Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 15, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 5 of 39 Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Moe: So, having said that, I would like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-024, request for annexation and zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering, as well as PP 06-023, request for preliminary plat approval for 29 residential lots and three common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision. At this time the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen. This is for Napoli Subdivision. It is a request for both annexation and preliminary plat. The annexation would be from rural to R-4 zone and on the 10.17 acres for the zoning, you can see -- let's see here. Sorry. That little blue line right there is where we are looking. In addition, the preliminary plat is 9.44 acres, with 29 residential lots and three common lots. We have Eagle Road here. Amity down below. As far as development in the area, there is the Kingsbridge Subdivision up here. The Zaldia Subdivision which will go in here. The Martinelle Subdivision down here. This is an unplatted area down here. And, then, Messina Meadows Subdivision is here. It's a mix of both rural and low to medium residential. This particular subdivision Napoli, with the R-4, is towards the lower end of that. I think it provides a good amount of transition from the Kingsbridge to the more densely populated Messina over here. As far as -- let's see. Here we have a gross density of 3.7 dwellings per acre, with approximately 9,493 square feet average per lot. As far as our land here, they are going to be proposing several streets. They will be taking the Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private lane, and turning it into a public street, as well they will be building the Tendaris, South Palatino Avenue, which will be stubbing down here to the Martinelle Subdivision. And let me see if there is a Martino Avenue. I need my glasses. Staff recommends approval of this. There are, really, not a lot of issues regarding the design. There will be no parking on Zaldia Lane due to width of it on one side. Excuse me. The east Zaldia. There is East Zaldia Drive and, then, Zaldia Lane and it's the lane that will not have the parking on it. East Zaldia. And I believe I can stand for questions if you have specific questions. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Not at this time. Veatch: We do have some elevations as well. I guess we can go to the landscape and, then, most of the open space provided for the subdivision is with the parkways here. And, then, Caleb's going to get the elevations here for us as well. Oh, it will take just a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 6 of 39 minute to open up the -- the open space does equal 10.61 percent, which is well above the recommended five percent. Moe: In regard to that open space, that is, basically, within the parkway areas; is that correct? Veatch: That's correct. Moe: So, there is no set aside lot and whatnot for any open space, it is within the parkways? Veatch: Correct. Moe: Okay. Veatch: So, we have four different elevations provided here that will be seen throughout the subdivision. Some single story, I believe, and, then, also two story. I'll be letting Mr. Harris speak more to that. Single story homes will be approximately 1,600 square feet minimum and two story will be a minimum of 2,200 square feet. Moe: Okay. Any questions of the Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chair, one of those elevations shows no garages and I -- it didn't stick in my mind that there were any alley-loaded projects and I'm wondering -- go to the next slide. The top one. I'm just questioning whether that's a valid elevation or not. Moe: We can have the applicant address that when he comes up. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Zaremba: No. Thank you. Moe: Having none, would the applicant like to come forward, please. Harris: Good evening. Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road. First off, I'd like to say Jenny covered everything pretty well, except for the density in this subdivision is 3.07, not 3.7. The average lot size is 9,493 square feet. And on those elevations, if Caleb could flip back, the one you were talking about there is, actually, a side entry garage, I believe, and these are just examples of what is going to be similar into the subdivision, not the exact same houses. He just took photographs of what they plan on putting in the subdivision. And with that, the subdivision is pretty straight forward. I'd stand for any questions if you have any of me. Moe: Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 7 of 39 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harris, from reading through the letters that we have received I know there is going to be a question about the process of converting -- this is Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private road, into a public road and I guess my question is do you know the process of taking a road with upstream users who apparently own it and maintain it and converting it to a public road? That's probably an ACHD issue, but I'm sure it will come up. Harris: Yeah. Commissioner Zaremba we talked to ACHD about that and ACHD has no problems with it. They are, actually, very excited about changing that into a public road and wish that we had done that prior to Kingsbridge going in, they would have liked to stub there. With -- I guess access upstream or downstream, however you want to look at it, from my understanding as long as we provide them with the same access point and the same access as they have before, there is not an issue, just through this property. It's going to be public. From the end of this property on it's still going to be private and maintained by those homeowners. Further than that, I don't know any of the legality issues of that. I think ACHD thought it was perfectly fine. