight part of the subdivision we feel is still appropriate, because it's still in -- as I spoke at the last meeting, it's still a standard width roadway. We are only asking for the reduction in the right of way, but the roadway itself is still a 36-foot roadway, so we still feel that it's appropriate for these houses in the straight section to be able to back out into traffic in the normal fashion that any other local street would. So, that's kind of where we are at right now. This did come up the last minute and we were trying to -- we are trying to get it worked out. So, that's all I have to say. We can answer some questions and, then, I would like Bond Campbell to get up here and kind of explain to you the intent of those houses. I think -- we showed those to the neighbors on Tuesday night and I think that satisfied a lot more than we expected, because we didn't really have a good presentation at the last meeting on what those houses were going to be and there was some concerns about rentals and different things. Safety was a concern. So, I'd like Bond to explain to you a little bit more. Stand for your questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Borup: So, is this sketch the proposed new lot count or is this still open for new designs? Nickel: This is what we are proposing at this time. Borup: There is 11 lots, instead of 16? That much of a reduction? Nickel: There was 14 lots along that strip originally -- or at the last meeting. It would be reduced down to 12, with shared driveways on the lots that -- so a total of 12 in that strip. Borup: Oh, one was off the -- Nickel: And as staff stated, the -- eight of the lots would be widened from 55 to 60 feet, so there would be a total of 4,800 square feet and, then, four lots with the shared accesses would be 72 foot wide, 5,700 square feet. Zaremba: Okay. I'll turn it over to -- let's have your other cohorts speak next. This is within your 15 minutes. Erickson: Ross Erickson, 1854 Frenetic in Meridian. I just have a few things to add to what Shawn has already stated. A few of the changes that were made is we actually widened the roadway from how it was proposed originally to P&Z. The original proposal was 32 feet back to back of curb and the new design has it at 34 to back of back of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 23 of 90 curb. And, basically, what that allows us to do is have parking on both sides of the street. The previous submittal only permitted parking on one side and with the addition of the chicane, there is a couple hundred feet that will be signed no parking. So, I think that was important to clarify that we did widen the streets, so there will be parking on the other side of the street from what we had shown in the original submittal. Like Shawn stated, we worked with the neighbors and ACHD and Meridian to try to come up with the best fit for a traffic-calming device on this stretch. Looked at a lot of alternatives from the cul-de-sacs to chicanes to different configurations of chicanes to you name it and I think everyone feels pretty comfortable. I'm not trying to speak for anybody, but it feels pretty comfortable. This is probably one of the better fits to calm the traffic along the stretch. We met with Joe Silva with the fire department and on your plan you see a stamp that he's approved for access. So, at this point I don't really think there is any issues with the chicane, other than what Anna had brought up today regarding the safety for the lots that front the chicane and with those vehicles backing out into the narrow pavement section, the chicane could be a safety risk. So, that's kind of how this sketch originated. We figured that if we could side load the garages on the lots that front the chicane, that's -- you know, that would allow traffic to actually face the drive when they are coming out and give them a little bit more visibility when they are accessing the road. And, then, with the two lots that we lost, the other lots increased in size by five feet and so. Overall the density has gone down a lot on this stretch. So, I guess I'll stand for any questions anyone has. Zaremba: Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. I would now ask Mr. Oyen, Ross Oyen, to come forward. He is from ACHD and I don't want to put you on the spot to either be in favor or against this project as a whole, but if you are prepared to enlighten us a little bit about the validity of chicanes and I guess the previous suggestion was a choker, whether you think this is better than chokers and I'll turn it over to you, sir. Oyen: Thank you, sir. Commissioners. Ross Oyen, Ada County Highway District. I think with regard to chicanes in the context of this development, it would appear that they are a pretty reasonable approach from a technical standpoint and, actually, Mr. Martin from the highway district is also here and so maybe he will jump in if I misspeak, but the curve radius through the chicanes is on the order of 100 feet and that equates to something like a 20 mile per hour design speed with the straight stretches of the roadway likely being posted at 25 miles per hour, we'd get a nice, but modest reduction in speed, which is kind of an appropriate thing for traffic measures. And so I think, technically, it satisfies. The literature that's out there on traffic calming devices would indicate to us that there is a little bit of benefit that attaches to the chicanes in terms of speed reduction that you don't necessarily see with chokers and so that is kind of the principal advantage. The other thing I would note, just by way of contrast, is I have in front of me some information from the municipality Anchorage, Alaska, and their indication is that community acceptance tends to be a little bit higher with chokers than with chicanes. That's a very contextual sort of a matter and certainly in terms of retrofits; I would expect that to be true, because you tend to lose more parking with chicanes in retrofit situations than you do with chokers. Choker tend to be applied more often, actually, at intersections, though they certainly are a valid mid block application Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 24 of 90 as well. So, I think with that I've probably overdone it and I'll just stand for questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Thank you. I appreciate your being here and that is enlightening. Commissioners, do you have questions? Borup: I don't think I had any questions, maybe just clarification. The letter from Christy Richardson makes it very clear that ACHD does not approve and was not in favor at all of making a non-through street. So, I don't know if there is anything you want to add. Oyen: It's been considered and I think I would just affirm that that's the position of the highway district at this point. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you very much. I appreciate your time coming out on this late evening. Okay. We are ready for public testimony and I will go through the list, but let me begin by asking if there is a spokesman for any of the groups around. I see one hand raised. Sir, if you would come forward and identify yourself. Putnam: My name is Hal Putnam. I live at 3454 Curt Drive. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, we did meet with Weaver Acres, the neighbor. Did meet with the developer and the designers on Tuesday. And the general consensus of the group that if the property is to be developed at all and if this is something to be something other than a collector road and we are going to have traffic there and homes built along there, that this is probably the best solution. The presentation that was made by the builder Bond, in regards to the type of homes that were going to be built, in addition, calmed a lot of our concerns with their value and with the type. Our earlier concerns is that they would be attached, for lack of a better word, duplexes, although they are called patio homes now, it's still a duplex that that area or that strip would become homes of transitional type, which we had some real concerns as to what it might do to the property value that we currently experience and the other concerns that come with transitional homes. I guess I better put my glasses on, so I can see what I'm doing. There isn't much representation here from Weaver Acres, so hope they still want me to be their spokesman. I had one person say they agreed with me. As I indicated, what is being presented is the best solution, again, if it's going to be developed. We still have a concern that the proper study has not been done in regards to determine whether that is going to become a collector road. We were all firm in our belief that it will be a collector road, that it will probably, in a very short period of time, once the road is put in, exceed, I believe, the 2,000 daily trip limit that makes it a collector road. I think even now we could easily determine that there is at least 16 or 17 hundred trips that are going to Occur at ten trips per home and that's without doing any kind of a survey of Heritage -- the other two subdivisions that will make access to that. Would like to, just as a matter of clarification on Item No. 11, the request still talks about single-family attached dwellings. We want them -- we would like to know if the builder and the developer have changed that application to eliminate those duplexes, because that is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 25 of gO big issue. I don't know if Mr. Campbell is going to get up and show you the type of homes that he plans on building, but