Loading...
January 4, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 23 of 61 Moe: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, Commissioners, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Siddoway: After considering all testimony I move to recommend approval of -- to the City Council of file number RZ 06-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Mae: It has been moved and seconded to approve to send onto City Council approval of RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify. by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the proposed R-15 zone plus 2 multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Mae: I now would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062 for the Baraya Subdivision and stand for the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 24 of 61 Hess: Okay, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Baraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT Ada County to R-15, medium high density residential, for 82.12 acres, and R-40 high density residential for 13.43 acres. The applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which proposes 320 single family residential lots, 15 common lots, and one school lot within the proposed R-15 zone. Two multi-family and two common lots on 13.42 acres are proposed in the R-40 zone. So, this will be the multi-family area over here and the rest of it, zoned R-15, will house the 320 single family homes, plus the school. The subject property is generally located south of Franklin Road and east of Black Cat Road. To the northeast there is the approved Silver Oaks Subdivision zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and west are residential properties still under the jurisdiction of Ada County and as you can see they are zoned RUT and R-1. Access to the site -- wrong way there. Sorry about that. Access to the site is proposed from three public streets which connect to Franklin Road or Black Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glenn Canyon Avenue, is proposed near the east boundary of the property right here and divide the property along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40. South Glenn Canyon aligns with the public street approved in Silver Oaks to the north. South Fritz -- this access right here is also designed to interface with Franklin Road and provide additional access to this property. Capital Reef Drive is the public street which intersects with Black Cat Road and will serve as the primary access to the future school site, which will be here. As previously stated, the applicant proposes 320 residential lots. Lot sizes will range from 3,500 square feet to over 8,600 square feet and approximately 10.25 acres will be set aside for the multi-family units. The applicant has applied 12 percent or 11 point -- if I can find the landscape plan. There we go. 11.25 acres of the site to meet common open space requirements. Amenities will include a multi-use pathway, parkways, a 25 foot landscaping buffer along South Glenn Canyon Avenue, that residential collector street right here, and a community park area that includes a pool with changing rooms, a tot lot, and two half basketball courts and that's located down here. Staff would also like to provide the Commission with some background information related to these applications. In May of 2006 the applicant submitted annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications for this site. These applications were brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission in June and they proposed 406 single family residential lots, one office lot, and 23 common lots within the R-8 and L-O zoning districts. And I don't have a slide for that, so we will go back to the aerial. At that hearing the Commission had actually recommended approval of the project. However, in July City Council voted to deny Baraya. Council's basis for denial fell" upon the lack of conformance of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile area specific plan. The applicant requested reconsideration of City Council to allow for redesign of the project and apply the Ten Mile standard, where Council subsequently remanded the proposal back to Planning and Zoning and these are the applications you have before you today. So, the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is generally compatible with the goals and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan. However, Council requested under these previous annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat applications that the applicant wait on adoption of the Ten Mile plan and, then, design a development which is consistent with that plan. The Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 25 of 61 applicant elected to redesign the project before adoption and submit new applications as was -- as soon as possible. This is the first application to be submitted and reviewed under the draft Ten Mile area specific plan. Staff believes that this development should closely conform to the development plan for the area. I will snap to the slide here. This slide shows the Saraya Subdivision with the underlying draft Ten Mile plan. Let's see. Staff believes this development should closely conform to the development plan for the area, setting the tone for the development around the interchange. Staff believes that the requested zoning of R-15 and R-40 and gross density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre and the subject preliminary plat is not consistent with the Ten Mile specific area plan, which explicitly called for residential densities substantially higher than that provided by the applicant. Staff believes that a mixed zoning designation of R-8, R-15 and R-40 for this site is more appropriate. Staff further believes that integration of additional moderate to high density product types are warranted within the medium high density land use designations, in addition to those proposed detached single family units and attached townhouses. Now, as you can see -- I'll explain this proposed Ten Mile draft here in just a little bit. To the north here we have what is proposed to be medium density residential. This is a pathway, park area. To the south here this is what staff believes is not