Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes '::'_0 ,£ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 3 of 136 Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue items AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013, both relating to Tanana Valley Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th, 2006. Rohm: June 1 st? Zaremba: Oh June 1 st? I'm sorry. Change the motion to our regularly scheduled meeting of June 1 st, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013 to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 1 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Before we open up the regularly scheduled projects, I'd like to just talk to you folks a little bit about the procedures that we have at the Planning and Zoning Commission and how the process works. What we will do is we will open up a project and we will ask the staff for their comments. Our staff tries to present the project to us in terms of how it fits the Comprehensive Plan and how it fits ordinance. They're basically neutral in the project and that's the presentation that we hear first. So, basically, you, as the audience, will get a -- kind of a feel for what the project is without any prejudice. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to speak to the project and it's at this time that they try to sell the project to the Commission, try and speak to its strengths and the value to the community as a whole. Once we have taken both the staff's presentation and the applicant's, then, at that point in time we open it up to the public for their testimony. At sometimes there will be an individual in the audience that will be the president of a homeowners association or something to that effect that will be speaking for a whole group of people. That individual will be afforded I believe ten minutes to speak. All those that are speaking just individually are given three minutes to speak to the project. And once that portion of the hearing has been completed, then, we ask the applicant to come back up and respond to any questions that came up during testimony. After that's been completed, then, hopefully, we will have enough information to be able to render a decision whether or not we are going to forward an affirmative to City Councilor recommending denial. So, that's, basically, the process from which we work here. Rohm: And with that being said, I will open up the first -- yeah, there is more seats up here in the front if anybody feels so compelled. Moe: We do not bite. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 '0 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 4 of 136 acres) and C-C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Rohm: Okay. So, at this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, all three of these items related to the Hightower Subdivision and begin with our staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hightower Subdivision was continued from the March 2nd hearing as mentioned, due to a slight redesign by the applicant and also they were continuing to work with ITD in terms of their needs for right-of-way along Chinden and kind of continuing the talks about the proposed access to Chinden. Hightower is a proposal for annexation and zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT, Ada County, to the R-8, Medium Density Residential Zone, that's 12.31 acres, to the R-15, the medium high residential zone, that's 8.04 acres, and to C-C, Community Commercial, and that's 3.68 acres. The subdivision is located on Chinden -- on Chinden Road, State Highway 20/26, bounded on the east by Jericho Road and Westborough Subdivision, which you saw as a Commission I think this winter. On the south by Arcadia and Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. On the west by some still rural Ada County properties. And, then, on the north a county subdivision Castlebury. The applicant has the -- probably doesn't show up real well on any of these slides, unfortunately, but the zoning that they have requested kind of breaks down that the R- 15 zone is for some townhomes in the northwest area -- or the northeast, I'm sorry, area of the plat. The C-C, the Community Commercial, is for some future commercial uses right along Chinden and with the proposed -- at the proposed intersection of Saguaro Hills Way. And, then, the R-8 proposal is for the remainder of the project for some traditional single family detached homes. And, then, also some -- what we typically call alley-loaded. These have what Unified Development Code defines as a mew. It's an open space that these homes actually front onto and, then, they are accessed from a private street is where the garages would be. Then, the homes here do face these public streets on the perimeter of that block. Kind of a couple outstanding issues. One that won't be considered by this body, but access to Chinden Road, State Highway 20/26, does require a variance to be located in this area. The Unified Development Code limits accesses to state highways to at the mile and at the half mile. This is not Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 5 of 136 the half mile. However, due to development patterns and in the existence of the roadway at Castlebury across Chinden, ITD and the City of Meridian have agreed that this is the appropriate place for a connection. They will still have to get that variance approved by City Council when these applications reach City Council. In the future, ITD and ACHD have indicated that Jericho Road would lose its full access and, actually, become a right-in, right-out roadway once this roadway is constructed and possibly signalized in the future. The applicant has proposed with their Conditional Use Permit the mixed use portion of this project, the future commercial. As part of that they have requested a drive-thru and have proposed an associated site plan. We do look at that for landscape buffers, for parking, for the design of the drive-thru at this stage. It does all meet the requirements in the Unified