if he holds true to his promise to us and his guarantee to hang onto this property and develop it the way he envisions, it will be a very nice addition to the City of Meridian, those type of homes, we would -- if it's got to be developed, this is the way that we would like to see it be developed. We would still like to address -- and I don't know if we can at this point -- the connection of -- pull up the Weaver Acre kind of thing, please. And we raised this issue with the Ada County Highway District. That road's going to run along here and, then, there is going to be a cutting to Curt Drive right here through this piece of property. And Holly -- I guess it's Hollybrook Road, will continue on to Curt Drive. We still can't -- we can't see the reasoning for that connectivity to Curt Drive. ACHD has indicated -- staff has indicated that it's for future growth. It's for anybody who lives in Weaver Acres who may want to go up there and visit somebody in Sundance and not having to go out to the main arterials. It's our understanding that the fire department doesn't have a real big issue with it. Could be mistake there. But it's not a real big issue. And on the plat that's been presented, we would, again, request that maybe this cut to Curt Drive be cut off. In fact, ACHD said that we could come in as a subdivision, Weaver Acres, at a future point and have this blocked off here. So, connectivity doesn't seem to be a real big concern if they would let us do that. So, I would like to have that reconsidered. We do appreciate the fact that the developer did take the time to meet with the neighborhood and just to reaffirm what I have already said, if the development has to go forward, we would like to have it done the way the developer presented to us. We did not see the elimination of the two lots. I don't believe that changes the issue that much and I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Putnam? Newton-Huckabay: No question, only want to comment that I don't believe that there will be any recommendations on that cut to Curt Drive. I think we agreed at the last meeting that -- I, myself, personally would like to see Curt Drive at Ustick, but -- you said blocked off? Putnam: Blocked off. Newton-Huckabay: And with the idea in the future, if possible, a light at Arrowwood Way. I don't know -- Putnam: Well, there will be the connection to Arrowwood, but we agree, we'd like to see the traffic that would come into that particular subdivision not be allowed to come into the subdivision. 50-- Zaremba: It would be my assumption that most of the people -- I agree with your observation that whether it's called a collection or not, this new street is going to function as a collector. Putnam: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 26 of 90 Zaremba: And I don't see that it would be that useful for people to cut that little corner around Curt. I think most people, Curt -- I think most people will use the new street, but if your street -- if Curt were cul-de-sac'd at the south end at some time, then, ACHD probably would consider even a signal at this new street and that, I think, would benefit everybody, possibly. Certainly make left turns out of there easier than they would be at the moment. So, I think in our previous discussion we didn't support the elimination of that little cross-connector. But we certainly appreciate your other comments and appreciate your comment. Putnam: Well, just to point out an observation of many neighbors that lived -- that have -- what was pointed out to me in -- sorry to contradict you, in regards to people taking that cut, this subdivision right in here, which is now developed, okay, you will see this little road that comes in here with the connection that comes into the Arrowwood Subdivision, they need to post a police officer out there, because as people down Ustick Drive -- or Ustick Road at 40 miles an hour and they get about right there and traffic is starting to back up at this four way stop, I have seen on numerous occasions people take that, not going to this subdivision that's there now, but to go on into Arrowwood almost on two wheels on a regular basis. So, the contention is that people come down here and get to this four way stop -- or as traffic builds up and it gets back to this point, they are going to be making this cut like that at very high speeds. Zaremba: Well, I do see the possibility. Putnam: Anything's possible. Again, just read from what I said, if the development has to go forward, we have looked at the cul-de-sacs, we are somewhat convinced that because of the turning ratio and the radius that the fire trucks need, so forth, that the cul-de-sacs don't work. We like the idea that was presented, as long as the developer and the builder, Mr. Campbell, holds to his promise and guarantee that those will be very upscale homes on -- very well done. They will be two story, but they will be nice homes, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, sir. I will now proceed down the -- was there anybody else who was a representative of the other neighborhoods? Okay. I assume that everybody else is speaking individually. If Mr. Putnam spoke for you, would you just wave your hand and we will -- when I call your name, if you were signed up. And let's go with Florence Whittaker. Whittaker: Good evening. My name is Florence Whittaker. I live at 3378 North Weston in the Sundance Community. At this point I feel I'm the reason for the last minute changes, because this afternoon Ross, the engineer, came by my house with this plat with our subdivision included on the site so we could see where our houses fell amongst these other houses that they plan on building and I mentioned to him about how are these cars supposed to back out into this 20-foot calming area and I made note of how big a vehicle was and I also made note of like how big a bus was and how long a vehicle is when it does back out and I feel at this point that I am the reason for those Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 27 of gO last minute changes and I have some photos here that I'd like to submit of this strip of land in the back of what it looks like from my house. You all can see for yourself. Zaremba: Start those with the clerk, if you would, please. Thank you. Whittaker: I feel that this strip of land, which has been a constant battle for the last couple of months, is too small to put all this congestion in and we are talking now two story homes, a 44 foot street that now is going to a 20 foot street -- all these other streets up in these communities are all 50 feet wide. I don't understand how you can have this amount of traffic cutting through all these communities, cutting through this narrow strip of land to hook up to Ustick, it just seems like it's just way too much for this small area. I'm very concerned about the safety of the children, the amount of traffic, the congestion, these homes built on top of our fence -- literally on top of our fences. These pieces of property are only going to be 55, 80 feet wide and now all of a sudden we are going to change with houses are going to be on bigger pieces of property and it's too narrow for all this. Way too narrow. I'm sorry. If you would like to show the pictures, I would really like you to see what the -- Zaremba: We are passing them around. Whittaker: That's a view from my house and also from my back fence. It's just an awful lot of stuff to try to cram into this little space. Zaremba: Your fence is the wooden fence -- Whittaker: Yes. Zaremba: -- and you're indicating the distance is to the chain link fence. Whittaker: Yes. Where are children going to play on this -- you know, if they ride their bikes where are they going to -- what happens if someone parks in the street? I mentioned that also. Are these people allowed to have visitors? That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Letha Quinn. And I'd like to thank everybody who printed. I can get the names this time. I appreciate that. Quinn: Thank you. My name is Letha Quinn. I live at 456 East Patagonia in also the Sundance Community. And, honestly, I have to tell you that we are at a little bit at a loss here, because -- I mean we have heard about the discussions with the neighborhoods. We were notified of the neighborhood meeting only just a few days before Tuesday. At that point we -- I was unable to go, but we did send representatives from our subdivision that went. They came back with a plan that you see here. This one. And as we look at that plan, of course, we are disturbed, because it doesn't look like any changes really significantly have been made. But two lots were lost, but the reality of the issues that we discussed at the last meeting were still not addressed. It's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 28 of gO still a collector road, it functions as that, and we have only reduced it by two house sizes. So, this new information that they have given with the -- it's called a chicane, is new to us. I think it's a good start towards something, but at this point I think it's just not going to be enough. The reality is if you look at that piece of land -- when the developer bought that piece of land, he had to have recognized that it's just an unusual shape and to me it is unreasonable to actually even think about developing that area. The reality is it's a collector road, it will function as that, it should function as a developed area. I am the house right -- it's next to Mrs. Whittaker just at the bottom -- if I can figure out how to use this. Right in there. And so I got this whole -- the