Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 15, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & zoning September 15, 2005 Page 19 of 57 Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-041, PP 05-041, and CUP 05- 042. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05- 041, PP 05-41, and CUP 05-042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date September 15th, 2005, preliminary plat dated July 10th, 2005, and site plan dated July 10th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Pubiic Hearing: AZ 05-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.30 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No. 2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 building lots and 4 common lots on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No. 2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 05-038 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced minimum lot size, frontages and setbacks on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No. 2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Zaremba: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-036, PP 05-035, and CUP 05-038, all relating to Larkspur Subdivision. And we will, again, begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Larkspur Subdivision is proposed east of State Highway 69 or South Meridian Road as it's known south of Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 20 of 57 Overland Road, surrounded by an existing neighborhood Meridian Greens on the east, a currently developing neighborhood Larkspur Number One on the north, approved think a couple years ago. Some vacant land and rural residences on the west and also same vacant land and rural residences on the south. The applicant has proposed 49 single-family housing lots on 10.30 acres, for a gross density of 4.75 dwelling units to the acre. The original submittal did have 50 building lots on it. The applicant met with residents of the neighborhood and in response to their comments did make a couple changes and it was also in response to some changes that ACHD required. But they did reduce the building lots, create some larger lots along the eastern side of this subdivision adjacent to Meridian Greens and the road ended up taking a little jog and that caused them to shift open space around a little bit. We could get into it here on the plat. And this is the original submittal, just to make that clear, that as submitted with the application, the road actually took the slightest jog to the east. The open space lots are here and here, but they are substantial open space lots. There are some other -- some small ones. And, then, they had this thing that's sometimes called a snoopy up there was a fire turnaround and, then, stubs to the west and south. And, then, also a connection to Rosalyn Court. The revised plat, in response to ACHD's comments, the applicant did provide a stub to the west, a future connectivity, under the snoopy. By carrying same larger lots aver here, the road now takes an ever-slight jog to the west. What that did was reduced these open space lots by a few square feet. In response to that the applicant did create an open space lot here, eliminating a building lot to create - - to keep the over ten percent open space, and hoping to kind of create an entrance to the -- kind of a green entrance to the subdivision there. They did retain the existing stubs to the south and west as well. One feature of the subdivision is that there are some larger lots platted around existing homes one what is currently the terminus of East Rosalyn Court right here in this cul-de-sac. There is an existing home -- there are three existing homes. Those that have larger lots platted around them. This lot platted around this home here is the largest at over two acres. And, then, also some lots here and it has some larger lots platted around them. The planned development, the applicant has asked far reductions to the minimum lot sizes, minimum frontages, and minimum setbacks in the R-8 zone. The planned development does not include those larger lots with the existing homes an them. The applicant has limited the planned development to the new lots being -- the new homes being created. The amenities he is proposing with the planned development is the -- mare than ten percent usable open space of the subdivision. Also in this area there is a gazebo and a barbecue community gathering type area, is another amenity, and, then, there is also a pathway system that moves through the subdivision and provides a connection to Larkspur Number One, which ultimately connects to a multi-use pathway located kind of in the northeast quadrant of Larkspur Number One. Just a couple of comments on the staff report and the conditions therein. The application was noticed as Larkspur Number Two and is referred to as Larkspur Number Two, but for submittal of final plat we have asked that the applicant call it Larkspur Addition -- scratch that. Okay. We won't get into that, then. Also, the applicant did need to make same minor revisions to the landscape plan and illustrates how the landscaping was going to function on this lot here that connects to Larkspur Number One and also how the slight loss in square footage on these lots would afFect how those open spaces function. Also, in order to -- we have asked that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 21 of 57 the applicant provide common drives on these two lots in order to -- for those to function properly. They don't meet the frontage requirements. The applicant has asked for reduced frontage requirements as part of the planned development, but we do ask that a common drive be provided on those two lots in order for them to function. And I'd like the applicant to address what ACHD's comments were about the vacation or what happens to the open -- to the former right of way on East Rosalyn Court. As East Rosalyn is reconstructed and extended, there -- we end up with these kind of half circles of former cul-de-sacs that would still be ACHD right of way. We would like to see those vacated and included in those lots with submittal of the final plat. Zaremba: Excuse me. Is that a separate process that needs to occur or is it part of the same application? Wilson: That goes through with ACRD. That's a process through ACHD. With that, the application has been submitted with densities that are consistent with the R-8 zone, with the planned development, and the requested reductions to the planned development standards, the application is consistent with Meridian City Cade and staff has recommended approval and I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah, Josh, in regards to Larkspur One, what -- do you have any information as far as what the lot sizes were up an that for average in Larkspur One? Wilson: I don't have any hard numbers, other than that they were very similar to what's proposed here. Moe: Well, the reason I ask that is I know that when we had discussions on that project before, I am sure we are going to hear a lot of the same comments tonight, because we are abutting an R-4 zone and, quite frankly, this being an R-8, we have got some rather small lots that are abutting, you know, the larger section up there. So, I was just curious what those were. Thank you. Wilson: I would ask the applicant to address that. They'll have a pretty good idea. Moe: Good idea. Thank you. Zaremba: Any further questions? In that case, we are ready for the applicant, please. Sargent: Ron Sargent, 1771 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. I guess to begin with, maybe I'd like to sort of address the type of buyers that we get for our communities. We have been building these type of communities for about ten years in Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 22 of 57 the Treasure Valley area and we find that about -- even though we don't do an age restriction, we find that about 70 or SO percent of our buyers are seniors and a lot of people are downsizing, because they don't want the large yards to do a lot of the maintenance that's required there. And because of that we have also included in our developments smaller homes that are about 1,200 square feet, that are two bedrooms, two baths, and a lot of reason we have done that is we found that quite a few of our buyers have been single women that are typically widows or living on their own for one reason or another and it seems like that becomes a much better product and affordable product for them. So, that's the -- kind of to set the background a little bit of the type of buyer that we get in our homes. I'd like to also address the questions about ACRD and the vacation and that is a totally separate process. We have to do a separate application to the highway district to ask them to vacate some property. When we met with them for the tech review, what they suggested that we do is a license agreement to do landscaping in the right of way, so -- but, frankly, if the desire of this city is to ask for a vacation, we could request that of the highway district, but we have not investigated that at this paint in time. I guess the other -- also, there is a question about Larkspur Number One and the size of lots and just on average the size of lots in this next phase that we are proposing -- and I don't have the actual numbers in front of me -- are probably larger and it's just because of our I guess recent experience that that's the type of other subdivisions that we are starting to find have a desire for slightly larger homes and also the fact that along the east side of our subdivision that's adjacent to Meridian Greens we created larger lots there to accommodate a request that came from the neighborhood association. I guess what I'd like to do is, first, we had a neighborhood meeting in -- I think it was August 24th. We had about 12 to 15 people that attended and in the change that we have made in the plat was to accommodate some of those requests that came out of that meeting. First of all, it's in the northeast corner of the