Development Code and we would -- with one modification. We were happy with this commercial area as it came in. The slight modification being that a 20 -- make sure I get the right number here - 25-foot landscape buffer is required between the commercial uses and the proposed townhouse residential uses here. In speaking with the applicant, they provided a larger than is required buffer along Jericho Road. They would like to, essentially, shift those townhouse units five feet to the east, take five feet out of that larger than required buffer on Jericho, and, then, add the five feet along this portion of the eastern portion of the commercial. Staff would support that and it would be, then, meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code. In regards to those commercial buildings, they have proposed some elevations. We have recommended that their elevations and material list that they have provided, that they be tied to that through a development agreement as part of the annexation. The commercial buildings along Chinden -- Chinden is an entryway corridor on the Comprehensive Plan, so that does required administrative design review approval. I did include -- although that's a staff level approval that will take place later, we did include an analysis of that in the staff report. Their proposal does meet those requirements and we did feel that is was important to tie them to their materials and sample elevations to insure that -- that what they propose tonight is what's built and it stays true to the vision of what they are proposing. Along Chinden Boulevard, the Unified Development Code -- and this landscape plan is a little bit hard to read at first, but if you look at this portion in the lower right corner here, that's, actually, the portion along Chinden, 50, you know, that should be up above there. Kind of their way of getting it all in one sheet. So, along Chinden there is 35-foot landscape buffer required. The applicant did provide that. ITD provided some revised comments and that should be in your packets. They had an original letter dated February 13th, then, they did revise that with a letter that was -- I want to say the first part of March or the last part of March. Anyways, what they did was they dropped their dedicated right of way requirement along Chinden to 70 feet and, then, did ask that the applicant keep a setback from the center line of Chinden for roadway expansion. The issue being that ITD isn't quite sure what sort of section -- street section Chinden will ultimately have in this area, whether it will be their urban section, which requires a 70-foot right of way, or their -- I don't know if rural is the right word, but their larger highway section that requires the hundred foot right of way. That's yet to be determined what the ultimate future of Chinden in this area is. So, they did ask for that building setback and to the able to expand in the future if they needed to. A couple of items on the plat. The fire department did request a fire turnaround at the terminus of -- I believe it's Minara , 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 6 of 136 Avenue. Due to the length of that stub street there will need to be a temporary turnaround provided in an easement to the fire department. Minara and Torri, I guess, is how you say it, which is -- there is Torri Place and, then, Torri Way are the two circular streets. All three of those roadways have reduced street sections. They have the 29 foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb and parking on those will be limited to one side of the street per ACHD standards and the Meridian fire department standards. I think the biggest outstanding issue in regards to this area of the plat is the design of the townhouse lots on those two circular streets, Torri Way and Torri Place. As staff we did have some concern about access to the rear most -- or southern most townhomes proposed on each of those circles. The circle is located here and, then, those -- what they have is these little flag lots that, then, share a common driveway to access these townhomes. We did have some concerns about the configurations of those lots. We did ask that this graphic be prepared. After reviewing this, we feel like this setup does work on the northern proposed turnaround with the townhomes, because this -- going out to Chinden right there is a common lot. Our administrator's interpretation of the code is that any building lot adjacent to a -- to common drives, such as these, does have to take access from those common -- from those common drives. Now, you're limited to four homes on common drives, so this would, actually, make five, because the lots there -- I have lost my pointer. But the lots there in the center, the one on the right would have to take access from those common drives, that would make five taking access from that and would not conform with the Unified Development Code. Staffs recommendation is that those -- that this townhouse section mirror the one to the north. That is that those two middle townhouse lots do become an open space lot. That's not in the staff report, that's kind of a late development on that, but we would recommend that in order to kind of resolve that access issue and that common drive issue. So, I think that's one of the bigger outstanding issues for you to consider tonight. On the commercial portion of the plat there was -- there was the issue of the applicant needing to provide a landscape easement for the required street buffer along West Hightower Drive. We did include that as a condition. And I think with that I will kind of wrap up my comments. We do recommend approval as conditioned and with the -- with the changes I just mentioned. I believe the applicant will have some further changes to discuss in regards to the discussions with an adjacent landowner, some modifications that they are willing to do, that they have proposed and agreed to. So, that will be for your consideration as well. I think with that I will take any questions the Commission has. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your report. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time I would like to have the applicant come forward, please. Holt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Phil Holt with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I have got a presentation on PowerPoint that Josh is going to put in for me real quick. Wilson: It usually takes a second to load. Holt: I will try to keep it brief also. It looks like you have a long agenda tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 7 of 136 Rohm: Yes, we do. Wilson: All right. I think we are set. Holt: Okay. As staff mentioned the Comprehensive Plan calls for a neighborhood center, mixed use development up in this location here. You can see on the Comp Plan at -- it's kind of between Meridian Road and Locust Grove. We are requesting annexation, rezone, conditional use, preliminary plat, and a variance tonight. Let's go to the next slide. I put together a composite aerial to give you a little bit better idea of what's happening in the adjacent areas. We have got Westborough, which is approved here. It's a mixed use development. Arcadia here. Saguaro Canyon here. You can kind of see the lots down below here. Here is our site here. You can see Signature Point nursery here. The church. Zamzows. And, then, the large Catholic church on the corner here. And, then, Castlebury across the way there. Next one is our rezone plan, which better defines the zoning areas. We have got the C-C zone here where the commercial is located. R-15, which wraps around that commercial area. And, then, the R-8 towards the back, feathering out to a lower density the further south that you get to transition better into Saguaro Canyon. Okay. This shows the master plan of the property in a graphic format to give you an idea of the common areas and street trees, just to give you an overall feel of the development, as well as the buffer areas along the frontage of the roadways. Eight foot planter strips along all the interior roadways with street trees throughout to give you that real boulevard, street tree feel. We have a one acre park site in the middle of the project. We are including 18 percent open space on this project. And the park site includes amenities; such tot lots, gazebo, and open space play areas. I have got a couple of enlargements of some of the key areas on this. One is that one acre park site in the center. And these homes, the alley-loaded homes, their front yards and porches, basically, face out onto that common green area. I have got a photograph of a similar development that we did in Eagle called Winding Creek that has that same sort of setup. Next is the townhome lot area and we did just provide this graphic for staff today in order to show how these driveways would workout on these shared driveway lots. And we will work with staff over the next few days to figure out how we can configure a driveway for this double townhome here and if we can't, we may have to -- have to lose that. We will try our best to accommodate the UDC code requirements on that particular lot. Next is an enlargement of the commercial area. Again, we are showing three commercial buildings. We have broken up the parking lot into two distinct parking areas to avoid a large sea of asphalt out in front along Chinden. And we have broken up the buildings into smaller building sets in order to avoid a strip mall looking commercial along Chinden as well. And we have provided the 35 foot buffer and pathway along Chinden for good buffering as well. And one of the comments in the staff report dealt with pedestrian access to the commercial center from the walkway out on Chinden. We will provide a connection here and a crosswalk across that drive aisle. And we also have pedestrian connections in from the Hightower Drive here into these plaza spaces on the interior, to kind of try to create the most pedestrian friendly commercial center that we can. Next. Next is the conditional use site plan. You may have to look at the larger scale one that was included in your packets, but it includes a lot more detail around the commercial area, as far as the lot Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 8 of 136 dimensioning, parking lots, drive aisles sizes and all that to make sure that we do conform with the UDC code on that area. As staff mentioned, we are looking -- it looks like we are in good shape there. The first sheet of the pre-plat I wanted to point out how we are going to deal with the fire department comment on Minara right here. What we have is a 20 foot common lot that travels all along the south side of these lots here with a pathway in it and our plan is to do a hammerhead turnaround and replace that six foot pathway with a 20 foot asphalt area that is temporary -- temporary until this roadway is extended down into the next development and, then, we can take out that 20 foot asphalt and put lawn back in and keep the six foot asphalt connection. Next slide. Basically just another shot of the pre-plat. And next slide, please. Next one is the landscape plan. We showed the trees in color just to give you an idea of how the boulevards are lined with street trees and the eight foot planter strip. And staff pointed out the discrepancy on our buffer areas up in the commercial area and where the townhomes abut Jericho. We have provided five feet too much buffer space on Jericho and five feet too little on -- between the commercial and the townhomes. And I did have a conversation with staff today about potentially moving the town homes five feet over to even that up, but after thinking about it a little bit more, I would almost rather see more buffering along Jericho than between the commercial building pad site and these homes. So, if it's something that you would be agreeable to, I would rather keep 20 feet here and 25 feet here, as opposed to vice-versa, but, you know, we can go either way. I just think it might be a little bit better to buffer more against the roadway. A