consistent with the plan. This area is designated medium high density and staff is looking for densities higher than the applicant has proposed. The high density area right over here does comply with what the applicant has proposed. Let's see. Staff believes that the applicant's representative Matt Schultz was a stake holder in the creation and development of the Ten Mile plan, was fully aware of the proposed land uses of medium density residential, medium high density residential, and high density residential for the subject property. If the applicant's representative had no intention of substantially conforming to each of the aforementioned land uses, there would have been ample opportunity during the charrette process to request that these changes be made and this is not the case. So, it is for these "reasons staff is recommending denial of the subject application. To meet the city's development goals for the area, the applicant should be required to submit a new development plan which is substantially consistent with the Ten Mile area specific plan. That is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Okay. Commissioners, do you have questions of staff at this time? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Mae: Yes, sir. Siddoway: Do you, by chance, have the proposed collector circulation system out of the draft Ten Mile plan? Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I have not included that in the slideshow presentation, but I do know that the collector that is proposed -- I think it was South Glenn Canyon Avenue, does line up. You can kind of see it looks like it follows along the division of the zoning designations there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 26 of 61 Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward, please. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz with RMR Consulting at 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian, here representing this application of Baraya Subdivision. Excuse me. Just recovering from a little bit of cold and a little bit of screaming for the Broncos. I come before you tonight without any conditions for approval, so I recognize that procedure would have it that I need to convince you to at least instruct staff to give some conditions of approval, instead of a flat out recommendation for denial, so we can come back, hopefully, in two weeks and talk about it and move it on at that time. In talking to another applicant, I guess, it's not the first time this has happened, but I was a little surprised. You know, I would have preferred having conditions -- some outrageous conditions of approval, at least to have them, but, nevertheless, here we are. I did not know what exactly would be presented, so I had some packets made up that had some information that I believe is very relevant to convincing you to at least consider this with conditions of approval. So, I'm going to pass that out. While we are waiting, just to review where we have been and what we have been doing for the last nine months, this project was approved by this Commission back last say June. It had -- it had all single family detached residential lots, except for some L-O, about 4.3 to the acre. As you are aware, there was a discussion about do we wait for the Ten Mile plan, which had just kind of been started or to move forward and this Commission said move forward. By the time we got to Council there was two things going on and I respectfully disagree with the assertion that there was some anticipated outcome on the Ten Mile plan, that that's the reason I got denied. The reason I got denied was I heard from the council members going back and forth about what if there was a bunch of industrial that comes out of it, which wasn't the case, but there was a what if, because nobody knew. And the second issue was -- that clouded it that night was the lack of a sewer easement, which it just clouded the night. It wasn't a good night to not grant an easement at that point and so that solidified that we wait. Well, what happened was we asked -- we said here is your easement, we want to participate in the Ten Mile plan, please, reconsider. They waited until we got to the Ten Mile plan and, then, voted to reconsider and I asked for a remand back to the Planning Commission so we could bring forth our new plan after taking into account all the changes that came out of -- and we were an active participant in that plan. A lot of the things you see on the comp plan is because we proposed them, you know, so there is-- we are making a case that we do conform to not only the existing, which staff agrees with, they do agree that we conform to the existing comp plan, but also the proposed. So, the big changes that we made were we swung this collector road over here. It used to run along the property line, so we are going to build a full 70 foot right of way, 20 foot landscape buffers on both sides, a beautified median down the middle. We are going to road trust for half the signal that lines up with Silver Oaks I believe it's called. We set aside that area on the east for some higher intensity use. During the charrette it was discussed of at least 12 to the acre. We came back and said, well, look, you know, let's do something high there, so we said R-40. We don't know what density it will come in Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 27 of 61 at, but we set that aside. It provides a good access not only for us, but for future to the south and also future to the east. Another change that's pretty obvious is where we used to have between 60 and 90 lots, the school district woke up and the first time they said, no, we don't want school out here. Well, once they saw that there is some higher density uses in residential they said that's a pretty good shape for a school, we'd really like you guys to set that aside for us and we gulped and said, okay, we will do that. And in Wendell Bigham's words, I'm going to have to beat you up. You know, we sell it to them, but we are not going to get what we paid for it. This will be a gift at some level to the school district. That's just the way it works. They just don't have the money to pay what the private sector pays, but they want it set aside and we have agreed to negotiate and that's