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Harris: Thank you. Moe: At this time we do have quite a few folks on here. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Baird: Over here. Before we begin, it might be appropriate to inquire if there is a spokesman for the group that might want to speak on behalf of others. Moe: Very good point. Yes. That would be -- if, in fact, within you folks as you have signed up, if you do have a spokesperson for your group that would like go ahead and at that point if you have a spokesperson, they would have ten minutes to speak, as opposed to if you come up individually you will have three minutes and we do have a lighting system that will take care of that three minutes, so you will know when it's up and we would like to keep that as close to that three minute period. So, if you do have a spokesperson, that you have -- raise your hand if you have one and we will just go from there. So, does anyone have a spokesperson? Seeing none, then, we will go through the list. The first person on the list is Bradford -- and, I'm sorry, I can't read -- please come forward. Deadman: Hello, folks. My name is Bradford Deadman, I reside at 3644 East Zaldia Lane, with my wife and daughter. I'll indicate with the pointer where that is. I hope. On Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 8 of 39 this five acre spread here. Pardon me, I can't hold this steady. Mike nervousness. Okay. And, of course, I live next to my other neighbor. Five acres. Next to his neighbor. Five acres. We have had this discussion last year. Here is another neighbor with, again, five acres. Of course this proposal here comprises approximately nine acres with 30 homes. Here is another five acres, five acres, et cetera. Anyway, we have all met with a lot of curiosity about the way that this is being proposed. Primarily density. Folks from last year will remember that we had an extensive relationship with Kingsbridge and the developers of it to make sure that we developed an area here, subdivision, with lots of transitional density, both in regard to just simple lot size and home size, but also, more importantly, some visual transition, going from the space and distance between those homes, allowing their to be limitations regarding home height, so that there would be a harmonious transition between the homes that are being built and all the homes existing, so that everybody retains a view that they all paid for. A lot of our concerns go for just the massive wall of homes that will be generated here as the density proposed, according to the numbers that I see anyway, appear to be greater dense than anything else around it. Of course, I have interest in my neighbor as well, who will -- unlike me, I will experience sunset approximately 9:30 this month, but in two years my neighbor right down here will probably experience his summer sunset right around 7:45 if there is a wall of two story homes along the perimeter of his home, so, of course, I'm curious about that. I'm very curious about the safety resulting in influx of all these cars onto Zaldia Lane and, frankly, a little bit amazed that it has made it to discussion with ACHD without having discussion with you. Regarding whether the subdivision can, indeed, exit all of these vehicles strictly on Zaldia with not -- with no access to Eagle, which is right here. I'm quite surprised. I'm very worried. I'm concerned of safety. That's, really, the main gist of is I'm concerned about the lot transition, the density, the safety, the taking of Zaldia Lane -- I'm going to use that phrase that I heard earlier, that Zaldia Lane would be taken. I'm also going to use another phrase heard earlier regarding a good amount of transition, because a good amount isn't quite as finite as I would like to hear, but I would love to hear what other people say from my neighborhood. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Deadman: Thank you. Moe: Next person signed up Don Morgan. Morgan: Hi. I'm Don Morgan. 4620 South Martinelle Lane, which is just touching this lot right here. And it's going to be a little redundant with what the gentleman just said. I'm mainly concerned with the transition and the wall of backyards we are going to see from our area. I think we are all there for the same reason, that we wanted to be on the outskirts a little bit and have some open area and we are not too excited about seeing that kind of density at back yards facing our direction and the bad view that will be. I would like to see -- I would like to see the plot altered a little bit, so that we had bigger lots on the perimeter and maybe specify that we only had one story houses on the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 9 of 39 perimeter, so that we would have a little bit of a transition without -- without seeing all those tall backyards -- or tall back fronts of houses. Thank you. Moe: Any questions, Commission? Thank you. Next person -- is it Phyllis? De Angeli: Phillip. Moe: Okay. Come forward. De Angeli: Hi, I'm Phil De Angeli, 3405 Zaldia Lane. I'm this guy right here. Here is my house. My neighbors and I and you folks, the Planning and Zoning, and the City Council spent quite a bit of time the last couple of years discussing the Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is abutting the north side of this. Most felt that the large lots surrounding Kingsbridge indicated that -- that they ought to go with a lower density building also. And Kingsbridge complied and now they are building a nice development with single story homes on the perimeter lots and features like berms and trees and vinyl fencing. City Council's findings of 4/12/05, that's the approval meeting, stated that Kingsbridge was approved at 1.69 houses per acre. And Napoli, as you have heard, is asking for almost 3.1 per acre. They also say that although the 1.69 per acre is less dense than Tuscany's 2.4 across Eagle Road, it's still much denser than the 1.69 houses per acre than the large lot parcels around it, the five and ten, even some 20 acre parcels there. Now, while I'm not against development when it's done fairly, I am against Napoli as proposed, because the density is just much too great for this area. In fact, the City Council stated in those -- in the Kingsbridge findings that they believe the county parcels here would develop at a similar rate to the Kingsbridge 1.69 per acre. Also, there is no attempt made at a fair transition with the neighbors that I have heard so far, such as single story on the perimeter lots, some kind of landscaping and screening, such as trees and berms, and vinyl fencing would be nice. Kingsbridge is where I got the idea. They are doing all of those things right now and they are going to be some excellent neighbors, because we have growth and development, but it's nice when they transition in like that, so everyone's happy. And, most importantly, the proposal is inconsistent with the development Meridian has previously approved in this neighborhood. And the reason for so much of this Kingsbridge talk is that if they are held to a density of 1.69 and, then, immediately afterwards right next door someone comes up with 3.1 on density, that, to me, is inconsistent and just don't follow it. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the Commission? Thank you. Next on the list will be Judy. She says she's been spoken for. I can't get the first name, but it's Morgan is the last name. Okay. She has been spoken for also from the audience. Next I think is it Theresa? Okay. From the audience she says she has no comments. Next would be Roger. Okay. Thank you. From the audience he said he's been spoken for. Next would be Frank Shoemaker. Shoemaker: Yes. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I reside at 3497 Zaldia Lane right there. I think it's very critical that we look at the overall map of the area prior to last Meridian Planning & Zonin9 June 15, 2006 Page 10 of 39 year's Kingsbridge project. This area was completely large acreages, such to the fact that the Kingsbridge Subdivision, when it was originally asked for approval, was denied several, times because the density was too high. At the City Council meeting Mayor de Weerd stated this is such a unique area that why don't we do something like the City of Eagle. This has some nice larger lots, custom homes, instead of this typical in fill, high density projects that we see here today. The result of that was Kingsbridge has been revised several times. We now have extensive common area, waterways, bridges, so forth. My concern is these homes along this area are -- range in size from 15,500 to 16,000 square feet. Homes along this perimeter that I'm going to see the back end of, this no buffer zone of landscaping, will, basically, be two story houses on 9,200 square feet houses -- or 9,200 square feet lots. So, the transition as mentioned earlier does not comply with what was recommended by the City Council and also the final approval of Kingsbridge. I'm also concerned about -- and I went to the Ada County Highway District and asked them how can you advise a developer to put access roads onto a private lane when you have South Eagle Road here. Their comment was that this Zaldia Lane at some point in time is going to be a through street. Well, we know that's not going to happen. And if we look at Ada County's decision process making throughout the valley you know it's not too smart. So, right here they have lined up Zaldia Lane with the new phase of Tuscany called Messina Village. We have 29 houses in here, all going to come out at two different points to this point. They are going to be, then, fighting access to Eagle Road from all this development here. It's ridiculous. This -- if we are going to have a nice subdivision here, let's make the lots larger, consistent with Kingsbridge, and let's put an access out here on South Eagle Road. Now, the highway district said that they did not -- they want to limit access to Eagle Road by subdivisions, but I think it would be safer to have an access point here than having everything here. We are going to be backing up -- I want to come out here, I won't be able to get on Eagle Road. You're going to have all these houses coming out -- thank you. Moe: Sir, you -- Shoemaker: Is that one my -- Moe: Yes. Go ahead-- Borup: I would be interested in a little bit more information. Shoemaker: I thought that was my buzzer. Borup: It was, but we are giving you some more time. We are giving you some more time. That was your buzzer. Shoemaker: So, I think -- you know, and I talked to Justin and Justin got this -- the developer -- Justin got kind of the runaround at Ada County Highway District, too. They designed it based upon what Ada County Highway District told them, so I can't fault the developer for that. But he got different answers than I did down there. But that area there is going to be an excessive congestion point for everyone trying to get out on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 11 of 39 South Eagle Road. It's a two lane road. There is no turn lanes or anything here. So, I guess if you look at the overall picture, to me it's too high of density. I'm not opposed to the development, but I think it should be done consistent with what's taken place on this side of Eagle Road, not this side of Eagle Road. We have two distinct neighborhoods here. We don't need to be high density on this side over here. Let's make it pretty nice. Let's do something different for a change. This has some nice lots and some big custom homes into this two story tract project. Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Any questions of the Commission? Borup: Maybe I have one, Mr. Chairman. And I'm not sure if this is all that pertinent or not. The individual that used to own this property, did he testify at the previous -- any of these previous hearings; do you know? Shoemaker: These people here? Borup: Yes. Shoemaker: No, they did not. They -- if they would have been at the meetings, they would have not designed this project as is. Borup: No. I mean for Kingsbridge. I was wondering if they testified in any of the Kingsbridge hearings. Shoemaker: No, they did not. Borup: Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Next on the list would be Sherry Lewis. Lewis: I didn't realize when I put my name down there that I would be speaking. I wasn't really prepared to do that. And I had sent in my comments in e-mail format to you folks. Let's see if I can figure out how to use that. Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you begin with your name and address, please. Lewis: I'm sorry. Sherry Lewis and I'm trying to point out my address. I'm at 4200 South Eagle Road. This 20 acre parcel here. And we have been there for eight years and we have loved it. It's been beautiful farm ground and -- but we recognize the city's coming. We are kind of in a unique position, because the business that my husband and I own deals with development of -- we put things in people's homes, put it that way. And so we are kind of, you know, both sides of the fence. What I would -- what I would like to see -- because we know that some day we are not going to be able to take care of 20 acres. We hope to be able to develop our own 20 acres some day and to be able to take advantage of that. So, we are not opposed to the development whatsoever. We would like the city to make sure that the whole area has more up-scale feeling to it and I Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 12 of 39 don't know what the Stott's plans are, I haven't seen the -- you know, the precise plans or anything, so I can't really answer to what they're planning to do, so -- but they are good people. So, I suspect that they have good things in mind. What I would hope, though, is because we have a three acre lake on our property, some day if we decide to develop, we are going to hopefully -- I haven't seen Kingsbridge finished, so I don't know what it's supposed to turn out like, but we intend to have nice up-scale, maybe approaching Two Rivers kind of thing in Eagle. So, we would like to make sure that the whole area can -- has a theme to it, a nice up-scale neighborhood and not that smaller homes can't do that, but maybe there is -- I don't know what kind of stipulations that you can place on the area in general, but maybe there is a way to accommodate -- I think what I'm hearing here is everybody realizes that the development is going to take place, but they would like to be comfortable with how it fits and flows with the neighborhood. And I have to say a grew up in the area. I was born and raised right on Cloverdale and Amity area and it used to be all beautiful farm ground and nobody liked anybody moving in and breaking up the ground. So, we are all kind of guilty of it to some extent, all of us that are here speaking of it, we have all imposed on someone else's view, we have all imposed on someone else's, you know, farm ground and so forth and so I'm glad that everybody's being civil here and really nice, that's really a nice thing about our neighborhood. So, let's keep it good. Thank you. Moe: Any questions, Commission? All right. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, come forward. Okay. Having seen none, would the applicant, please, come back up. Harris: Again, Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West Overland Road. It seems like everybody's major concern is density and if we look at the Comp Plan for this subdivision it's shown as medium -- medium density residential, which is an R-8. In our pre-app with your staff, your staff recommended that we come in at a density of three units per acre, which we matched that. We also talked with your staff about single story houses. We knew this question was going to come up because of Kingsbridge. Your staff made -- I guess the comment that they don't want to see single story houses. It's too complicated to find out which lots needs to have those restrictions put on it. So, we are not for limiting the house size or the heights of the houses. Zaldia Lane aligning with Messina Meadows. again, ACHD requested that. It is a safety issue to have those align. You have to have a certain offset on those roads per the speed and if a light ever goes in on Eagle Road there, that's a logical place for a light and it's the safest point for us to access. Another comment was made on vinyl fences. This subdivision will be fenced with a vinyl fence. That was brought up, you know, in the staff report, which some of the neighbors I guess didn't know that. I think that is all the major topics of the neighbors. If you have anymore questions of me, I will answer any. Moe: Staff? Excuse me. Commission. No questions? Borup: Oh, I do, but -- and maybe while you're -- you could stay up there, because I think mine applies a lot to staff comment, unless you had some information from a previous hearing, and that's -- I realize that's not the hearing before us, but a lot has Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 13 of 39 been mentioned about Kingsbridge and setting a precedence and I very much like what Kingsbridge did and has -- or in the process of doing. The question I had is, essentially, how City Council justifies that with -- when we had a Comp Plan designation of medium density and -- well, I guess that would be the first question is I -- the medium density is saying three -- three to eight and the low density would have been three or less, which - - which is where Kingsbridge fit into as far as the density they did, was they were talking about doing a one step down, is that what -- is that how that was able to happen? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- if you look at the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, most of Kingsbridge is, actually, designated low density. They do have the two pieces that come out and front Eagle Road that are shown as medium density on that map, but for the part -- a majority of that site is low density or this site is medium density. This is where it changes from that low density designation to the medium residential designation. So, being under the same property owner and the same development, they kind of -- you know, with the land use designations being more of a guide than a fixed line, you have to stop your density here and now transition it to medium, they kind of floated that over and said, okay, you are a low density development. As was mentioned, there were comments -- and I haven't read the minutes in awhile, but there were comments at that meeting about having this be -- just due to the nature of the five acre lots and larger rural atmosphere that's out here, you know, having some estate-type lots -- now, I don't remember those minutes -- the Mayor or anyone saying that it all has to be estate-type lots, but it was talked about there. They did like what some of the upscale -- I think Island Woods was talked about and some of the other ones in Eagle as being kind of guides for how this area could develop. So, I don't think there were any statements that was like you better come in with a development like that or else we are not going to approve you, but definitely when looking at Kingsbridge they -- they thought that was appropriate to have a low density project there. And we did talk with the applicant when they came in a few months ago before they submitted and said you are medium, medium is three. I wouldn't try to go much passed three, but to get staff's support and to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, three is that target minimum goal for that designation. So, you know, that's something that the city adopted in 2002 and we just try to enforce it. So, I don't know if that fully answers your question, Commissioner, or not, but that's kind of what the Council was thinking back then. Borup: Oh, I think it does partially. So, it sounds like you're saying that -- and I see that now, that the boundary between the low and the medium was right here, what it looks like on my map. So, the larger part of Kingsbridge was in the low density, but this part right here was in the medium density, so City Council's justification on that is because it was a part -- a part of the other that they allowed the lower density? Hood: Yes. Essentially because two-thirds of it was this low density designation, they thought that the other third -- and because that portion does abut Dartmoor, too, and they are larger lots, too. So, they did want to have that transition from Dartmoor south onto those -- those fives I think they are. Maybe there are 10 acres, so that 20 acres there having that low density designation to transition. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 14 of 39 Borup: So, it sounds like you're saying staff would have had a problem with two and a half to three units per acre? Hood: Not necessarily. It's -- you know, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- just based on the Comp Plan, it's -- our general rule of thumb is that that designation can slide a parcel or so -- you know, where do you stop that slide? I mean you get to a point where you may as well change the map. Borup: Right. Hood: And the designation on there. So, there is some flexibility. But if you don't transition it somewhere, it's all going to be low. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that in 2002 that's what the elected officials wanted to see out there and our job is just to try to get development that's consistent with that. Borup: Well, that's also what we as a Commission have been obligated -- I mean we are obligated to -- or we should be, anyway, to comply with the Comprehensive Plan also. We don't have quite the flexibility the City Council does. They can kind of make their own rules as they go almost. All right. Moe: Any other questions? Borup: Not at this time, but maybe later. Harris: Thank you. Moe: Discussion, Commission? You have already spoken, so -- Commissioners, any questions? Any comment? Zaremba: Well, I do remember much of the Kingsbridge discussion and along with the Mayor and others, I have stated that I am generally very strong on high densities near to the center and the core of the city. As we get farther out I'm much more willing to listen to lower densities and I felt that it was appropriate to do what Kingsbridge did and the final result of that project was very nice. But in some cases when we have a Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances that now pretty clearly support the Comprehensive Plan, the developer almost has to volunteer to do something more or different than what the Comprehensive Plan asks for and, actually, even to go to a lower density than the Comprehensive Plan asks for, even if the developer wanted to, it's an uphill battle to accomplish something that might be desirable. And as Commissioner Borup pointed out, we don't assume that we have the flexibility that the City Council does. We, along with staff, are pretty well tasked to say does this comply with the Comprehensive Plan that had like five or six years of public testimony and a great deal of work and Angst go into it before it was approved in 2002 and I would say that from what I see our decision is pretty clear. It appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 15 of 39 Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, do you have any comments? Borup: Yes. And I'm still not completely decided on this, but I didn't think I'd ever say something like this, but I -- I would like -- personally, I would be happy with this project if it had three or four less lots. And I'm just looking at the lot sizes and the frontage. I mean they are nice size, you know, a 9,500 square foot lot is pretty larger than we normally see. But just realizing what size homes can go on there, you know, some of those are still only 74 feet wide, which, depending on the plan, can be hard pressed doing a three car garage on them. And I would much rather see a little less density. Not a great deal. I'm not -- I'm not talking maybe as much as some of the neighbors would like, but enough to increase some of these lot widths just a little bit more. And, again, I'm not sure how -- they are complying with the Comprehensive Plan, but that was something that would make me feel better about it. That being said, I would state that I have never been in favor on any project -- on anything that we have ever seen of limiting house height. I mean, unfortunately, there is no guarantee of a view. Most people seem to think the view is towards Bogus Basin anyway, not to the other direction, but I guess that depends on the time of day and what you want to do. So, I, for one, would not be in favor of limiting house heights. That is the advantage when you have got large lots next to something, your house is usually far enough away that the heights of a house doesn't really make as much difference as -- difference as it does if you're closer. And I guess that's alii have got to say, unless -- unless there is any other discussion about increasing the -- or decreasing the density a little bit. Moe: Okay. A couple comments that I would have -- and I won't get into the same as the other Commissioners in regards to basically our responsibility to follow the Comprehensive Plan and whatnot. I also, with Mr. Borup, would agree, I would have liked to have seen a few less lots. And the other thing that really bothers me within the subdivision is although you do exceed your open space on this, just putting it in parkways around the streets and whatnot, there is really no real vision to the subdivision, other than it's a bunch of houses. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more imagination on the open space, regardless of the fact that you have got more than necessary. But, again, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan and based on review of the meeting minutes and whatnot through the City Council as Kingsbridge and whatnot, I would assume that depending on how -- how the vote goes tonight, that City Council can review that Comp Plan and make determination at that point as well, so having said that -- Borup: Maybe just one comment on yours and that's on the open space. If you have large lots it's really -- I'm not sure if it makes a lot of sense to have a lot of park space on ten acres -- when you only have a ten acre parcel to work with. Moe: I agree with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 16 of 39 Borup: But maybe right along with that, they could take the space that you would like for a park lot -- for open space and eliminate a few lots and put it into the others and, then, each individual lot would have more room. Just one more plug for that. Moe: All right. Yes. The applicant please come forward. Harris: Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road. Just a couple