little bit more traffic noise I think there. Again, we have 18 percent open space in this area with that one acre park space in the center. And we have interconnected pathways throughout. Interconnected pathways all along all the roadways, through the park sites, along the bottom here and all the long the frontage of both roads and interconnected through that commercial space as well. Okay. Next. Next we are showing some home styles that we are planning to match the quality of materials shown here, such as brick, stone, different materials on some of the higher quality homes in the area. This is the photograph here that I mentioned earlier about the homes with the front porches and front entries located along the park space. Really provides a nice open community-type feel for those alley-load homes. Next is the commercial area. These shots taken from Eagle River in Eagle, just to show quality of materials, such as stonework, the awnings, different architectural punch outs in the walls to create a little bit of interest, no flat planes, basically creating a nice architectural theme with it. The next staff mentioned that we are working with one of the adjacent neighbors to come up with some compromises to some issues that he has brought up and that deals with this -- this home right here. Here is our western property line right here. We have got 520 feet from the back patio here to the homes right here. And in a couple of different meetings, one on site on the neighbor's property, an agreement was arrived at that reduced the height of five of the homes right in here along that western property line to 25 feet. Thirty-five feet is allowed in the -- in this zoning area, but we have agreed to go down to 25 feet for those homes to help preserve that view corridor. Other concerns that he had were putting language into the CCRs that basically stated that this property here is RUT in the county and that it is under agricultural use and that it will remain so. We don't have a problem with adding that language in there. I think it's mainly just to protect -- protect him from neighbors complaining about ag use on that piece of ground. So, no Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 9 of 136 problem there. And he has requested, along with our fence line, all along this western property line, we are providing a six foot fence, but he has also requested five gallon arborvitae spaced roughly at four feet on center for that entire stretch and planted on his property. And we have agreed to do that as well to help provide that buffer for him. And, let's see, after -- after the onsite agreement to reduce the height of these five homes to 25 feet, he has come back to the developers and requested that be lowered to 23 feet. And as well as reducing the height on the entire subdivision to 30, instead of the 35 feet. And that is something after coming to an agreement on those five homes and really putting a lot of thought into the style of homes that we are trying to create on this with two story, nicely pitched roofs, the high quality and the style that we are looking for, I don't think that we can agree to that 30 foot limitation on the entire project. So, we are sticking with the 35 height maximum and the 25 foot that was originally agreed to on site. Next slide, Josh. Thank you. This shows a -- kind of a view shed type study that we did from the back patio of this home with 520 foot distance showing a 25-foot home. The upper box here is the 35 -- or, excuse me, the -- yeah, the 35-foot height. The black area is the 25-foot height. So, we are drawing view shed lines to the first home and we have a roadway and, then, the second row of homes. If that was built out as a 35-foot height you could see that it just barely clips the top of that home and if this was to remain at a 35-foot height, it goes completely over the top of that second row. So, I think we are okay with keeping that -- the next rows in at 35 feet and we have agreed to keep those first -- or the five homes along that side at 25 feet. Then, the last request was for the developers to provide equipment and labor to the current landowner to upgrade some ditch work and whatnot to keep water from flowing onto his property and kind of flooding him out, which has happened in the past and we have agreed to do that as well this spring. The last thing I want to talk about is a little bit more about the ITD access and the process that we went through to kind of reach consensus on that. We have had multiple meetings with ITD, Compass, ACHD, and the city staff to arrive at a location that everyone can agree to here for a lighted intersection, which isn't quite at the half mile section, but it's real close. Got Meridian Road here, Locust Grove here, and we are in this location. But with the development that's happened over the past year or so, Castlebury and Castlebury West, that's built out completely across this frontage here with no access points to Chinden. As well as our roadway connections through Saguaro all the way down to McMillan, this is the natural location for that half mile lighted intersection substitute. So, I guess with consensus from ITD and the letters that they have provided in support of that, I know that you folks can't make a decision on that, that goes onto Council, but I would love to see a -- some sort of note in the -- in your deliberation that states that you would support that as well. With that I'll turn it over. Rohm: Thank you. That was a fine presentation. Is there any questions of the applicant at this time? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 10 of 136 Moe: Mr. Hall, just a couple of things I want to kind of go through with you. In regards to the townhomes where you discussed meeting with staff to go over that, are you, basically, not willing to make those common lot and reduce down on the building there? Holt: You know, based on our 18 percent common space that we have right now, I would like to at least take a look at salvaging that configuration. If it comes down to not being able to meet the UDC as far as how many lots take access off of the common drives or whatnot, we will turn that into a common lot. Moe: In regard to the -- are you anticipating fencing between the commercial and the residential to the east? Hold: Between which? I'm sorry. Moe: From the commercial portion to the residential to the east. Holt: Yes. Moe: What type fencing is that to be? Holt: Most likely vinyl. Moe: Vinyl? Holt: Yeah. Probably a tan vinyl. Moe: Is that the same that you're doing on the west side as well, then? Holt: That is correct. Moe: Okay. I think that's it for me right now. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Anyone else? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Actually, one is a comment and that is on your working with the neighbor to agree that they can continue to farm their property as they currently are, I think that's typically handled by on the plat putting a note that -- about the Right To Farm Act. I think if you just reference the Right To Farm Act on your plat, staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but that should handle that issue. Holt: Okay. Sounds good. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 11 of 136 Zaremba: The other is you talked about your discussions with ITD and I see in a letter that they have provided, dated March 30, they are still asking to work with you on acceleration and deceleration lanes on Chinden. Holt: That's correct. Zaremba: Are you optimistic that you're working with them and something will -- Holt: Yes. Yes, we are. In fact, we have submitted a permit for this access and as part of that permit application, when they go through their deliberations with the commission; they will either approve or deny the access. Once they approve the access, then, we come back to them with all of the construction plans and whatnot on how that all works out, together with the potentially the center turn lane, and the accel and decel lanes. So, yes, that's a requirement that ITD puts on and that's what we will do. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Holt: Thank you. Rohm: At this time would Tom Book like to come forward, please? Book: Well, thanks for the opportunity to be here. I have never been to a public meeting before. I did read through your instructions and so I will try and, you know, follow the best I can on right protocol to be handling this. I wasn't planning on being here. I have been -- Rohm: Before you begin, please, state your name and address for the record. Book: My name is Tom Book. The property address is 6168 Glide Spear. That's the property I own. I do not currently live there. Do you need my home address? Rohm: Please. Book: 11254 Hickory Loop Drive, Boise. Rohm: Thank you. Book: You know, I've had discussions with the development team or that plating team, actually, is what they are, for the last 45 days and as of a week and a half ago I wanted written confirmation that they would concur with the things I had talked to them and they didn't send me that and as of yesterday afternoon I did not have verbal confirmation from them. In fact, the first I have heard anything about it was when Phil Holt just made a public announcement to you folks. So, because I didn't hear anything yesterday I am here and I have prepared to talk to you about my concerns. And my concerns, actually, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 12 of 136 are a lot more than what I had talked to them, but I was willing to compromise with them before and I feel that they squandered that. The minor issues that Phil talked about, those are all fine, as far as my property line; as far as I want the homeowners to know that I will be farming that land, that's why I bought it. I didn't buy it to develop it. I am pro development. I think it's great that this property is being developed. I just -- I just want those people to know that I will be farming it and it's going to be noisy and stinky and I want them -- I want them to know that. As far as why I just decided come up here even after Phil conceded to those three, it really has to do with I think my responsibility to, I guess, help the community. This plat is high density and I'm for that. When I looked at these lots I thought, geez, this is a good use for this land. They are getting a lot of good use out of this land. I was impressed with how much use they are getting out of it. But what I see and think and feel as far as that density goes is that the city wants to create that density, because it -- normally what happens when you create that density by having 4,800 square foot lots and 5,000 square foot lots, is you create some ability for the homeowners to purchase those properties, as opposed to doing one acres and building 800,000 dollar homes. And the problem I have with this is that I believe that the plat team and the development team is trying to circumvent the spirit of the city when it comes to density. What they are trying to do, because -- because the lots are only 5,000 square feet, what they are trying to do is not build to 250 and 290 thousand dollars homes in there, they are trying to build 400,000 dollar homes in there. And the only way to do that is to build mansions in the sky. They are trying to get 3,000, 3,200 square foot homes on these 4,800, 5,000 square foot lots. And I just -- I have talked to them about their house plans and even Phil, those ones that he showed there, all they're pointing to there is just the quality of construction. They are not telling you about the vertical silos that they plan on building and I love silos and I wish there was a farm there with the silos, but it's going to be silos with people living in them. I have a couple of photos to give you and a couple house plans to give, because they were not courteous enough to me to provide me with house plans that had heights on them. I had to do research on my own this morning at 3:00 o'clock in order to prepare for this meeting and I would like to share these with you, just so you know what is available