subdivision, which is up in this area in here. The way that the terrain slopes, there is a little bit of a slope transition between our property and Meridian Greens and one of the neighbors requested that we build a retaining wall to make sure that we -- that that's slough off and we have agreed to do that and we have -- when we have our engineers take a look at that, we will determine how we should create that retaining wall. The other thing is that the neighbors at the meeting, along these lots here on the east side, request that we have a 25-foot setback and we did that and because of the setback, as Josh mentioned, we had to move the road further to the west and which made these common lots smaller and so we created another common lot right here, so that as people entered the subdivision from this direction there will be some greenery and some landscaping that people will see when they first come into the subdivision. Also, they asked that the -- yeah, that these lots be bigger and we have done that, we have reconfigured these lots and all along there, as you can see compared to some of the others, are larger size lots we have in there. All of our two bedroom, two bath homes we have moved over towards the western portion of the subdivision away from Meridian Greens. I guess we see this density as a good transition from the R-4 over to a very busy highway on Meridian Raad and we think that, you know, residential for estate homes along Meridian Road is probably not likely. We see this as a beginning of a transition to move from that R-4 to that heavily traveled area. At our neighborhood meeting I guess they wanted to address and is probably the most difficult, is one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 23 of 57 major concerns that was brought up was the fact that because we are going to be building smaller homes that it's going to decrease the value of the homes in Meridian Greens and there is a real concern about that and sa I tried to do some research and present some data or try to kind of show the impact an our communities, you know, it had in other neighborhoods and haw they'd last over a period of time, because what we do is we set the homeowners association and the homeowners association maintains all of the yards, both the front and the back in doing mowing and landscaping and because of that the exterior of the homes in the community, I think it's proved the test of time. I guess to begin with I'd like to show you some comparisons and I know to try to look at value is a very difficult thing to do, because it depends an the quality of construction and the type of finishes, the size of the lot and same other factors, but I think this is at least a beginning point. I look at some comparison of homes that sold in Meridian Greens since March of this year, up until the end of August, and also look at some at contract pending on some homes that are for sale to try to at least give some comparisons. guess I'd ask -- Zaremba: We can ask staff to project that upon the screen. Sargent: This is not showing up very well. What I did is these are the homes that are sold over here and the date in the left-hand column, the address, and, then, the price per square foot that they actually sold at. And as you can see they vary considerably, because of a lot of factors I had mentioned before about the different types of workmanship, a single story, two story, and a number of other issues. And, then, towards the bottom of the sheet, the next group shows there is two contracts pending and these are the prices that they would close at if they -- if they close at the asking price. And, then, down at the bottom there is -- we only found through multiple listing three homes that were for sale and those are the asking price and see the highest is 129 dollars per square foot and what we are looking at is the homes that we would be doing in Larkspur Subdivision Number Two would be about 120 to 125 dollar per square foot range, which is, on a square footage basis, is comparable to what we have seen homes an sale for in Meridian Greens area. The other thing is I think there was a concern at the neighborhood meeting about the deterioration of the neighborhood, because they are smaller homes and they want be kept up and sa what I have done is I have got some photographs to project that shows some of the existing -- or same of the subdivisions that we have built before and a couple of the homes that we are doing recently. This one is not very clear. This is Serrano Subdivision and at the battom we did construction an this -- we did -- 1995? Yeah. It's spring of 1996 and it doesn't show very good on the overhead, but they are in good shape, the shrubbery is maintained very well and sa this is a project that's about nine years old that is -- I think it's held up really well over a period of time. The next slide. This is the Serrano Subdivision and I think a similar type of situation. We did this in the fall of '97. We did the construction and build aut on this and once again, you know, I think the test of time has been that it's held up its quality very well. And then -- the next one, Josh. This is one that we did in 2000 -- in the year 2000 at King's Gate off of Ustick Road in Boise and, once again, like say, this is to show the quality of the upkeep and the landscaping has been very good over that period of time. And, then, this is a couple of the more recent homes that we Meridian Planning & ~pning September 15, 2005 Page 24 of 57 have done and this is near the corner of McMillan and Ten Mile Road near Bridgetvwer. This is one of the units and, then, I have got a second one and over time what we have done is we have sort of changed the looks. We tried to bring the living space out closer to the street, push the garage back a little bit, so the garage doesn't dominate the streetscape and these are mare of the type of homes that we do where it"s adjacent to Meridian Greens. So, I guess I'd stand for any questions. Thanks. Zaremba: You may have mentioned it, but to clarify, these are all detached; right? Sargent: Yes. Yes. Excuse me. What we found is that for our buyers they do not like attached dwellings. They prefer that they be detached and the sense of having the independence and not having a common wall with the potential to hear their neighbors. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sargent, as far as the homes on the east side, are those projected to be a 1,200 square foot home? Sargent: No. None of those. Those are more in the 1,$00 square feet in that vicinity. The 1,200 we are doing more towards the western end of the proposed subdivision. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. It sounds like the people that you're intending to market to, although they may be wanting to down size, are not wanting to cheapen, that they may want to have an upscale smaller house. Sargent: I guess that's a good way to describe the type of buyer that we tend to have received over the years. The thing that we like about this location, too, is that versus the common areas here sort of in the middle of the subdivision and, then, there is a pathway system that goes here onto a common area up in Larkspur Number One and, then, onwards to a pathway up to Southern Springs, which is on the other side of Calderwood Road, there is to be a retail commercial development and so that's within easy walking distance and we think for, you know, our type of buyer, that that would -- that's going to be a really nice feature and be attractive to walk to to food services and maybe doctor's offices and that sort of thing. Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. We do have quite a few signed up and, hopefully, you will be patient with me as I attempt the names, but let me, again, begin by asking if there are spokesmen that would come forward, please. We have at least one. Sir, if you would come forward. Watson: Chairman, my name is Victor Watson, I live at 1069 East Cayman in Meridian Greens. I appreciate the chance to address the Commission. Sorry to disappoint you, because I don't have ten minutes worth to discuss. I'll take a few minutes and I'd also like to turn just a minute or two over to my neighbor Mr. Jim Rosetti, who has a petition Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 25 of 57 far the Commission as well. Recently, a year or so ago, the Meridian Greens homeowners association attended a Commission meeting and agreed to and could condone the building of the Alzheimer's care center on Calderwood in this area that we are talking about. We did attend that proposal. We did not comment on the Larkspur One Subdivision. To my knowledge we weren't aware of it, that is, that it was going to take place. Could be wrong, but I was not aware of it and so the homeowners association never addressed the Larkspur One Subdivision. But we are, of course, aware of the Larkspur Two and if I might say Larkspur Two. I don"t recall the new name. But the Larkspur Two Subdivision and we do have a few concerns which I'd like to outline far you. As you know, Meridian Greens is a consistently desirable, highly regarded neighborhood that is well established. We have a minimum 2,500 square foot requirement far homes. We are adjacent to the Alzheimer's Care Center and the Larkspur One Subdivision. Meridian Greens, as I'm sure you know, is zoned R-4 and I believe that we have neighbors -- I think that Observation Point is also zoned R-~4. Let me say up front, Commissioners, that my point here, as the president of the homeowners association, is not to ask the Commission to deny the proposal to build the subdivision. That's not our job to do that. On a personal note in my youth when I was less gray headed, I developed property in the Houston area. Developed apartments. I'm an entrepreneur, I hope, and a capitalist and we don't want to deny anybody a chance to develop property. So, that's not the position that we are in here. It's the current configuration where we have a problem and we are asking -- I'll give my points, but I'll tell you up front, what