whole road there. I understand when the highway department was talking about technically certain setbacks would work. I just really wonder about the practicality of it. I think the chicanes start to work towards the practicality of it as far as not having cars back out, but I would think every house not just those four houses that they have proposed in that one chicane area, I don't have that -- but all the houses along that road, if there is like -- if they are going to be developed, which I actually believe there shouldn't be a development, other than a road put there -- all the houses should be able to face forward, drive out, and there will be places to park along there. Otherwise, we are just going to have a real issue with traffic safety concerns. Let's see. I am concerned about the fact that there seemed to have an apparent discussion that took place with the Weaver community, but it really didn't take place with the Sundance community. So, just to let you know. Any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Thank you very much. Quinn: Thank you. Zaremba: Sally Alexander. Alexander: My name is Sally Alexander. I live at 3360 North Weston Avenue, also in the Sundance Subdivision, which everybody before me mentioned a lot of the same concerns that I have. One concern that I have as well is with the traffic that's going to back up on this road is the air quality and I do child care in my home and the kids are going to be in the backyard and there is going to be backed up traffic and I'm not going to want the kids out there breathing all that exhaust in the backed up traffic. I just -- I can't imagine how much traffic it's going to get. I mean I sit there on Ustick just trying to get into the entrance to our subdivision for astronomical amounts of time sometimes and everybody who is trying to get into any of those areas is going to cut through there. And I think it needs to be a wider road, if there is going to be a road there, without a bunch of houses crowding it. That's what I have to say. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Linda Roberts. Oh. Okay. Mr. Putnam spoke for you. Thank you very much. Ron Roberts. Okay. Mr. Putnam spoke for you and you agree with what he said. Okay. Thank you. Tony Cook. Pierce: Tony Pierce, 33842 North Weston and definitely agree with the ladies here. Point out a couple things. We are taking on the term collector and if we break it down, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 29 of 90 we have all these houses up here in the future development; it's a collector in my opinion. And also as we are adding houses here, if we subdivide these lots, you're going to have additional traffic backing into here this way. So, that's a future consideration also. So, it just seems like we are putting too much into too narrow of an area. So, thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Jody Turk. Okay. She has been spoken for. Let's see. I missed Kathy Sherman. Sherman: Kathy Sherman, 3458 Weston Way in the Sundance development. I'm just wondering what kind of standards we are setting for Meridian if we are allowing -- this has, obviously, been thrown around as a collector street. It falls under the definition of a collector street. I don't see why you should let houses on the collector street if that's, technically, what it is, with all the traffic. And my other concern, too, is Ustick. I mean the plans are to be widened, but when? By ten years? I mean we already cannot get into our subdivision as is. So, my main concern is like the ladies had said is if it is a collector street, then, it should be served. There should be no exception to the rules. It should stay consistent and we shouldn't want City of Meridian to be just -- you know, because they are already asked for reduces in lot sizes, you know, why should we allow houses to be shoved anywhere? All it's gong to do is create more traffic. So, if you have any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Thanks. Last one signed up is Joe -- starts with an S. It may be Joe Sly. Is there somebody with a name similar to that? Shole: Joe Shole, 3476 North Weston in the Sundance. My -- at the last meeting there weren't a lot of representatives from Sundance and I think the reason -- it was probably an accident we got a letter mailed to us without a date, so when I got back into town on Monday we realized there is a meeting Tuesday, and I just want to clarify that. Other than that, I agree with what's been said. That's about it. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. That's everybody who signed up. Is there anybody who didn't sign up who has thought of something that you must add? Sir, come forward and state your name, please. Funkhouser: My name is Shawn Funkhouser. I do live at 3644 North Pistato, but I am also a representative of Bond Campbell. I am helping him with some of the marketing of the area and everything else. I agree -- as you were throwing around the thing of it being a collector street, with the serpentine road going through, though, it's not going through all the way into the subdivision. So, as far as it really being a collector street, it's putting traffic into the actual subdivision of Sundance. I don't see how that would be -- present a problem with Ustick. Additionally, it can be backed up, but that's going to happen anyways, because that piece of land is going to be developed, whether it be houses, whether it be an apartment complex, whether it be a shopping mall, it's going to be developed. I think it would help the property, the value of Meridian, and the community as a whole, to have the development that Bond Campbell likes to do, does Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 30 of gO do, and does well. His homes bring value to a subdivision, as well as to the subdivisions that are around the area. I have nothing else to really add to that, except the fact that I do believe in this product and I do believe that he builds a good home, he builds a nice home, and he does increase the value of properties in neighborhoods in the area. And that's alii can say. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there has been quite a bit of testimony about the product types, but just so the record's clear, we have not seen any yet. You have been asked if we could. I just want to make sure, because someone reading the minutes ten years from now, that we haven't seen anything yet. Zaremba: Okay. I don't know if you have anything to show, but it's the opportunity for Mr. Nickel to come back up and -- Campbell: Hello, Commissioner, Members of the Commission. Bond Campbell, 2948 South Mal, Bear Creek Subdivision. I do have some product to show. I have put together a nice presentation of what that product will be along that strip, since that strip seems to be the huge bone of contention, so I think that the other night, Tuesday night, at the neighborhood meeting, which the folks at Sundance were all invited, and some of them did show up -- some of them that are here tonight did show up. I felt like we did a really good job of calming the fears of the neighbors of Weaver Acres at least and I think you can see that tonight by the fact that all of them that were here last time are not here tonight. So, I think what I should do is go through this with you as I went through this with them and you can see for yourselves what the product will be. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before he proceeds -- Zaremba: I would make a comment and I believe this is what Mr. Nary is going to say. This should have been presented at the original 15 minutes to give the public time to respond to it. The period now is for responding to what the public brought up. Borup: I think Mr. Nickels said that that would be in -- and you went onto the public testimony before they had a chance. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I'm sorry. I -- Mr. Nary. Nary: The other issue, though, is my recollection at the start of this hearing you indicated the only reason this matter was set over was for the roadway. Not for the design, not for the houses, not for the other information that now this appears to want to address. So, if you set it over for one purpose, if you want to reopen the Public Hearing, I think you are going to have to rehear at least if anyone else has any other information, but you did only continue this Public Hearing for one purpose. If it's going Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 31 of gO to relate to your roadway discussion -- if you think that it's going to relate to your roadway discussion, but that was alii believe you said at the outset of this hearing was this was only regards to the roadway. So, if this is only regarding the roadway, then, that may be relevant, but it sounded to me like before Mr. Campbell started this was a general presentation on the project of the buildings and -- Campbell: But I think it does speak to the roadway very specifically, because the product -- because of the specific-ness of the product and the elements of the roadway in this narrow strip. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: If you can make that connection, I would be interested. Campbell: I can definitely make that connection. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: That's exactly what I have been waiting to hear. I do want to understand what the product is, so that I can -- Campbell: And I would also like to clarify -- Moe: -- a lot to do with the roadway. Campbell: I would also like to clarify that this has not been before in the past, because we did not know what we were going to end up with here for lots. Zaremba: And there has been -- Campbell: I'm finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel enough to have a vision to give to the staff based on this back and forth, the chicanes and curves in the roads and the islands and all the previous discussion, I've tried to -- and I have spelled that out for the neighborhood was how can I design something for what I don't know what I'm going to end up with, so -- Zaremba: So that we don't lose all procedure, as it relates to the roadway and if you can make the connection, please do, but we will have you proceed, but I do think to be fair, before we have Mr. Nickel do the final conclusion, I will ask the audience, even if they have spoken, to maybe have another minute. Campbell: Well, also, I would add to that that the neighborhood again was invited to this presentation. So, I think they have seen this. But those that chose to show up have seen this. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 32 of 90 Campbell: And would have -- and this was mentioned tonight in Mr. Putnam's remarks. Zaremba: Please proceed. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Maybe -- so pursuant to what Mr. Nary said, if we just -- it might be appropriate to maybe skip some of the preliminaries and go to the design and, then, that would apply directly to the roadway, would be consistent with -- Zaremba: Thank you. Campbell: Then, we are going to want to skip forward here, because the first part of this presentation is, essentially, means to layout how to get my ability to demonstrate the value and the quality of this project. So, if we just fast-forward through this portion until we get to the actual vision for the type of product on that narrow strip. Guenther: This is working as fast as this computer will let it. Campbell: Okay. These are large photograph files and I think that it does tend to slow it down a little bit. Four more slides to go here. Okay. This is -- this is the site right here. This is the narrow strip. Those old houses -- oh, back up, Joe. Those are the houses along the fence line in Sundance. That is the fence that represents the border between the narrow strip and the homes in Weaver Acres. The roadway would go right through here. Another photographs depicting the Weaver Acres side. The Sundance side. The Weaver Acres side. More of the narrow strip. Okay. This is the chicane that we are looking at, the strip. One more, Joe. Okay. This is a visual representation of one of the homes along that narrow strip. Another here. A two story. Unfortunately, these pictures are pretty dark. Okay. One more, Joe. And, then, stop there for a second, please. This is one of the floor plans. You can see -- kind of hard to read here, but this house would -- the dimensions of this home are 35 feet wide by 51 feet deep. It's 2,400 square feet and fits easily on those lots. The value of this home will be in the neighborhood of 300,000 dollars. This is another one that is 30 or 40 feet wide by 46 foot deep, Again, easily fits on those lots. And this one is 30 -- I think that's an eight. Thirty-eight by thirty-nine is the overall dimensions. Sixteen hundred square feet. Two hundred and thirty thousand for 1,644 square feet. To wrap it up -- let's go back, Joe. We went through that about ten times faster than I went through it with the homeowners, but I think -- and it may have been hard for you to get an actual vision what that street is going to look like, but I would like to point out that, obviously, is a creative strip and it's going to take a creative mind to develop it and make it look appropriate. I think that what I got through to the neighbors was that the site limitations create an opportunity. I kept these lots, when I sold all the rest. I think that says something about these particular lots. My vision for this strip is that it's going to be very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 33 of 90 appealing, not because of its narrowness, but because it's going to be unique, it's going to have an old world row house, that chicane is going to create a canopy that goes clear cross the roadway, similar to a Harrison Boulevard, to a Warm Springs Avenue. Those houses are going to have front elevations that are going to go along those lines. Those homes being at 300,000 dollars for that square footage are going to fall into a category of an upper end buyer, not a lower end buyer. They are going to allow people to have -- this is key -- a lower maintenance and energy savings in a smaller package, but at an upgraded finish. So, the person that wants the granite and wants the wolf package and wants the things that I put in my homes, can now afford it, because this will be the first time I have built something under 800,000 dollars in three years, but it will have those same elements in it. So, hopefully, that dispels the myth that these homes are going to end up being flipped through and transients living in them, as was stated in our last P&z meeting. So, that goes directly to the street and the narrowness of the street and the amount of parking along the street. If you're going to effectively create that row house, you're going to effectively create that road with trees growing canopy clear across, you're going to have to have the houses closer together. If I take these 14 lots and I change it to ten and I make them 70 feet wide, instead of 55 feet wide, now instead of having a row house look, it's going to have a small house with 30 feet between it to the next house and I think you have completely taken away that design element, because I can't go any deeper, so I can't make them -- I can't make wide, shallow houses two story and give them a row look if I can't keep the number of lots. I do agree with Anna that we shouldn't probably try to back cars into the chicane. That's why I had Ross draw a plan that showed those chicane lots being shared driveways, with the row house look on either end to anchor it in. At this point I think I would just take questions. I don't know if I have missed anything. I'm sure I have, but, hopefully, I have clarified what the product will be and the value and the nicety of -- one thing I did leave out for those homes was those houses are going to have a security and a privacy feel that your average single family home on a large residential lot won't have. And if you look at new construction in Eagle right now, row houses down Paddy Row, Alderwood Subdivision, Roth is doing a lot of them. They have a privacy, they have a feel of security, and I think that's the market that I want to approach with this product. So, I would like to entertain questions prior to you guys commencing on your back and forth, because I know after the last meeting there was a lot of things that went in your back and forth that I felt like I could have been involved in that discussion and, obviously, it doesn't work that way. So, please, ask all the questions that you think might come up in your back and forth. Zaremba: Thank you. Pictures certainly help. Commissioners, questions? Borup: I think the only question I have is some clarification and that's on Mr. Putnam's comment on attached housing and I don't know -- was that in the original application? I looked back through mine and I missed it, but -- Campbell: Mr. Borup, it was -- it was discussed in the original application for an attached patio style home and this is a modification to that original application. The single family detached row house; there is a modification from that original application. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1. 2005 Page 34 of 90 Borup: Earlier in the presentation you said attached and detached. Campbell: We are definitely now shooting for detached and I did make a promise to Mr. Putnam that I would build the quality that I demonstrated in this presentation and as I expressed to him that I'm keeping these lots and I'm building these lots and I'm not selling these lots. That is still my contention and I would stand by that. Borup: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just kind of going back through the information from last time, I am kind of curious, because you are looking to do a PD on those lots; is that correct? Campbell: We are asking to be able to put them -- Moe: What were the amenities on the two outside lots going to be? I can't seem to find the landscape drawing to recognize that. Campbell: We intend on having, obviously, a lot of landscaping in those common areas, as well as a pathway that winds through the common area. I don't feel that this neighborhood is a tot lot neighborhood or some of the other amenities that are, essentially, laid out to me through the PD development. I can envision more places to stop and sit under a tree and have a picnic. So, a pathway with some areas to stop and just enjoy that area would be my contention for those, especially with the -- I feel that these homes will be sold to people probably 40 and up through this narrow strip. Moe: I'm not sure you really told me exactly what -- I kind of wanted to know the amenities themselves. Campbell: This area and this area would have a walkway pathway that winds through them, with areas to stop -- like possibly under a gazebo or under a tree with a concreted area or a pavered area where there would be a table. Moe: So, there would be a gazebo, then? Campbell: Well, you know, we have a landscape design. I don't know if the staff has a landscape design, but I did ask the landscape architect to incorporate a gazebo into one of these two common areas. Whether or not she