to put on these lots. Those home plans right there will fit on these lots. Those home plans do not exceed 25 feet in height. And if you look at the quality of those, they look exactly like the quality that Phil showed up here, except that they won't -- they won't commit to the heights on them. What I -- what I would like for the city to do is to maintain the spirit of the density and to maintain the purchase ability of these homes with the spirit of the city and to restrict the height to 25 feet for all the single family residences in this subdivision. The reason why they don't want to do it, obviously, is because if somebody is going to -- if a builder is going to sell a 4,000 square foot house, he's willing to pay more for the lot, even though the lot doesn't cost more to build. I have prepared for each one of you an economic discussion of this project to show you that. Twenty-five foot heights -- that 25 foot heights are feasible for this site. Rohm: While he's -- while we are distributing the papers here, I think it's important that I note that, typically, you're only given three minutes for your presentation. In fact, due to the fact that you have put so much effort into preparing for this, we are going to give you Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 13 of 136 some extra time, but it's also important that you carry this through, so that we can finish up and be able to go on to our deliberations. Book: Yeah. And the material -- I will just quick summarize it. If you -- well, the house plans speak for themselves, hopefully. And as far as the -- as far as this printout that I gave you, what I tried to do was -- or not what I tried, what I actually did was to equate for you the size of the home, the height of the home, and what the value of the home is. And, then, because of that, you extrapolate what the value of the lot is, what is a builder willing to purchase in order to put that type of house on the lot. And so when see you in the base land price -- or the one that -- the one that says 25 height requirement base scenario, you see on that scenario that there is still a 1.2 million dollar profit in it for the developer. If I -- Borup: Sir, I'm not sure what the developer's profit has to with anything that we are going to be considering, so unless -- Book: Okay. Okay. Let me go to the second -- let me go to the second sheet. The second sheet behind here, I just wanted to point out to you folks -- and, hopefully, you guys monitor this and, hopefully, guys are concerned about this -- or at least it's one of ten things that you consider -- is the median income for Meridian and the purchasing power of the people that live here in the city. The median income is 58,000 dollars as of fiscal year 2005. That allows the median household to purchase a house worth 210,000 dollars. That's with a six and a half percent mortgage, you know, 30 year, 20 percent down. With a 25 foot height restriction you will help achieve housing that, you know, the median income -- and, actually, it would have to be slightly higher than the median income, because 25 foot housing in this subdivision is going to be in the 230 to 290 range is how much the homes would cost if you went to a 25 foot height and you can see on my analysis, you know, that gets up to an 80,000 dollar household income. So, I just wanted you guys to take that under consideration, because I think it's important for the community to -- if we are going to do high density, to do it so that people can live there. Rohm: Thank you. I would like to just speak to your presentation. And thank you. You did a great job and it's appreciated, all the effort that you put into this. I think that it's also important that I tell you that as the Commission we try to stay clear of telling developers what kind of homes to build in terms of pricing. And, you know, we try to address the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance and, then, the compromises that are made between a developer and the adjacent property owners are just that, those things take place off the record and as in this particular development, the developer came and met with you and agreed to the 25 foot height limitation on the adjacent lots to your property and that, actually, happens quite frequently. I'm not trying to speak for the balance of the Commission, but, typically, we do not view developments in terms of price range, structures within that development, only the size of lots and the setbacks and things such as that. So, I just want to you know we are -- Book: So, what is the purpose of the small lots, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 14 of 136 Rohm: The differing zones within the area of impact of the City of Meridian are established in an effort to transition from low density to medium density to high density within the area of impact and the City of Meridian as a whole and as each development, this one included, comes before the Commission, what we try to do is we try to look at it in terms of how it complies with that Comprehensive Plan. Book: Okay. Why wouldn't you want to consider restricting the heights? What's the down side in that? Borup: What's the up side? That's already a city ordinance. That's already been established over a lot of years and revisions and that's -- that's something that works. So, why change is my question? Book: To create housing that the working family in Meridian can live in. But if that's not what you guys care about, then, there isn't -- you're right, then, I don't have an answer for it. Rohm: And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to characterize it that we don't care about that. And, typically, the smaller lots will have homes that are more affordable than acre lots, like you made in your presentation, and if it's -- we just have not tried to put restrictions on the developers that require them to build a certain value structure and we try to steer away from that at as much as possible, but -- Nary: Sorry. I thought you were done. I'm sorry. Rohm: Well, in any case, I would like you to know that we appreciate your testimony and it will receive due consideration. Book: The last community thing that I have is that the developers here are getting one step ahead now, because they are going vertical. You guys used to shrink down lots to have that control, but now they have turned the cycle, so now they are going vertical. So, I think the next -- the next thing for you guys to start thinking about is vertical, if you want housing that the regular Meridian working tax paying person can buy. Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this -- for this application? Okay. At this time would the applicant like come back forward, please? . Holt: Thank you. I would like to clarify exactly which lots are the five that we have agreed to go down to 25 feet on and that is Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10. And Lot 10 of Block 8. And just to bring up one more point about lot sizes and whatnot, I don't know if this helps the situation, but 30 of our lots are the townhome lots and they are in the range of 3,200 up to about 4,500 square feet. I would imagine that those lots going to most likely max out 26 or 28 hundred square foot homes, not up into the 3,000s, I wouldn't think, just because of the size -- size of the lots, so -- similarly designed homes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 15 of 136 in that Winding Creek development that I mentioned in Eagle, with the alley-load homes, those are selling for in the neighborhood of 260 to 280. So, they are not getting clear up into the 300s as mentioned. So, I think with the alley loads and the townhome lots, I think the size of homes that are going to be provided there will provide some amount of affordability I would think. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you coming back up. Anymore questions of the applicant? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You had just mentioned the five lots that were restricted and I'm -- and I think that's great that you worked to compromise with the neighbor, but what's your understanding of the reason for that? Holt: Based on the meetings on site and the requests by the neighbor, it was, basically, all about the view corridor, view shed. This is the first I have heard about the economic impacts of the house sizes and whatnot. Borup: So, this is the view for the farmer as he's farming the ground and he's out plowing the field, he can have a good view for -- Holt: Well, view from the patio on the home that we showed. I think it was 520 feet away from that patio. Borup: Okay. I thought the testimony was he was -- this was farm ground to be farming, not to be living there. Holt: All right. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Discussion? Any thoughts on this before we request a closure of the Public Hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, only to comment that it appears to me to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, with the adjustments requested by staff. It's long been a precedent of this Commission and possibly even state law in Idaho, that nobody is guaranteed a view through their neighbor's property. I think the applicant has been very generous in offering to limit five lots to 25 feet. I would not ask the applicant to go any farther than that. As Commissioner Borup pointed out, the 35 foot limit in the R-8 zone has been a longstanding limit and we have recently passed a new Unified Development Code that included that again. It's pretty well established. And our main job is not to do the marketing or consider the economics for the developer; they are supposed to decide what's economically feasible for them. Our job is to decide does it comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and it appears to me that it does. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 16 of 136 Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Moe, do you have any comment? Moe: Yes, sir. I would concur with Mr. Zaremba. A couple of things that I would also like to add to it. In regards to the buffer between the commercial and the residential, I would, in fact, like to see it go back to 25-foot. I realize that if they shift it, it's taken care of. I'm a little bit more concerned that there will be noise within the commercial to the residential, so I would like to see what staff have recommended stay in place. And let's see here. I guess a question for staff I would have, Josh, in regards to the common lot and whether or not -- I guess I want to know how we act on that this evening, if, in fact, you guys are recommending a common lot in lieu of the building and they want to work with staff to possibly work that in., How are we going to handle that? Wilson: In the past you, as the Commission, have been fairly hesitant to pass things along to City Council unresolved and I think if you did that that's what you would be doing. Just looking at it, you know, we do have the limitation of no more than four homes on a common lot. So, you know, if he did work the one there to access off that common lot, I think that still leaves us with five, unless something is done with the northernmost unit on that attached structure there, to somehow get it off of the common drive, which with the lot configurations -- I guess I am not seeing how it would work right now. So, I think I would stick with our recommendation that that's a common lot. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. And I appreciate everybody's input on this. At this time I think we are probably ready to close the Public Hearing, if I could get a motion. Zaremba: I guess the question on that is whether we want to see the resulting plat from the discussion with the staff about whether a lot is going to need to be eliminated or not. Rohm: Well, I think that lot will still remain, but it will just become a common lot, as opposed to a developable lot. And so the lot configuration will remain constant, it's just there won't be a townhouse available on that lot. Borup: I have got a question, then. On the lot -- the space between Lot 10 and 11, what is that area? It doesn't seem to have a lot number, but -- Wilson: It does have a lot number. I think that lot goes clear out to the landscape buffer. There is -- Borup: Oh, that's part of the landscape buffer. Wilson: Yeah. That -- along Jericho it comes down and there is a strip along the southern boundary there and that is, actually, part of that same lot and that -- as you see on the drawing there, that does have a pathway connection on it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 17 of 136 Borup: Is that the minimum size for a pathway lot? Wilson: No. No, it isn't. They do need to have a five foot landscape buffer on either side of the path. That -- it may -- Borup: What I'm leading to, can they do the same thing on -- in between Lot 8 and 9? And, then, they would not have access to the common drive. I don't know if there is room to do that or not. Wilson: I don't know if there is room or not either. The -- you know, Lot 9 is considerably larger than Lot 10, so there may be some room to work there and still keep those two town -- you know, it would kind of-- Borup: And shift them over and take some out of that lot? Wilson: It would be kind of odd with one town -- you know, if they had to eliminate that - the one on Lot 9. It would be kind of odd with one townhouse out there between two common lots. Not that it couldn't work, it would be a little strange, but maybe they can kind of squeeze that down and keep those two there. Borup: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe -- I mean we are talking about not passing something on without having it resolved, maybe the applicant could comment on that to see if that's a design change that they could do, if it would be feasible. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come back up for just a moment? Holt: As you mentioned, this lot here is quite a bit larger than this site, just because it flares out there. And the common lot is wider than the minimum required. I think if we get the five feet on each side of the five foot pathway for landscape, take a little bit out of this lot to match the size of this lot, I think we may have room there. Borup: So, that sounds feasible, something you would like to do or spend more time and think about it? Holt: I would like to take a shot at it. Borup: Is that feasible for the Commission? Rohm: As long as it doesn't interfere with the buffer as required by the ordinance. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Is that something they could work out with staff, then, and have it taken care of prior to City Council? n.'_'._-'--'~ I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 18 of 136 Rohm: I think that -- Borup: And not require another Public Hearing here. Rohm: I think so, as long as we make a motion to that effect. I don't see any reason why they can't work out those details with staff. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on these three items, AZ 06-003, PP 06- 003, and CUP 06-004. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Okay. Discussion of what the next motion would be. If we look at the conditions, I'm on -- I'm on site specific requirements and preliminary plat. I would add a couple of paragraphs. The last paragraph here is 1.1.12. I would add a 13 that says the developer will continue to work with ITD on the acceleration-deceleration lanes as mentioned in the ITD letter. I would add a next one that requires them to reference the Right To Farm Act on the plat. I would add another that says they volunteered to limit the height to 25 feet on the five lots that they mentioned. And I would add another that says work with staff on -- what do you call the last thing we were just talking about? Rohm: I think it would just be a buffer adjustment on the townhouse lots to the south. Zaremba: Anybody think of anything I'm leaving out? Chairman? Okay. In that case, Mr. Borup: If you want to specify that as the lot access on the Lot 9, Lot 6 -- I mean to rectify the common driveway conflict. Zaremba: Okay. I'll take a stab at it. Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba, I think just one thing. The applicant had mentioned the planting of the arborvitaes on the neighbor's property as well. Did you mention that already? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 19 of 136 Zaremba: I did not. No. Borup: That is an off-site improvement. Wilson: Right. If you want to tie them to that, then, that would probably have to be done as part of the development agreement, I think. Borup: Do the arborvitae need to be limited to 25 feet at full growth? Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to take a stab at the motion. Rohm: Ready. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-002, PP 06-002, and CUP 06-004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: I would add a paragraph ten that says that the applicant has volunteered to place arborvitae on the neighbor's property. On the site specific requirements for preliminary plat, I would add a paragraph 1.1.13, says the applicant will continue to work with ITD on the possibility of acceleration-deceleration lanes on Chinden, as referenced in ITD's letter of March 30, 2006. I would add a paragraph 1.1.14, that applicant will reference the Right To Farm Act on the face of the plat. I would add a paragraph 1.1.15 that says that the applicant has volunteered to limit the heights of the buildings on Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 10, and Lot 10 of Block 8, to a height limit of 25 feet. I would add a paragraph 1.1.16 that applicant will work with the staff on Lot 9 of Block 6 to solve the common drive and buffer problem and that that needs to be finished by ten days before the City Council hearing. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, to include all staff comments with amendments as stated by Commissioner Zaremba. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN- C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and