we are requesting is that the Larkspur Two Subdivision is zoned R-4. So, with that we have same concerns and let me use this as a reference. This is the note that was sent -- or the report sent by Mr. Wilson. I don't have a publication date that I could find, but it references a hearing date today and I'm going to use this, if I might, and we will look at a couple of pages. I know you all have seen this, because -- Zaremba: We will follow along. Watson: Maybe you have it right in front of you. Moe: Absolutely. Watson: Okay. Well, let's use this, then. And I'm not here in any way to teach you what you're supposed to do. I know that you know. But if we could look at page five in this particular proposal and I want to talk far just a second about -- I believe it's page five -- let me go to page five here with you. About a third of the way down there is a bullet point that says protect existing residential properties and that's one of the charges of the Commission, as you know, to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. Well, the analysis of the staff - - and let me read this quickly. The adjacent -- I'm sorry. The applicant proposes a single-family development. The existing residential properties to the east and the approved residential subdivision to the north are compatible with the proposed development. The Meridian Greens homeowners association doesn't agree with that analysis and we don't see any evidence of compatibility and we would think that the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 26 of 57 staff might say here, one, two, three, four, we think that is compatible. Let me call your attention to page two, please. Page two, item 3-G, of this reference sheet tells us that the zoning will be R-8, with a gross density of 4.75 dwelling units per acre. Item 3-H on the same page just below, quotes the developer of Larkspur Two. This is a quote from the developer, it says this use is compatible with adjacent properties in the neighborhood, such as Larkspur Subdivision Number One, so forth and so on. Well, we find that the assertion of the developer to be true. It is compatible with Larkspur One, possibly, but it does not address compatibility with the Meridian Greens Subdivision. In fact, again, we believe that Larkspur Two, as configured, is not compatible with Meridian Greens. Then if you would turn with me to page five and six of the reference sheet here. Looking at the last bullet on the bottom of page five -- let me -- the last bullet on the bottom of page five. It reads -- excuse me -- require new urban density subdivisions, which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses, to provide landscape screening ar transitional densities, with larger, more comparable lots to buffer the interface between urban level densities and so forth. The staff -- if you will turn to the next page, on page six at the top of the page, the staff says -- and the response, staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses to the east and believes that the proposed transition to small lots is desirable for the city. Well, the homeowners association -- and I have to tell you the vast majority of the residents of Meridian Greens -- of the Meridian Greens Subdivision disagree with the staffs recommendation here. We believe that the staff are incorrect. We believe that they are uninformed and we believe that they don't live in Meridian Greens. If you would, then, turn with me to page four. On page four, item seven -- item nine, I'm sorry, of point three. Let me see. Page seven. I'm sorry. Thank you, folks, far a little help from my friends there. Page seven, if you would, please. Point three. The buffering from Meridian Greens paints out that the developer has proposed a 25-foot setback. What I say next I cannot tell you with accuracy, because I wasn't at the meeting, but I was told by one of the folks who attended the meeting, that there was only one person there who requested the 25 fast setback. But be that as it is, the developer has proposed a 25 foot setback, larger lots along the eastern boundary, and a smaller number of lots per acre. Again, the staff report supports the modification to the plat as an appropriate transition from the R-4 zoning to the east to the proposed R-8 zoning on the site. We believe that at first appearance the buffer appears to be acceptable, again, as long as you don't live in Meridian Greens. Additionally, the 25 foot setback we believe is patently unacceptable without major landscape modifications along that buffer zone. Ten feet is just ten more feet. And, then, on page eight, item ten -- now the recommend -- I assume it -- two things. One, says recommend and one says denial. assume we are dealing with a recommend to approval and we simply don't agree with the staff recommendation that there be approval for the R-8 zoning. To conclude, we find that the current configuration as it is planned here is objectionable and we da believe that if the proposal as written, as proposed, is approved, that there could be a consequence -- in fact, that there will be a consequential ruining of property values in the Meridian Greens Subdivision. If I might now have a minute for Mr. Rosetti to present the petitions? Thank you, Commissioners. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 20D5 Page 27 of 57 Rosetti: Good evening to all of you. My name is Jim Rosetti. I live at 2316 South Montego Way in Meridian Greens. And I'm here this evening to give you a petition that the homeowners association decided to pass around. I'd like to read that petition to you and that petition we feel there is an important link between this process that's taking place tonight, because there is over 4p0 people that have signed that disagree with the process of rezoning this particular parcel of ten acres next to Meridian Greens. So, let me read that to you. Whereas the taxpaying citizens of Meridian have learned -- and Meridian Greens have learned that the Planning and Zoning Commission is considering an application for the development of the Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, which plat is adjacent on its east to existing Meridian Greens Subdivision, an R-4 zone, on its north to Larkspur Subdivision, phase one, which is an R-8 zone, and in close proximity to the Alzheimer's assisted living center, a commercial zone and there by existing Observation Point Subdivision, another R-4 zone. Whereas, point two, that Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, is incompatible with the R-4 of Meridian Greens and Observation Point Subdivision, creating a significantly higher density residential neighborhood and causing a deterioration of these adjacent and nearby property values. And whereas the resulting size and arrangement of residential housing in Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, will create an unattractive surrounding for Meridian Greens residents and due to insufficient rear setback requirements will have Larkspur residents in such proximity to Meridian Greens' property lines as to destroyed the privacy of existing Meridian Greens residents whose property abuts Larkspur and, whereas, the incompatible Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, does not include a buffer zone to protect the integrity and quality of abutting properties of higher value in the Meridian Greens Subdivision. Now, therefore, the residents -- we, the residents, property owners of Meridian Greens Subdivisions, do hereby petition the City of Meridian and its Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the application for development of Larkspur Subdivision, phase two, in its current configuration as signified by their signatures on this document. And I was also in attendance -- Mr. Sargent mentioned the neighborhood meeting that took place. I was at that meeting and there was one individual that went after the meeting to talk to him about setbacks and those types of things. That, to me, did not constitute an error of -- a neighborhood meeting with all the folks. He specified everything that he was going to do in the subdivision and we told him what our thoughts were, but, basically, he did not change anything at all, except for the one lady's comments about the setback along the fence. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Would you hand the petition to the clerk, please. Rosetti: I will. Zaremba: It will be put into the record. To clarify for the group -- Rohm: Yes. Could you give me the minimum lot size in an R-4 zoning? Just -- Wilson: Until today it was B,OOQ square feet. Meridian Planning & Zpning September 15, 2005 Page 28 of 57 Rohm: And what is it -- Wilson: I'm sorry. Rohm: As of today -- Wilson: It still is 8,000. Zaremba: And if I'm correct, the building footprint was 1,400 square feet or something like that, an R-4 as a minimum? Are you answering or -- Rohm: Well, I guess that's the answer, but -- Wilson: Director Canning is going to pull up the new code, but the minimum lot size in R-4 did stay R-8 and -- the minimum lot size in R-4 did stay 8,000 square feet. In the R- 8zone that the applicant is proposing, the lot sizes were reduced for what it is today. But the R-4 did stay the same. For a single family detached house in the R-8 zone as of today the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet, as opposed to 6,500 in the old code. Rohm: That was the follow up. Thank you. Zaremba: Just a moment while we are dealing with the new technology. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, in the R-4 standard the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Minimum street frontage is 60 feet. Minimum rear setback is 15 feet. And, then, the side setbacks are five feet. And that is the R-4. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Watson wanted to ask one more question -- or Mr. Rosetti. Please do it at the microphone and I will give you one minute. Rosetti: Josh's comments that he made to you on page four, I believe it is. It says that the proposed is 4,100 square feet and the required is 6,500 square feet in an R-8. Wilson: That would be per the straight R-8 zone. Yes. Rosetti: And they are asking for a variance from the R-8 to even a lower square footage for the lots? Wilson: Yes. That's part of the planned development. Rosetti: 4,100 square feet? Zaremba: Part of what was discovered in the old ordinance is that the theory behind an R-8 is theoretically you should be able to get eight dwelling units to the acre. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 29 of 57 Rosetti: Yes, but -- Zaremba: If you provided that lot size, the 6,500, did all the setbacks, took the streets out, the open space out, you could not get more than three and a half dwelling units no matter what you did. So, in the new development code the reason -- the number is actually closer to what they are asking for. This is comparing to the old development code for R-8. Rosetti: The 4,100? Zaremba: The theory is that they ought to be able to mathematically be able to get eight on there, even though I believe in this case they are only asking for 4.6 or something like that. Rosetti: Along that edge. Borup: No. No. The total development is 4.75. Zaremba: Let me go on with the list and I will call everybody's name. If Mr. Watson or Mr. Rosetti spoke for you, would you, please, just raise your hand at your place and will record that into the record. If you have something separate from what they have said to add, please, do come forward. Bonnie Jacobsen Massa. I don't see anybody moving. Okay. Charlene Vance. She's been spoken for. Okay. Thank you. Gene Vance. Also spoken for. Thank you. Joseph Massa. I don't see. Okay. I believe it's Marissa Hansen. Spoken for. Thank you. Maureen Howell. Spoken for. Thank you. I appreciate that I can actually read these names this time. Sometimes people sign in with a scrawl that I can't read. So, thank you all. Sally Stetson. Also spoken for. Okay. Thank you. Is it Marta Merkner? Please come forward. Heitner: I'm Rita Heitner and I live at 767 East Kingsford Drive in Meridian Greens. I am single. I am a widow. And I like being where I am. If you want to down size, go further out. Don't be in this area. Mast of the people that -- well, not most, but a lot of the women that live in Meridian Greens are my age and they are single and they maintain their yards, it gives us something to do. We enjoy it. The only reason developers want to squeeze more houses in is because they will make more money that way. The schools are already overcrowded. We can't afford -- well, please, Gad, the bond election will go forward and they will be able to build more schools, but Mountain View was only opened just recently and it's already 20 percent over its estimated capacity. It's terrible to be squeezing so many people into such a limited area and violently object. And I'm not saying it very nicely, but I do object and why should we have to have people squeezed in such a close area. That's not the nature of the subdivision of the area of Meridian where we live. We are happy in our area. We love Meridian. We just don't think that more traffic and more people is necessary. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 30 of 57 Zaremba: Thank you. Susan Fulmer. She has been spoken for. Thank you. D.J. Klosmore? I'll let you repeat it. Say it correctly, please. Chesmore: I'm David Chesmore and I live at 560 East Antigua Drive in Meridian Greens Subdivision. I just had a couple things to bring up and, first of all, I searched for aver a year before I found this subdivision. I didn't even know it existed and it is very unique with the way the houses are -- with the separation. It's a very unique place to live in Meridian and it's a special subdivision for the city. And I only had one question for the developer and I wanted to know where he got his information for the price per square foot on the houses that were sold. I'm a realtor and I keep track of our subdivisions for my own good and I find it's more around 118 dollars -- or a dollar eighteen, I'm sorry. I'm nervous. 118 dollars a square foot in our subdivision and I just was interested in seeing where he got his facts for what he found on -~ Zaremba: We will ask him what his source was. Chesmore: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Lori Bauman. Spoken for. Thank you. Lou Bauman. On the microphone, please. Bauman: My name is Lou Bauman and Iguess Ienvision -- Baird: Address. Bauman: 917 East Martinique. Ienvision between 7:00 and 8:30 -- if you take a look at the map, Colder would be loaded with the people from this subdivision, this new subdivision, running down the block with their vehicles to 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue to go east on Overland. They are not going to take Meridian between that period of time, because it's blocked all the way back to Kuna. Traffic is the -- the impact on our subdivision. And that's the way it is. That funnel would go right straight out to our area and it would be very crowded. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Gary -- is it Phillips? Phillips: I'm Gary Phillips, I live at 332 East Calderwood Drive in Running Brook Estates. My comments are pretty much what his are going to be. On here -- I'm not sure where Meridian Road is on here and if there is an access from Meridian Road into this subdivision -- into Larkspur Number Two. Zaremba: Here is a slightly larger view that shows that Rosalyn Court from Meridian Road comes in and they are extending that. It's currently a cul-de-sac and that's what the discussion was about, extending and giving up some right of way. Phillips: So, there will be another access? Everything will be coming in ofF of Calderwood, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 31 of 57 Zaremba: Correct. Phillips: Okay. That was my only concern. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Okay. If you were standing behind Mr. Phillips when he signed up, it may be Rawley -- is it Rawley? Okay. Same subject, but thank you. Okay. Joseph A. Massa, Senior. Did I see a hand come up? It sounds like the Massas may have been here and, then, had to leave for same reason. Sorry about that. Okay. Marlene Massa also. Okay. Robert Hansen. Spoken for. Thank you. Donald A. Nicholson. Nicholson: Donald A. Nicholson, 456 East Amalie Court, Meridian Greens. I concur with the statements made by the representative of the homeowners association, but I have several questions that I would like to have clarification from the developer. First of all, he didn't give any indication of resale values of the properties that he's developed in other locations that are similar to the ones that he's proposed. Did give an indication as to the construction cost, but did not give any indication of as to resale values. Did not -- and did not give any indication as to whether there would be any covenant requirements or restrictions as to types of improvement, landscaping, and those sorts of things an the properties that they proposed. And in closing I would say that he cannot guarantee who will purchase the properties and how they will take care of those properties, unless there are some restrictions and that would have an impact on the value of surrounding properties and I would just say that I am opposed to the high density residential housing proposed and would prefer that they view and consider densities at the R-4 level. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Donald Nicholson. I don't see any action. Okay. Marvin Nelson. Been spoken for. Thank you. Brenda Nelson. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Mary Alice Dual. Diehl. Spoken for. Thank you. Pamela Deliben. Close. Spoken for. Thank you. Paul Diehl. Diehl: I'm Paul Diehl, 2569 South Abaco Way. A couple things. A number of those -- in Meridian Greens there is a lot of homes that are not just the minimum size, which was explained a little while ago for zoning four. Far example, my lot is .42 acres. There is half acres, even one acres, in Meridian Greens. You know, larger lots. The other thing is that I think when you compare construction costs of today versus my home was built in 1996, there is a big difference in construction costs. So, the thing you have to be very careful on, because my house isn't 122 dollars a square foot today. If I had to rebuild it it would be. But Idon't -- I think you have got to be careful about that. And the last thing is square footage is only one indicator. There are many other indicators of values of homes and properties. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. The last name is Howard, first name is Newell, maybe. Sir? Spoken for. Thank you. Jackie Update -- Updike. Sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 32 of 57 Updike: I'm Jackie Updike and I live at 2973 South Andros Way in Observation Point. But I also own properties in Meridian Greens at 2208 Southeast 5th and I own a bare lot on Trinidad. The lot on Trindad and the lot that my home sits -- that my house on Southeast 5th Way is on, both of those are about ahalf-acre. And I guess my thought as I heard the applicant presenting his case to today is that the home that he describes is very very typical of either a rental property that investors would buy or a first time home buyer would buy. Not that either one of those type of properties are bad in the right place, but they do tend to diminish the value of properties like those in Meridian Greens. I also own a mortgage brokerage in Meridian. I'm currently a mortgage broker, I own Countryside Mortgage. And so I can tell you that the clients that I work with, that property is very typical of what a first time home buyer or what the California investors that are moving in would buy. So, I do really believe that that would hurt the values of Meridian Greens. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Baird: If I could remind the audience to, please, refrain from responding to comments, it will move things along and keep it fair for everybody. Zaremba: Thank you. I appreciate that. Gregory Swanson. Swanson: My name is Greg Swanson. I live at 1706 Southeast 3rd Way in Meridian Greens. Just to add a couple issues here. Again, we are looking at the question of higher economic use or higher developer profit. In respect to Meridian Greens, as everyone is well aware, it is a unique parcel on the south side of the freeway and I was here when they -- and spoke on the Larkspur One and my concern from the tenor of that -- the staff reports and the comments on Larkspur One was exactly what has happened here is it's oozed into this analysis, that Larkspur One became the foundation for comparable property moving into Larkspur Two and that was a concern that I had that it would bootstrap. I think we need to remember that there were some other issues that were being developed in Larkspur One and the discussion around the buffer zone and the retail aspect on Meridian Road and a number of people spoke and my recollection was that, you know, no one really objected to development -- economic business development as a buffer zone there on Meridian Road and for housing to be in that interim space between Meridian Greens. And so based on that I would be very cautious about just taking Larkspur One as the basis for analyzing into Larkspur Two, because there was other conditions and discussions about the Alzheimer's unit and how that would minimally impact Meridian Greens. The traffic is a concern. No one can get out at 8:00 o'clock in the morning without aten-minute wait or so. It's very difficult. And now we are going to funnel right down to Southeast 3rd Way those other individuals. believe that just because there is another opening on Meridian Road that, based on observation, it will just back up the traffic further and they will still come through. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 33 pf 57 there needs to be some planning for that traffic load. And has there been a traffic load calculated as to what that's going to do with the maximum peak traveling times? Zaremba: ACRD usually does that and we will ask the applicant when they come back up what the results of that were. Swanson: And my comments are not to deny development there, it's simply an R-$ -- or, excuse me, an R-4. There is no reason why R-4 wouldn't go in there and be profitable for a developer also. It's happened in Observation Point. It's happened in the surrounding developments in the last little addition to Meridian Greens. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. This could be Jack R. Petes. Who signed up after Jim Rosetti? Anybody know you were standing -- oh, here he comes. Thank you. John Porter. Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 South Andros Way. I do live in Meridian Greens, like the vast majority of everybody here. As a current recommendation for the subdivision is an R-8, I am opposed to that. I do recognize that the developer is trying to develop that property more consistent with Meridian Greens. A lot of people have mentioned the lot size. My lot size is closer to half an acre. That's an R-2 in my book. An R-8 or beyond that, not even close to commensurate with the surrounding developments. Another consideration I know that I wish that our development had had pressurized irrigation. Perhaps I missed it or perhaps that's a standard in development nowadays to require the pressurized irrigation be included in that. Go forth from there. I think a big redesign could happen. The property could be redesigned correctly for an R-4 and I think it would be, you know, very consistent with Meridian Greens. But as it sits right now it's too dense and not -- one other item I was thinking, he mentioned that his target market is retirement people. He can't guarantee that. Nobody can guarantee that. It's a free society. And the reason I don't see that being his -- the ultimate people moving in there is the places that he has developed inside Boise city limits has public transportation access, whereas Meridian Greens, right, you basically have to have your own vehicle. We can't guarantee that there is always going to be that public transportation to Boise to that area, so -- thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Shirley Pierce. A name close to that. No. Polly Pierce. Okay. Both spoken far. I was looking over here. I'm sorry. And could be -- the last name is White. The first name starts with a B. Boyd? Okay. Spoken far as well. All right. Thank you. That's everybody who has signed up and we do give the opportunity if you did not sign up and have not been spoken for, if you would just come to the microphone. We will start with this gentleman here and, again, give your name and address, please. Callon: My name is John Colson. I live at 2575 Southeast 5th Way. A couple of the things that have been addressed is the difference in the lots, Meridian Greens being oversized R-4, these being about 4,000 -- even the minimum of $,000 that's not a transition going half the size of the lots. That's a huge leap. Second thing, the data -- I'm also a realtor. The data on the sales price is so incomplete. I recognized two of them as being repossessed and one that was so undersold I was shocked. It looked Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 34 of 57 like he picked the lowest value houses there. That 118 is very accurate. The third thing. Price per square foot is not a valid way to judge whether that place would be comparable with ours. I can confidently say, not knowing where any of you live, that I can use statistical price per square foot to say every one of your houses are the same value. It's not hard to do statistically to manipulate. And, four, being a realtor, a subdivision like that in Meridian right now, it would be real easy to just market it in California and load it up with investors. I guarantee it could load up really fast. That's not the kind of community that we need next to Meridian Greens. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I saw a couple other hands. In front. Bruce. McCoy: Bruce McCoy. I live on 2117 South Retriever in the Sportsman Point Subdivision. I have a concern. When I walked into this meeting, this Commission had just voted to approve the Woodburn Subdivision, based on staffs recommendation that in spite of the -- some of the, I guess, objections from people in the audience, based on staffs recommendation the transition in the City of Meridian from lower density lots to higher density lots to commercial settings is what the city desires to have. In that case, I believe the transition was from an R-6 to an R-8. In this case we are talking about an R-4, bigger lots, to an R-8 variance. I find it to be a pretty great variance. And in this case these lots in back of the subdivision, there is no streets between them. So, I have a problem with that. I think that's inconsistent. I think this Commission runs into a danger of establishing inconsistent and a bad precedent -- inconsistent decisions. Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Howell: Hello. I'm Maureen Howell. I live at 432 East Mable Court in Meridian Greens, Adjacent to Larkspur section one and if the fence that they have put in is any indication as to construction that they are going to do of the homes, the fence is a very nice fence. The way they have constructed it -- it's my understanding that they would bring in top soil to put a goad base for the fence and also to bring it to a level of my property. They have come in and they have put in a fence that is just in the ground as it is and it's very uneven and they have also covered some of my sprinkler heads that are on my property and they have told me that they would be raising their heads and I just feel like if this is any indication of what the construction is going to be, we are in a lot of trouble. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Sir. Slade: My name is Jim Slade. 8723 Wichita Drive in Boise. I'm the real estate broker that did the statistical analysis for this company. I'm a 15-year lifetime top producer in the Boise market. I sit on the ACAR board of directors. I have been on the professional standards committee for over ten years and have been the chairman of the grievance committee. I'll stake my career on the validity of the statistical analysis that I did for this company. Secondly, this company has absolutely no intent of selling anything to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 35 of 57 investors. They are sculpting their CC&Rs to, in fact, discourage investors from being part of their development. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Did I catch everybody? One more. Rice: I'm Jim Rice and I live at 425 Amalie Court. I guess I'd just like to reiterate to the consistency of what has been done surrounding Meridian Greens, on the east border and the south border, that just doesn't not fall within the realm of the consistency of how development has evolved. And also, two, is I did -- the property is not completely zoned into the city at the moment and I believe it still belongs to the county and I don't know if this is an issue, but we pulled something off the Internet and it was in regards to same EPA fines and violations against the developer an phase one and I don't know if that's maybe some information that you guys would like to look at. I brought an extra copy, but my concern is the type of developer that's in there now and some possibilities of what's going to occur in the larkspur Number Two. So, I oppose -- Zaremba: If you want to give that to the clerk, it will be entered into the record. Sir, come ahead. Spier: My name is Charles Spier. I live on 2485 South Avaco Way. I will be an over- the-fence neighbor to this new development. Today I looked aver the proposal and I'm a little bit confused. In there the R-8 description calls for 6,500 square feet and it's proposed 4,000 square feet. That's in the documents in this building. And the minimum square footage on houses for R-8 is supposed to be 1,301. This has several homes at 1,166. Five or six or eight of those homes. The other thing, the minimum street frontage in R-$ is 65 feet. This developer proposes 