has it drawn in the current landscape design or not, I do not know. Zaremba: I would comment for the audience that the depiction that is being projected is from an older landscape plan and this is before the roadway and the houses were Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 35 of 90 reversed and this is not what we are making our decision on, we are just discussing landscape stuff, which is on this drawing. Campbell: Also would add to that, because we added islands and because we added the chicane, when we did that, we added addition landscaping -- actually, quite a bit of additional landscaping, because now the islands will be landscaped and that chicane is taking -- all of that that we lose in the roadway by going from 34 or 36 feet to 20 feet, become, essentially, landscaping. And that's how you created that canopy of trees in the chicane that grows up and over and makes that canopy on that section of road, which is a pretty substantial section of road through that middle section. So, I would almost consider that myself, personally as the developer, as an amenity. But if you would like me to say tonight that I will put a gazebo in one of those two ends, I certainly will, because that was my intention from the beginning. If that answers your question. Moe: Somewhat. Basically, just, again, like the last hearing, my biggest concern is the lot sizes there for an R-8 are requiring some, you know, planned development, you know, amenities in there and that's what I just want to verify what we have got. I'm still very concerned about the size of lots. I understand what you're speak to with the design of the home and why you to keep it in that range. If, in fact, I'm going to look at that, I also want to know the amenities that the city is going to be able to see what within the rest of that planned development area. Campbell: Sure. And on that note, again, I would like to just go back to -- Moe: And just one other -- I'm not the one that wants to tell you what to put there, I just -- you need to let us know what you're proposing to do. Campbell: Right. And, hopefully, my vision of those homes and being an older crowd and the security and the privacy element, lends itself to private pathways, walkways, whatever you want to call them, through those -- rather than just a big grass swale. I don't envision a big grass swale. I envision dramatically more landscaping than you have seen in all the other city swales and a pathway that actually meanders through there and doesn't just -- not just a concrete strip that meanders through there, but landscaping along the strip with a place to stop and enjoy an afternoon picnic. That's, to me, a more usable amenity than a -- I don't know, a basketball court in the bottom one, when the houses around it are four and five and up and the average person that lives in there is say 45 to 50 years old. Mae: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I think my remaining concern you addressed, but I'm still not quite sure on your side on it. I feel along that whole length -- the whole 900 foot or so length that is our major concern tonight, particularly now that we know there is parking on both sides of the street, to have cars back out of driveways between parked cars into a roadway is very uncomfortable to me. Director Canning mentioned to me earlier that two houses sharing a common driveway and, therefore, having a potential of driving out of their Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 36 of 90 driveway forward, she said that was an idea that seemed to be coming. That is attractive to me along the whole length. For one, it makes half the number of driveways. And, two, it gets people driving out forward when they are going to have to come out between the cars and -- between parked cars and enter this roadway and even along the whole length of this to accomplish that you probably would only have to lose one more lot and my question to you is that impossible, if we made that a requirement? Campbell: I don't see the value -- I'm sorry, but I don't see the value of losing lots, because the vision is for row houses close together, security, privacy -- we can accomplish that with shared driveways, if that's a requirement. Zaremba: Well, let me ask that way. Could you do shared driveways without increasing the width of the -- except where the chicane is. I think you have done what needs to be done there. But on the other portions of it, north and south of it, could you do shared driveways without widening each lot? Campbell: I certainly think we could. Zaremba: Would you be willing to have that a -- Campbell: I would be willing to look at it with my engineer and find out if we can accomplish both things, because it's still important to me to accomplish that look, as well as provide the security that we are not backing out onto that roadway. Zaremba: Pictures speak volumes. I appreciate that. But it does appear that's going to be a very nice product and, I agree, I don't want to really mess with that, because I see you have a vision and the vision that you're presenting is attractive to me as well. I just am scared about having cars back out into this roadway and if there is shared driveways into the same lot width, I don't-- Campbell: I think the focus is more the concern of people being able to drive forward onto the roadway versus trying to make these lots 150 feet wide and plopping a 30 foot wide house in the middle of it. I think we can accomplish that. Zaremba: Okay. That makes me happier. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions. I just want to comment -- I know I was one of the voices definitely not in favor of this development. Or this section of it. I still -- I have to agree with most of the public, I think it's a very awkward piece of land, but knowing that it's going to be developed, I have been thinking what is it going to look -- you know, what will look nice. I agree with you, your plan for row houses, there seems to be a demand for that in the valley, people like that, it looks nice. I like the chicane idea much better than I liked the traffic pincher idea and I think for the most part I think I'm fundamentally in favor of the changes compared to what we had before. Ultimately, I would prefer not to see this strip of property develop until the Weaver Acre property is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 37 of 90 redeveloped at some point, but, you know, I wanted -- you don't get what you want, so -- but I -- to agree with Mr. Putnam, if it's going to develop, I think you have a good plan and I like the change in the roadway and -- but also I would have liked to have seen a landscape plan tonight and so future -- Campbell: I think if we could get to where we are going, we could certainly focus on the landscape plan and make that a part of our City Council meeting. I'm sorry that you couldn't be involved it, but I'm still not certain that we are at where we are headed with these lots and that makes it difficult for me to -- I'm on my fifth or sixth or seventh, I don't know, design here. And so I hate to get too involved in the further elements, other than preliminary, until we can discuss or get to a point where we are actually talking about what we are going to end up with and that is -- the only reason why I would say that landscape could come next, if we could -- if we could get to the point where we agree on the chicane, because even the chicane is a huge landscape element. Newton-Huckabay: Well, my -- so my only comment is I -- is this -- as this change goes I'm in favor of this change to get this development moving, if it's going to -- and I think -- and I think that it will -- I think traffic will be slowed down substantially through there with the chicane and, then, the fact that it's right in the middle, so we have got, essentially, 300 feet on each side of it. Campbell: I would like to comment that I think it's even hard to look at that two dimensional plan and envision how much that will impact the way that strip feels, because as it's been pointed out to me, when you stand at one end or the other of that chicane and you look down it, you will see about a four foot strip of asphalt. Other than that, you will see trees on both sides. And I don't see people driving up to that chicane at any rate of speed, when all they can see is a four foot strip and I would honestly believe that if another car is coming, that individual is almost probably going to feel like they are going to have to stop and let that car come through before they go through. So, I'm definitely in favor of that, because I do think it will slow that traffic dramatically on that strip and as a developer and holder of those pieces and marketer of that product, I want to see that strip be a slow driven strip. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just to follow up on something you said -- or Commissioner Moe. I can't remember now. It's getting late already. The Commission may want to consider asking to see -- or having the applicant at least provide Council with footprints of how these would fit on that, including the garages and how folks would take front access. Shared drives aren't enough, it's important that they have side access garages and move along with the shared driveway. So, that may be something the Commission may want to ask for. Because these are small lots and not much wiggle room, it would be important to see that it does work. Zaremba: Okay. I think along those lines, now that I'm looking at the hand wrought depiction, what was originally more lots, if that is now 12 lots, if you're saying you can work it out so that's six driveways -- in other words, Lots 1 and 2 would share a driveway. Three and four would share a driveway. Five and six you're already showing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 38 of 90 Seven and eight you're already showing. Nine and ten would share a driveway. Eleven and twelve would share a driveway. And, then, provide renderings as Director Canning has asked. Campbell: I could concur that and I would also make comment that I wouldn't design shared driveways without side entry access. So, if we are ultimately going that direction, I would definitely have side entry garages. Zaremba: Which gets the cars coming out of the driveway forward, which is sort of what the goal is. Campbell: Sure. Newton-Huckabay: So, we can say we have gone that direction? Zaremba: That would be a requirement as far as I'm concerned. Other people feel for or against? Borup: I don't know if I'm completely against, but I don't know that it's necessary -- and we are talking four driveways difference. The other concern I would have -- and I think Mr. Campbell, I think, in his designs can handle this, but you are limiting yourself on the variety of design when they are -- every one of them there is, you know, a side entry. I mean those are really the best designs as far as the esthetics of a house, but you may be limited on the variety and, you know, some of the homes they showed us are representative of what they plan on doing, but we won't get those same effects. Zaremba: The only comment I would make to that is part of the reason for putting the roadway on the east side of this project is the thought that maybe some day the Weaver Acres people would split up their properties and there would be another row of houses taking access. I think precedent on this side of the street of only having six driveways would give us a leg up if that does develop of saying, no, you can't each have a driveway and you have got to limit it as well, so that the total roadway -- Borup: Well, I don't have a problem with a difference of one more. But -- so I think that would be, in my mind, up to the developer if that's the way he wanted to go. That would be fine. I don't know why it would be necessary. A comment earlier was made on the landscaping. The one that we do have shows -- I mean the common area and amenities in the landscaping plan shows -- you know, the landscaping trees and shrubs, pathways and park benches is what we have in the current one. And that he stated, I guess, that we are going to add a gazebo somewhere. Zaremba: All right. Thank you for your presentation. And, then, I must say in fairness, since this originally -- it was a mistake that this was not part of the original applicant's statement. Is there anybody, even if you already spoke, that cares to respond to just what was shown here? Mr. Putnam, come ahead, please. And I won't put an official time limit on it, but as brief as you can be. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 39 of 90 Putnam: I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. When this project first started, I didn't think I would be at a point where I was in support of the builder and I'm supporting what he's doing here. I agree with Commissioner Borup in that four more driveways is not going to make a difference. If you're concerned about four driveways, should be a collector road with nobody backing onto it. You know, the traffic is going to be bad enough as it is. Four driveways isn't going to make a difference. And our concern from the very beginning was -- were two issues. The traffic that was going to be established. We have come a long way in changing what the original plan was, flipping the road to the other side, putting curves at each end, the chicane -- we feel somewhat comfortable with that. And the other issue was the -- was the density, the type of homes that were going to be built, I feel confident, particularly now that we have had the builder on record that he's promised to build these kind of homes. I think we feel pretty comfortable with those. And retaining the value of our current property. And I happen to have visited with everybody that lives along that west end of Weaver Acres and they have no plans to sell off their acreage for future development. And I think Mr. and Mrs. Roberts would probably confirm that. So, if there are no questions I will conclude at this point. Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Any of the other speakers care to add something? Come ahead, sir. Funkhouser: Mr. Chairman, again, I am also marketing Ida Pro Land Management, which is -- Zaremba: Would you state your name again, please? Funkhouser: I'm sorry. Shawn Funkhouser, address 3644 North Pasada. And I am also marketing the Idaho Pro Land Management, which will be doing the landscaping for the whole subdivision, everything else, and I do know with his work and with the trees going over the serpentine road where the chinook is and everything else, it will alleviate the traffic flow and everything else, because it will give it that closed-in feeling to where you won't feel it, you can go as fast as you want to go. It will make you want to slow down, I think. I have worked with him in the past and under projects he's done. One thing -- one project I can point out that he's done here, just in Meridian, is the Lakes over there where the new Hastings is, Fairview Lakes where the new Hastings is, that was one of his developments -- one of his landscaping projects. So, as far as meeting with Bond's development, upscale look landscaping ideas, I do believe that the landscape we have also working for him would be able to meet with that safety that you're looking for as far as the serpentine or of the chinook and keep the traffic moving at a slow rate. I have nothing else to say, unless you have any other questions. Zaremba Commissioners? Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 40 of 90 Funkhouser: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other speakers care to -- okay. Pierce: I'm Jody Pierce, 3342 North Weston Avenue and I was at that meeting on Tuesday. First of all, I would like to state that the letters that were told to be sent out to let everyone know were only sent to the people who attended the last meeting and signed. We had several neighbors who attended the meeting, but their names were not on the list and they never received notification of that meeting. So, I went around and told a lot of people about tonight's meeting, so that people could be here. Additionally, there was -- at that discussion of what the landscaping was going to look like. We were told on the second end of where there was those two storm drains -- there was supposed to be a tot lot at the further end. That was never mentioned and it was specifically said tonight that it was not a playground type community. So, that's another contradiction. And another thing that was said at that meeting were several people were joking about splitting their lots in Weaver Acres and talking about what they were going to do and there was a lot of discussion about that. So, the fact that nobody was going to do that, that was mentioned just a couple speakers ago, that was discussed on Tuesday night. Not that anybody was doing it then, because it's against our association rules. But it was mentioned several times by several people that night. That's alii have to say. Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you. Quinn: My name is Letha Quinn and I guess just speaking -- listening to the meeting, I'm left a little bit confused and I think -- I feel nervous, because I have heard a lot of ideas tonight, none of which was actually seen on paper, except for this, and so I'm not sure how the whole process works, but I guess just from our perspective, it feels uncomfortable to sit and wonder, okay, we have heard there is gong to be a gazebo, there is not going to be a gazebo, there is going to be a house or what exactly is the chicane going to look like, and I have seen a lot of the developer's work and, he's right, these are beautiful homes, I don't have a question at all with the homes. But I'm concerned as what exactly, by the time this is all said and done, is actually going to be there? And so that's just my concern. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I would just comment that we share that and I believe that's what Director Canning was getting at, that I have the feeling that we may continue this again and ask for the final drawings, but I also understand the developer's -- there has been enough in flux and different opinions from our Commission, our staff, ACHD -- it costs them money to make final drawings and I understand why they haven't until now, but I'm assuming that our direction tonight will be we will continue this one more time and have the absolute final word the next time. I'm not speaking for everybody, we will get to that during our discussion, but -- anybody else from the audience? I'll start over here and we will -- Mrs. Roberts after you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 41 of 90 Shole: I just had one concern -- Zaremba: State your name again, please. Shale: Joe Shale, 3476 North Weston. I just wanted to say, like where they are talking, just see a final -- where are the garages going to be exactly on the lot, how that's going to work. But the developer brought up that these are going to be like a security home for older -- older couples -- not that old, but if they are just couples, why would they want a 2,400 square foot house? I mean you can fit a smaller house on that lot, if that's the direction that they want to present it to with security and somewhat older couples, whatever. But just something I noticed that a 2,400 square foot house for a couple, that's a pretty big house. Maybe something smaller would work. Moe: I guess I would anticipate if someone wanted to buy it and they could pay for it, they will sell it. Even if they are 20. Roberts: Linda Roberts, 3525 Curt Drive. I have been on Curt Drive for almost 30 years. We bought our home new. We are one of the homes that are -- that are on the roadway. I've spent a lot of time and a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought about it, because these guys talk about losing their -- you know, things in their backyard. Well, I now look at -- where I had a beautiful sunset, I know have a two story red house that's looking out into my backyard. So, it's all relative. It's all where you're at. We understand and we know -- I think everybody in this subdivision -- and Hal has spoken to it -- we know that it's coming and we know it has to happen, so what we want is the very best product that we can have. As an owner of the acre, I hear comments thrown around about selling the acre and I have made the comment myself, okay, we will subdivide it off. Then, when I stop and think about having that acre for all these years and having to look at someone 150 feet away from me, it's like, no, I think I'll just keep my acre, but when I sell my acre, I'm going to go to a 2,400 square foot home on a small lot, so I don't have so much land. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. Now we will give Mr. Nickel a final word. And he will respond to some of the things that have been raised and make a conclusion. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel again. And thanks, Mr. Nary, for the flexibility. I, actually, recognized that the chairman didn't give us the time we needed and so I told Mr. Campbell that this is our rebuttal, so go up there and use your presentations as part of rebuttal. It ended up that we got extra time, so I thank you for that. I do understand the neighbors' concerns and not to pick on our distinguished guest from ACHD, but I think they started this whole thing and they have made this very difficult, because before we -- when we first started laying out this project, we went to the highway district and we said, okay, what type of roadway system do you want here. This road is not a collector. This road is a local street. The highway district has done an analysis based on everything surrounding Sundance, Heritage, Ustick Road -- they determined it was a local street. So, every time I hear you got a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 42 of gO collector here, it is not a collector. There is going to be a lot of traffic on it, but it is not a collector. We need to go by the analysis that our professional traffic agency has given us. We don't question Central District Health when they tell us how to do septic systems or sewage systems, so why are we questioning ACHD? This is a local street. The roadway we designed is a proper width to handle traffic. So, my client has committed to doing the shared driveways. I think it's a good idea and he will commit to that and I want you to put that as a condition of approval. But I guess to just rebut the neighbors and -- this is a local street. It's not a collector. If it was a collector, if we were told it was a collector from the very beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be one big road going north and south with no lots. But, as it is, it's a local street. We do have the ability to front houses on there. They are not as deep as normal 100-foot deep lots are. Mr. Campbell has been up here and has explained to you what type of product he had. We have done the chicane. So, I think we have done a great job at trying to develop this skinny little piece that probably shouldn't be developed, but it is and we are going to make it work. As far as the conditions of approval, we have gone to a lot of meetings. We prefer to be moved on tonight with a recommendation for approval. So, with that we will agree to the conditions of -- that was stated by Mr. Campbell and by myself and by Ross Erickson on the shared driveways along those 12 lots. We will reduce the number by two and Mr. Campbell will agree to a gazebo. The original application that I submitted, as far as my analysis on the two amenities I had passive pathways and sitting areas with picnic benches. That was the two amenities. Staff reviewed that. That was in their conditions and recommendations to you. We will go one step further and we will provide a gazebo as another amenity, just to kind of beef that up. But was an amenity that we proposed, which did meet the code. We will give an extra one and do the gazebo. So, we can make that a condition of approval as well. The chicane, obviously, is on your drawing that you have right now, so that is recognized. I would ask that if we could move forward, that two weeks prior to City Council we will have staff and the city clerk copies of the revised plan. We will also provide building envelopes that will show how the houses can sit on those 12 lots and we will present that in plenty of time for the City Council to review that and for staff to review that and to revise their staff report. But I think we keep tabling this and tabling this and it has nothing to do with money and redoing plans, it's just the time, it's interest on the land, it's a lot more than just redoing plans. And it's taken the neighbors' time coming back and forth and my time sending out wrong letters without dates and things like that. I think we need to get moving. That is my request is to put the conditions that you feel appropriate and we will abide by them. I think there has been anything said that you or staff has made that we would get up in front of the City Council and object to as far as the conditions. I think we are willing to agree to those. So, I'll stand for any questions or let you deliberate. Zaremba: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions. I just have one comment. I have no problem moving this forward, but I do want to make the comment that you have to bear some of the burden for the continuances. A neighborhood meeting at the beginning of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 43 of 90 this process probably would have saved at least one continuance, the third one -- the third time you have been -- Nickel: Yes. And just to correct you, we did have a neighborhood meeting before we send the application -- Newton-Huckabay: The first time? Nickel: Yes, we did. We have had three neighborhood meetings total. Newton-Huckabay: You never fail to bring in a crowd. Nickel: I know, but as Commissioner Rohm taught me a year ago, have your neighborhood meeting before you submit the application, even though it's not required. And so I do always do that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, maybe form over substance, you should go substance over form. Nickel: And I will admit that we weren't prepared to show you at the last meeting the product type and I think Bond explained that he didn't really know what the product type would be because of the change, but you are correct, I will take some of the brunt of the tabling. I'm not saying that it's all -- it's your fault. It's just a difficult piece of property and I think we are to the point where we can move on. Please. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Staff, do you have any questions for Mr. Nickel? Guenther: Not at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I would ask a question of staff. Are you comfortable moving this on with these recommendations? Guenther: We were just having that discussion. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, my concern about the driveways was not just that, it's a concern about the build environment that will be there. Row houses tend to be across the street from other row houses or they tend to be across the street from open space. These row houses are up against a road with no context. So, I still personally have concerns about the number of units along the narrow strip. You, of course, make your recommendations, but one of my jobs is when we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 44 of 90 forward that recommendation to City Council is to point out outstanding issues before the Council. And I have to admit that I still have concerns about the number of units on there. Newton-Huckabay: The 12? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: How concerned? Would you like to see it be five? Or would ten be comfortable? Or any -- Canning: No. I mean I -- Zaremba: I don't think we are going to get to zero. Canning: Some of it depends on -- some of my concerns may be lessened by seeing what these -- how these designs fit on the lots and their ability to have shared access. I recognize this is not an official collector. However, we are still going to have a lot of cars going down on this side of the street and -- just the nature of the build environment is going to make it feel more like a collector, even if the ACHD road standards don't put the trips at 2,000 trips, it's still going to feel like one. So, a lot of it depends on how that layout looks and how those driveways work, what kind of massing we are going to have along that wall. I just feel like a transition from a solid row house type development onto one acre lots is not what the Comprehensive Plan calls for when it talks about transitioning. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I would say with that said, moving it forward probably isn't going to be a good idea at this point, because it's going to get to City Council and the planning director is going to point out all the things that she thinks is wrong with it and it's going to get sent back here anyway. Would that be -- Borup: Well, it's got to get to City Council sometime. This started back in the first of July. I mean the first week in July was the first time this was on the schedule. First meeting I mean. Zaremba: If I remember correctly, the first iteration I saw of this had like 16 lots, where we now have 12. Newton-Huckabay: Could I make one more comment real quick? Zaremba: Please do. Newton-Huckabay: Can we maybe just take an informal -- who is ready to move it on to City Council and who is not? That might just make this discussion over now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 45 of gO Borup: Good point. Rohm: I'm ready to move it on. Moe: I'm not. Borup: I am. Zaremba: I could go either way. I will have to say Mr. Nickel comforted me, you know, and, of course, reminded me that all of this does have to be in hard line drawings two weeks before the City Council hearing. Borup: That would be the stipulation that I would -- Zaremba: The things that he said comfort me that almost everything that people have asked for is going to get in there. The shared driveways are going to encourage people to come out onto this roadway forward, as opposed to backing out onto it. I'm not convinced that I actually need to see that drawing, if I'm satisfied that that drawing will exist before City Council. But also I guess my question is are we satisfied that reduction to 12 lots satisfies us -- I understand the director's concern, which she would like to see it be even less than that, and that's where I would still waffle. Mr. Nickel gave me a lot of comfort that I didn't have before he spoke. Newton-Huckabay: Let's move it on. Zaremba: The chair would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: You go ahead. I made the last one. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close public hearings AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 46 of gO Zaremba: Do we need to discuss any wording or are you confident that you understand what things we want to add? Borup: Would the comments on the footprint and shared driveway, et cetera, be under the CUP or under the preliminary plat? Be under the CUP, wouldn't it? Is that correct? Guenther: It would be on both. Borup: Both? Zaremba: Yeah. Or even a develop agreement on the annexation. Guenther: We do have a development agreement in this staff report and if you wanted to tie the elevations as presented to the development agreement, you could do that as well. Zaremba: I think that would be probably a good suggestion. And the shared driveways along that chicane. Newton-Huckabay: You can't do those elevations with shared driveways, can you? I mean those were front end -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, generally we don't tie them to exactly those elevations, but just that they be generally consistent with these elevations. So, if the garage flips to the side, then -- Borup: Yeah. I was looking for the general architectural design and feel and -- as representative of those -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: They are never the same. As they are presented to us anyway. Rohm: Well, we are just clarifying before you make the motion. Okay. Just to make sure we have got all the elements that we need to add to the staff report, we need the addition of a gazebo, a pathway-- Newton-Huckabay: No. That was already on there. Rohm: Okay. A shared driveway. Newton-Huckabay: On all lots. Rohm: On all lots -- Newton-Huckabay: Twelve lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 47 of 90 Zaremba: Well, the lots along the -- Rohm: All lots along the-- Newton-Huckabay: We said all 12 lots. Rohm: All 12 lots. Zaremba: Yeah, not the whole subdivision, so we need to -- Moe: Gee, I would think that this would be enough reason to continue this thing, because we can't get it right to begin with. Rohm: We are working on it. And the inclusion of the chicane in the middle of the -- Zaremba: As drawn. Rohm: As drawn. Borup: But that's already submitted. That's what we are -- that's not a change from the staff recommendation. Rohm: So, we don't need to include that if it's already -- Zaremba: It would for emphasis. I mean we would like to see -- we clearly understood that and that's what we support. Rohm: We want the site footprints, too. Zaremba: Building footprints for each lot. On the -- Borup: Twelve lots. Zaremba: Each of the 12 lots. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: We probably should identify those by plat number. Rohm: The numbers are all just backwards. I just need lot and block number. Zaremba: And put parenthesis Block 4. Rohm: And all lots on Block 4? Okay. Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 48 of gO Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-026, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, received August 23rd, 2005, and no changes for the AZ. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Did we want to add elements to the development agreement? Rohm: Is that where we need to make the -- okay. Excuse me. I will add to the staff report that -- Zaremba: In the development agreement. Rohm: -- In the development agreement there will be general elevations as presented for the 12 lots in Block 4 and the building footprints for those 12 lots will also be included prior to City Council and staff will have a chance to review two weeks prior to City Council. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Moe: Nay. Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-025, to include staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, received August 23rd, 2005, with the following changes: The developer will include a gazebo in one of the common areas. Guenther: Commissioner Rohm? The gazebo would be with the conditional use in the Rohm: Can we include -- Canning: Probably under the easement needs to go in this one, would be the only one that -- the only thing that affects the plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 49 of 90 Rohm: The common driveway? Canning: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. When we will -- Zaremba: And do we need to add to the common driveways a cross-access agreement? Rohm: That's by definition, isn't it? Canning: That's what the easement is is the cross-access is identified on the plat is because you need that easement shown on the plat. Rohm: In addition to the existing staff comments for the preliminary plat, the inclusion of shared driveways for in between each two lots of Block 12 -- or Block 4, the 12 lots. And that would be a cross-access easement between those lots. And I believe that's it for this motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Moe: Nay. Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, and received August 23rd, 2005, with the following changes: We will require the inclusion as an amenity a gazebo in one of the two common areas on either the north or the south of Block 4 for this subdivision. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Discussion. Do we need to repeat the request for footprints or anything like that with the CUP? Guenther: Yes. We will take the footprints with the CUP as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 50 of gO Zaremba: Okay. We may as well mention the shared driveways again, then, also. Rohm: Okay. Do it all. Additions to the proposed motion, the developers will include footprints of the 12 homes to be constructed on Block 4 and shared driveways will also be shown. End of motion. Zaremba: And does the second accept the amendments to the motion? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Moe: Nay. Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. This will proceed on to City Council. These drawings are provided to our staff now two weeks ahead of the city Council Meeting, but they will also be available in the city clerk's office how far ahead of that meeting, do we know? Approximately ten days before the Public Hearing at City Council the drawings will be available in the clerk's office. And I wanted to thank the representatives of ACHD for coming out tonight and other representatives as well. Thank you. Traditionally about 9:00 o'clock we take a short break. And we have past 9:00 o'clock, so we will take ten minutes and reconvene. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for 3 single family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 1.58 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodward Estates Subdivision by Cortland Walker - southwest corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 1 ih Street: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present. And we will proceed onto Item 12. I will open the Public Hearing for PFP 05-004, relating to Woodward Estates Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission I realized toward the end of the last hearing that I was up next and, then, in doing my prep time I got sidetracked by a conversation about schools and planners and new planners and I could not talk to a new planner, because I love planning. So, you will have to, again, put up with my abbreviated presentations. I'm filling in for Brad. This is Woodward Estates. It is a preliminary-final plat for a four lot residential subdivision on 1.58 acres. It includes three