of comments as you guys were talking here. Initially on this plan we did come in with two or three less lots and your staff requested us to bring it up to three units per acre. So, you know, we came in with it less dense and we were told to bring it up. On the park strip, we have a 60 foot right over here, which is an eight foot planter strip, which is all going to be really nicely landscaped with trees and we have a detached sidewalk along Eagle Road with a berm and also a berm with a detached sidewalk along Zaldia Road. Your staff in our pre-app was also very accommodating to that, saying the same thing Commissioner Borup said, is this small of a site you really don't need a park, you landscape it, you know, on the sides of the roads really nice, it's a really nice feature to the subdivision. Other than that, that's my only comment, so -- Moe: Thank you. Borup: Maybe while you're up here -- Harris: Yes, sir. Borup: -- I would be interested in your other plan. That increased the lot widths -- Harris: I believe we added -- excuse me. I believe we added a lot here and either here or here. So, the center part I'm pretty sure stayed the same. It's been quite a long time ago. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any other comments, Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one that probably will prove not to be too helpful, but a number of the neighbors have spoken about having up-scale projects in this area and, again, I say this -- this one does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, so it's probably a little too late to make this statement, but those that agree that there may be future further developments on some of what are five, ten, and 20 acre lots, either along Zaldia Road or others, might want to have a neighborhood meeting and actually come up with a plan that could be presented to the City Council that -- the Comprehensive Plan can be changed. There is a process that does it. And the vision that many of you have expressed I would happily support. It would mean that you would all need to get together and have your own neighborhood meeting and just say, well, we are not going to develop today, but if I or you develops five years from now, here is what we have agreed that we would all do when some day somebody develops. And if you have that Meridian Planning & Zonin9 June 15, 2006 Page 17 of 39 as a whole group, it would be easy to make a Comprehensive Plan plan change. There would be a Public Hearing about it and everybody would have their input, but it could be done. I would have liked it if maybe that had been done before this project came in, but for the rest of you, you may want to think of that. That's not a requirement, that's just an opinion. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public. Hearing on AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? It is closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Okay. Let me run this up the flag pole and see how it works. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, and I don't believe we had any modifications. End of motion. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: No, there isn't. Moe: I guess I should ask -- Zaremba: The motion would die for lack of a second, if that's going to be the case. Moe: I need to ask legal counsel -- Borup: I think he can second it, can't he? Baird: You can second it as the chair. Moe: I will second that. Therefore, it has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and -- Borup: You haven't voted on it yet. Moe: Oops. I'm sorry. I remove that motion. Now, let's see -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 18 of 39 Borup: You're doing fine. You're doing fine. Moe: Okay. Okay. It has -- okay. All those in favor -- AZ 06-0 -- sorry. AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with all staff conditions for the hearing date of June 15th signify by saying aye. All those opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. And my opposition is basically just on one area. I'd like to see more 80 foot frontage lots. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Okay. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with the conditions as the city staff comments. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, just for the record, it was moved, seconded, and approved with one person in the negative. Moe: Yes, sir. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024 for the request for annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat approval for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Incorporated. And I will open it with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications before you include an annexation and zoning request for 95.57 acres. It's currently in the county today. And there are two zones being requested. 93.89 acres is requested for an R-8, which is a medium density residential district and 1.68 acres for the limited office district. The site is located on -- you can see it there. The scale is not the greatest. It has frontage on Black Cat Road, as well as Franklin, with primarily most of the frontage being along Franklin Road. It does go a quarter mile east -- excuse me -- a quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile Road. And, again, has frontage on Black Cat Road. There is a vicinity map with the proposed subdivision, overlayed within. To give you some more -- Silver Oak Subdivision, which final platted as Umbria, which you probably