15 feet. I'd hate to be driving a big five truck onto a property and a particular property with such a narrow frontage immediately adjacent to mine on the revised plot. That's not near enough for safe maneuvering of fire trucks and moving around hoses and the like. The other thing is they allow 35-foot housing height and at my back property line that's more than a 45 degree angle right in my backyard. Privacy was something I guess I better enjoy in the next few months, because it's going to be gone if that's done. I attended the August 24th meeting at the Ramada I believe and we tried to get some information from the developer. I specifically asked in two or three different ways if it's going to be owner occupied and he assured me it was. In their documents they have a very clear paragraph on leasing requirements and leasing is defined as renting as well. That's totally in conflict with what the developer told us. The one last thing is that to our south Kuna is the fastest growing community in the state of Idaho, I believe, percentage-wise. And having lived around there for many years, I know what happened to Eagle. Eagle was the fastest growing community. Eagle Road is a disgrace to zoning entirely. You can't build enough roads -- you can't build yourself out of a zoning problem. You can't build roads to solve a lack of mass transit. What we have here on Kuna Road is the same formula. We have a nice little series of white picket fences of the people and put the zoning people's name on it, as well as the deceased. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Okay. One more. Meridian Planning & zoning September 15, 2005 Page 36 of 57 Lawman: Guy Lawman. 2018 Southeast 5th Way, Meridian. Meridian Greens. Most everything has been said here tonight that can be said that I can think of right now, but if you go across the road, Meridian Road, over to Bear Creek Subdivision, I think it's called, and take a look at some of the cars on blocks out in the front yards, some smaller homes, that's what we will have next door to us and I, for one, don't want it. Thanks. Zaremba: Commissioners, any discussion before we have Mr. Sargent come back? Borup: I have one comment. Yes. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think it may be pertinent and this would -- this would be from staff and we have addressed this in the past, but I thought it may be time to review the definition of compatible. You use that in your staff report and it was made reference to and I'm not sure if -- if all the Commission understands -- if we are all talking about the same definition. I know we are not talking about the same definition a lot of people in the audience are referring to, but as far as the definition used in planning and in the report, I just thought that that might be pertinent to maybe refer to, to elaborate on a little bit. Zaremba: Director Canning. Canning: Mr. Chair -- or Commissioner Borup. Sorry about that. There are a couple of different compatibilities that are typically discussed. One is the concept of a compatible land use as far as not being -- a word just escapes me. A nuisance. Thank you. A nuisance. And in that case, such as like a meat packing plant behind your house, would typically be termed, really, an incompatible use. The concept of whether residential is a compatible use with residential, some communities just say flat out, you know, residential is compatible with residential. Our Comprehensive Plan does talk a little bit about buffering to rural or very low density residential. Now, in that case they are not talking -- they are talking about lots that are one to five acres, probably, in size and providing some transition. A transition from medium density residential to medium density residential, staff does generally determine if that's compatible. Does that answer your question, Mr. Borup? Borup: Yes. Thank you. Canning: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Sargent. I lost track of him. There he is. I see you have been taking notes. Sargent: Yes. Commissioners, let me see if I can try to address a number of these issues that were brought up. First of all, Mr. Watson, we apologize about Larkspur Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 37 of 57 Number One. We had five neighborhood meetings and we tried to include as many people as we could in that and we certainly wanted the representative from Meridian Greens to be there and we did address the issues with the patio homes, as well as the assisted living, the Alzheimer's and the limited office in that. I guess I -- this issue of density and compatibility, I guess, is -- I think probably the mast key one in place and guess -- and I was really trying to present our case that we build quality homes that are compatible with other quality homes and the way we build is on smaller lots with less maintenance. And we feel that that's compatible and that's what he's trying to do with some of the numbers that we put together today. And those MLS numbers were a summary, simply, of a lot of data that came off the MLS, so I didn't want to, you know, present to the Commissioners each and every page of that, I was trying to summarize as best I could, to show that, you know --and even if the average price, which has been suggested by a number -- a couple different realtors here tonight was 118 dollars a square foot, we, far new construction, are in a similar category to that. And I know there is a lot of differences that take place with the type of finishes, whether or not the home's on a large lot, whether it's two story, age that it was built -- there is a lot of factors that go in there, but it's at least the -- the price per square foot is at least a basis to do a comparison on and that's what -- the point that I was trying to make tonight. I guess the other thing that I guess I'd like to address is we do have -- because it is a conditional use, we did put together a set of CCRRs and in our CC&Rs we don't allow people to work on their cars in the front yard or to put them up on blocks. They have to -- and because we do the maintenance as part of the homeowners association, the yards are kept in nice shape. I think within our CC&Rs we have a statement that you can't have a motorhome parked in front of the home for more than -- I can't remember exactly, but I think for 48 hours. So, we don't let people just come and park their motorhomes in the street and just leave them there indefinitely or in their driveways. So, within our CC&Rs we also have restrictions on changes to the exteriors of the homes, so we can control the architectural quality of what takes place in those homes at sometime in the future as well, that the homeowners association have the opportunity to review any changes that take place in there. The other -- and this is probably the most important thing that we have done is this spring during the month of May and June, in a number of our communities we started to get a lot of interest, because we did have smaller homes that we were providing people, of investors that were coming in and wanting to buy the homes for rental property. Well, that happened in one of our communities and we went to our lawyer and we put together a program now that we are doing everything we can to exclude investors and renters that come into the community and we have in our CC&Rs a clause that addresses that and we also in our escrow agreement we have a clause, which I didn't bring this evening, that says that anybody that signs this earnest money agreement is going to live in the house and is not going to be renting it out, except to same close member of the family and our lawyer went through and defined what that would be. It could be a son or a daughter, same other close member of the family, they could -- they could rent the home to. So, we tried to make same flexibility in that for the families. I guess Mr. Nicholson discussed about the resale value. I didn't bring any data on that, but I think the -- you know, the communities that we have done in the past, their values held up very well. We haven't had any complaints from any of our buyers that they haven't been able to sell at a reasonable price. And, you know, we Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 20D5 Page 38 of 57 can't guarantee some of the things that -- that are going to be done, but I think that's why I've tried to bring the photographs tonight to show what has happened in some of the communities that we have built, you know, six, seven, nine years ago, so that the communities aren't deteriorating, it's because of the way that we have set up the CC&Rs and the way the homeowners associations have operated. Trying to figure -- talk about the rental property in here. Talked about Larkspur One again. And Mr. Porter brought up the issue about pressurized irrigation. Yes, we are required to put pressurized irrigation in the development of the subdivision. Mr. Colson brought up the 118 dollars per square foot and the issue about the rentals. And Mrs. Howell came in and talked about the fencing. We did put in good quality fencing. I apologize to her. We didn't realize that the sprinklers heads had been covered up and that, you know, we still have a lot of fill dirt to put in there. It's always an issue, because the city wants us to put the fences prior to getting a building permit and once we get the building permit and start working on the lots, then, we level from the street back to the fence and so a lot of those gaps that are in the fence will get filled in as we do the development and do the build out as we go along. I'd like to address Mr. Rice's comments about EPA. The EPA came into Boise this last spring and fined a number of developers. Our fine was 4,600 dollars, which was one of the lower fines that we heard about that the EPA gave out. Most of them were in the six to ten thousand dollars range and what -- and there is -- it's a long report, there were a lot of issues that we had in there that dealt with how we dealt with our documentation, that we had to have it on site, which we did not at the time. We also had to upgrade every time there was a rain storm, we were not doing that correctly and so there is a number of documentation items in there, but we certainly do everything we can to live up to the EPA requirements as they go along. I guess one thing I would say about -- I mean the R-4 zoning does have a 15 foot rear yard setback, I mean we are willing to go with a 25 foot setback that was up against Meridian Greens to try to accommodate what we thought was same of the requests that came out of the neighborhood meeting on the 24th of August. I guess I'm always confused on how to deal with that, because there seems to be a wide variety of requests that came in and some of it we had a hard time, you know, being able to accommodate everybody's desires. Let me see if there is any other -- I think those are -- I guess I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just one at this point. The plans that you have submitted are all single story. Are you intending anything other than single story and maybe especially along Meridian Greens, anything other than single stories along there? Sargent: No. We definitely want to do single stories. Oh. And that's, actually, something else that was brought up, is that the first time home buyer, the -- we are definitely -- because we primarily sell to seniors, we do not want to build a two story, even a bonus room over the garage doesn't seem to work very well. And I was trying to think who had brought up the issue about -- Mrs. Updike talked about the first time buyer. In about 300 of these type of homes that we have built in various communities throughout the Treasure Valley, we probably have in the neighborhood of ten to 15 first Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 39 of 57 time buyers. It just seems like a smaller lot with a smaller yard doesn't attract the first time buyer for some reason or another. We just -- on our first project that we did these type of homes, we thought we were going to get all first time buyers, we got none. I think the youngest person that moved into that first community was 65 years old. Borup: So, not a lot of school children there either. Sargent: No. The impact on the school district is fairly minimum and then -- and that brings up another issue is with traffic. Because we primarily get seniors that are buyers and we can't guarantee that there are not going to be some younger people in there, because we don't do an age restriction in our communities, but what we found is that most of them travel at off peak hours, so they are not -- you know, typically they are retired, they are not trying to go to work at 5:00 o'clock and returning at 5:00 o'clock at night when the peak travel times are. They tend to travel more in the mid morning, mid afternoon type of time frames. Zaremba: Thank you. While you're here let me -- one thing that somebody said about - - Ithink it was Bear Creek having cars up on blocks and stuff. Borup: I believe that's Elk Run across the street. Zaremba: Ask Director Canning a question. Am I correct that the -- one of the things that happens in a city that's growing is every time you reach one stage things start to happen that weren't happening when you were a smaller city and sometimes there aren't ordinances to cover them in general and not specifically to this project, but to the entire city, we need to not have people putting cars up on blocks in their front yard and Director Canning mentioned to me earlier today that the Mayor has asked -- not only the Planning and Zoning Director, but a committee of directors, I believe, to put together some ordinances about home maintenance and property maintenance that Meridian has never needed before that, of course, would apply to this property, as well as everybody's property. Is that true or can you expound on that a little bit? Canning: Yes, sir, I can. The concern came up when we have been hearing the stories about bus loads of California investors and I think one of the people tonight testified about it as well, and so we have been hearing anecdotal evidence about a lot of these properties being purchased for rental properties and the Mayor is concerned that she did ask the directors to work on some property maintenance ordinances. We don't have a time line yet, so I can't give you an idea of when they will be done, but it is something that's on the radar screen and we will be looking at. With the Mayor's sense of urgency it is probably much sooner than I will be ready for it, but we will work on it, so -- Zaremba: And these would be enforceable regulations for the entire city? Canning: Yes. It wouldn't just pertain to rental properties, it would be everybody's property. There would be certain standards established for the maintenance of those properties -- of any properky within the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 40 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Thank yau. I thought that was applicable at the moment. Commissioner Moe. Mae: Yeah. A couple of things. First of all, I want to ask staff a question. I'm a little bit -- I'm a little bit confused here, basically, on the future land use map this property, actually, looks like it is to be zoned in an R-4 and, actually, portions of Meridian Greens looks like in R-8, so I guess we are doing a little bit of cross-over here from my map here. I was kind of curious about that. Are we definitely zoned R-8 in this area or should I just read that as a low density to medium density? Canning: My understanding is the applicant has asked far a bump up in -- the step up in the density from low to medium, to meet density. Moe: Okay. That takes care of that question. And, Mr. Sargent, have you -- I realize you said you have already increased the size of some of the lots on the east side of the property? Would you entertain increasing those any larger? I'm very concerned about the size of those lots and I'm kind of one that likes to see some transition here and we are going from the larger lots down into -- I will tell you first off, I like the development, I like the way its transitioning down, but I don't like those east lots at all. Sargent: I guess I'd asked -- maybe we could make the lots bigger, but could we give up the 25 foot setback rear yard, because in an R-4 it's a 15 and so -- you know, it's -- this is kind of -- a little bit of some of the dilemma that we sort of get into is you give up on one thing and you gain something somewhere else. I mean I guess I would ask that --just that question. Moe: I guess what I'd probably have to tell you is before legal counsel tells me to keep my mouth shut, I can't really give you direction in design. Sargent: Okay. Yeah, we would entertain making some of those lots bigger as well. Mae: Okay. Sargent: The reason they were designed the way they were is because we have units that we have already designed that I showed you the photographs of that were at Verona Subdivision Number Two that -- with the windows out front and the garage sitting back and so those lots were designed for that type of home being in there. But we look at the possibility of doing something larger in there. Mae: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Any further questions for staff? Any further comments from staff? Wilson. No. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 41 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Discussion? Rohm: Well, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think the people in the audience have spoken very well to their concerns about this development and primarily it's lot size. There was other issues as well, but the number of lots adjacent to their properties and the transition seems to be rather abrupt and I think that I would tend to agree with what these folks are saying today and probably transition -- not as many lots along that east line would be in keeping with a better transition and I don't think that you're ever going to see this develop at five -- or half acre lots and have it all R-4 with, actually, ending up with two lots per acre. So, think that transition is the key here and maybe -- the developers were a little bit overzealous in their transition and possibly it would be in keeping with trying to have better communication between existing homeowners and the proposed development if they would revisit this and come back with an alternate plan that takes into consideration testimony tonight. Seems to be the right solution in the short run. Moe: I thought you were ready to say something. Borup: I guess maybe a couple things. Just -- you know, I guess a lot of my comments have to be based on watching Meridian grow far the last 35 years and seeing what's actually happened when new subdivisions come in, not what people speculate's going to happen. And nothing's guaranteed there either, but you can look back and see what has happened and especially different concerns and whether those concerns are realized or not. The comment Commissioner Rohm mentioned on transition. The other aspect that really wasn't brought up, other than it was kind of referred to on the adjoining subdivision, is that the other part of the transition we are looking at here is the development on Meridian Road and I believe that was discussed at previous meetings, that there is going to be some type of commercial development on Meridian Road. That makes a more abrupt transition to go from a commercial development to R-4. I'd rather have a gradual transition between them. And I think that's part of what we need to look at, too. The other thing that -- it seems to me that the impact of properties abutting back property lines to back property lines is much less than properties on the same street. When you have got a neighbor across the street from you that's got smaller homes and the cars on the street or whatever it is, people driving down the street looking at buying a home, I mean they don't know from one side of the street to the other, even in an established neighborhood, even if it is a different subdivision. The perception is it's the same subdivision with houses on both sides of the street. There is very little interaction from -- along back property lines between the neighbors. You're driving through one subdivision to the other. The major access from this subdivision is out Rosalyn to Meridian Road, assuming they are turning right towards the freeway and that's -- and that's the dominant traffic pattern. I just don't see the incompatibility concerns. And it's based on what I have seen happen in other areas. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 42 of 57 Rohm: And I believe those points are well taken and this parcel of ground is in transition on both sides. You have got commercial to the west and you have got low density residential to the east and it's an art to make that transition where its compatible on both lines, bath east and west, and I -- my comment was that even though it is difficult, maybe there could be a little bit more work to make that transition more compatible to the east and that's not to say that there hasn't been effort and it's not an easy task and this certainly is -- Borup: Your definition of compatible is something different than the city -- Rohm: Well, I guess part of what my concern is is that you have lots that are less than the minimum of an R-8 abutting lots that are significantly greater than the minimum of an R-4 and so with that in mind, there appears in my mind to be a little bit of a friction there and it seems to me that -- I'm not asking them to transition to R-4 standards, but think that there is a give and take here that the developer has even suggested that he's willing to revisit that and I don't want to speak for him, but I believe I heard him say that he is willing to revisit that and I think that that -- as far as the ebb and flow of discussion here, that's the primary concern. And if, in fact, that can take place before this is moved forward, then, everybody wins. Borup: To which they would approve the same size lots abutting a one-acre subdivision. Zaremba: My comment would be that -- Borup: I was just thinking about the consistency of this Commission. Zaremba: I'm sorry, Commissioner Borup. Borup: That's all. Zaremba: My comment would be that this application doesn't really come as any surprise to me. I feel when Larkspur One was submitted we actually had a preview of what was likely to happen here. There was some discussion about how it would eventually connect to Rosalyn, that it would be similar to the southern portion of Larkspur One. There is some slight difference, though, in -- if you picture the roadway, believe, for Larkspur does something like this, it comes down along here and, then, does an S to get to where it connects here. The smaller lots on here don't actually back up to any house. That's a canal and open area. As I say, this -- the application just as it's presented is not really a surprise to me. However, if the developer is willing, along this east line, to lose a lot or two to be a little closer in compatibility to the ones that back up here, I wouldn't have a problem supporting that idea as well. Much of the project I very much like and as has been pointed out, as a transition from the R-4 to the commercial, which is very reasonable to assume will line Meridian Road, an R-8 is to me reasonably compatible and a good transition. The question is do we want to deviate Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 43 of 57 this far from the RT8 standards even and along that east property line I could support asking the developer to lose a lot or two. Anybody care to make motions? Rohm: I think that -- Borup: The hearing is not closed yet. Rohm: -- a continuance, with the assumption that the developer is willing to bring back something that takes into consideration testimony heard tonight, that will be the motion that I would propose, if, in fact, there is concurrence from the developer that that's something that's doable. Zaremba: The Pubic Hearing is still open. We certainly can ask him. Borup: If you're just talking about losing two lots, that can be done without a redesign of moving streets or anything. Zaremba: Mr. Sargent, would you -- I believe you indicated earlier this is something you would consider, but can you confirm -- Sargent: I guess the specific thing of making some of the lots larger along the east side, I think there is a way that we can do that and maybe lose one or two lots in there. And I guess the -- when I look at the zoning, I -- yeah, we will try to get -- I guess the idea is the R-4 is an 8,000 square foot lot, is that the new -- Borup: That's the same as it's always been. It hasn't changed. Sargent: The -- I guess the -- Zaremba: Not to interrupt, which I am doing, but I don't think we are asking you to go to 8,000, I just think a little bigger than 4,000 for some of those. Sargent: Okay. Well, most of the lots along the east side, I believe, are 5,100 to -- think most of them are -- Rohm: I think they are 6,600. Sargent: Yeah. 6,500, somewhere in the vicinity, is what you're talking about, I assume. Zaremba: 6,500 would be what the R-8 zone asks for anyhow. That would be reasonable. Borup: The new R-8 zone is 5,000. Zaremba: The new R-8 zone is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 44 of 57 Rohm: Exactly. Sargent: I guess from my perspective, I'm willing to do that, because it's very specific and it's something that I can sit down with a designer and work on coming up with a floor plan that fits in that configuration. I guess the -- you know, we had the neighborhood meeting, I guess I had heard that there was adesire -- and there was a number of people there, maybe I misunderstood it, that there was this desire to have this 25 foot setback. So, I went back and redesigned the plan based on that, but -- and some of the testimony tonight seems like that -- Mr. Rosetti said that it only came from one person. And so I guess when I look at this long list of issues, by going to the R-4 and some of the things with traffic and some of those issues, I can deal with the lot size, I don't know if I can deal with all the other things that have been -- all the other testimony that's been here tonight. (mean there is a number of specific things I can address. I guess that's -- that's the part I -- that's the part I get confused on is all the other, you know, traffic issues, you know, that come up that -- you know, I don't know whether or not Ican -- Zaremba: We, of course, are having a struggle with that all over the city. The Comprehensive Plan does envision that there will be -- it's rural and I guess it has been even farmed recently in this area, but the Comprehensive Plan certainly envisions that that's going to change. That will result in traffic. That will result in a few more people going to the school, probably, even if most of these are seniors, but that would be true whether it was R-4 or 4-40. So, I'm -- Sargent: And I just to kind of follow along with the issue on the school, is that with the smaller lots and the number of homes that we have sold, we have only sold to two families that have had children, you know, in approximately 300 some units. So, you know, with the larger lots, the desire to have along the eastern part, there is -- you know, my impression with the larger lots, that we'd probably end up more likely to have families because of that, but, that's fine, I mean we don't have any disagreement with that. Rohm: I think it's safe to say that we, as a commission, are not here to redesign your subdivision. I want -- that needs to be said first and foremost, and -- Borup: That's what we just did. Rohm: Not -- what I'm suggesting at this point in time is that -- that you possibly go back and revisit the issue with -- can they have one more community meeting to discuss the -- and it's a single issue. I agree with your comment that you can't go back and revisit every other issue, but I think we have encapsulated the overwhelming concern of the -- of the testimony here and that the transition lots between the R-4 and this development as the primary issue and if we can continue it for just that one discussion, think that that probably will suffice and, then, you don't have to revisit the balance and if Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 45 of 57 you come up with something that's workable with your neighbors and acceptable with your people, then, we -- Zaremba: And the discussion would be is it -- are they interested in trading the 25-foot setback for wider lots or -- you know, I assume that's what the discussion would be, but -- Rohm: Exactly. Okay. All right. With that being said, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, Mr. Sargent, does that time frame work for you okay? Sargent: I guess I didn't -- I guess I don't understand. So, the next -- Borup: Well, we haven't done anything. Commissioner Rohm was talking about having -- he's talking about having another neighborhood meeting, rather than working it out tonight, but -- to discuss just strictly the lots along the eastern property line would be the only issue. Zaremba: Let me propose a suggestion. We typically take a break about 9:00 o'clock and we have gone well passed that. If we took a ten ar maybe even 15 minute break and had the neighborhood meeting right here. Would anybody be interested in that or is that uncomfortable for you? Sargent: That's fine. Zaremba: Okay. There may be a solution that could be proposed. I propose we take a 15-minute break. We will reconvene at 10:00 o'clock. (Recess.) Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene after the recess and it appears the recess has been productive, but I'd like to suggest that we continue these three items to the end of this meeting and proceed with Items 19 and 20 and, then, we will come back to this issue. So, I would entertain a motion to continue Items 16, 17 and 1$ to the end of tonight's agenda. Borup: So moved. Zaremba: Is there a second? Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank yau. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.