just the way it goes. So, this change and this change -- that took out about 30 -- about 25 percent of our building area that we used to have. We moved some open space into here that is now more central to what's left. It is centrally located to this access road and this access road. By the way, this tree lined boulevard is where the Black Cat trunk is already in the ground. A 36-inch line right down here. They are that far along and heading for the highway right now. So, that has been put through the site in an alignment that works for us. What we did was a -- if you can go to the comp -- the proposed comp plan, please. Yeah. Number two in your sheet is what it is. We have -- the existing comp plan has medium this way on this half and the other half is mixed use regional. We still have about half of it being medium, but it's on the north now. We are surrounded by medium high and high, whereas before there was mixed use regional over here. This was all medium below us. And this was medium high and industrial. Well, that industrial, if it is approved as proposed, will move way to the west. That mixed use regional has become medium high and high density. That's -- we kind of didn't know what was underneath that blanket, so to speak. You know, it could have been a lot of different things. What the consensus of the charrette was it should be medium high and high. We proposed this location and that's why the line is drawn there. The charrette -- the people, they drew some interior roadways for effect, just to show how things might connect, and that's how that line got drawn on as a division between two zones. So, here we are surrounded with medium and it's an odd position to be in where I have R-8 and I am below its density. I mean I don't know how many of those you guys see, probably not a whole lot. But that's where I'm at right now. So, how do I buffer myself on all four sides, how do I transition myself, how do I do all those things and still get high density and that's what we feel that we have done with the mix of lot -- and still provide a good mix of lots that we have. If you can go to the mix of lots, please. Right there. So, what we have done is we have provided -- this came from the first iteration where we wanted some town homes buffering to the east, we have done some -- some 4,000 square foot lots going east to west. We have intermixed our five and six thousands -- we have some good slope in this area. It's conducive to having some wider lots. And we continue that kind of mix idea, instead of having segregated zones. It's just like when we have R-4 and R-8 lots in one subdivision and the applicant asks for R-8, even though there are bigger lots. Well, the same thing here. We have R- 8 lots and R-15 lots, we are just asking for R-15, because that's the smallest common denominator. So, we are asking for a blanket zoning, instead of having a segregated zone, it's a mixed, R-15 and an R-40 over here. So, we feel like we have got a healthy mix, instead of segregating we believe it's healthier to intermix them and have a blended Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 28 of 61 zone. Let's talk about density. I'm an engineer by trade, so I'll get right to the numbers and don't go crosseyed on me, because I kind of went overboard on the numbers, but I think it's important to introduce them for the record and show some scenarios. If you could put number four up, please, Caleb. Number four. So, what I did was -- I wanted to focus on the area that was just the residential R-15. Disregard the school, that's the school. Disregard the R-40, that's R-40. Let's just focus on the residential R-15. We have got 17.4 percent open space. That's a looser density. That's a high percentage of open space. Pretty high percentage of roads. Usually between 20 25, we are right in the middle. And, then, the rest of it is my building lots. Well, here we are, we are at five to the acre. Our average square foot of our lot is 5,200 square foot. That's our average. Now, I'm laying my cards on the table here, because usually I'm hiding my smaller averages, but here I'm promoting them, because I'm getting beat up for having too -- too -- not nearly enough density. So, I'm going to go through some scenarios here for us. As we go -- let's just say we are going to add some lots and get up to that eight, we'd have to add 200 lots within that 64.67. My average would be 3,200 square feet. So, obviously, we are talking about an attached product, because we don't build on 3,200. At least in Meridian. I haven't. I'm sure you could do it in Boise, maybe, with some houses that -- but what we are talking about is an unattainable -- for me and the product that we want to build, which is a single family detached product, where people still have some yard, while still promoting some density, five to the acre with this much open space is a really -- it's a step, it's a good step in the density direction, but it's not a huge leap that I might get penalized for by the market and by the politics as we move forward to City Council, but five to the acre, if you compare all the plats you have approved, is pretty high with that much open space. It's a pretty high density. So, if you could go to the next one, please. Number five. I'm going to roll through these pretty quick. So, I just wanted to -- it's the same -- it's the same thing, but I extrapolated for net. Net being minus the road right of way. Net might be minus the road and the common lots. So, I'm at 8.4 net density right now. 8.4. If we went up to eight I would be a 13.6. I just -- with a single family detached product, which is really what I want to do, and maybe that's the gist of it, maybe staffs saying I need to do attached product to get them up there -- I have done a layout, just so you know, with all 40 foot lots -- all 40's, which would be a terrible blend, it wouldn't be a very wise thing to do, but I pick up 40 lots. I'm up to 5.5 to the acre. There is just not a whole lot of increase by going tighter on those bigger lots than I have. So, I like the mix more so. than something extremely tight. The next one, please. Number six. So, my suggestion to the Commission -- and maybe it's to staff through you -- instead of messing with the residential, which I believe is an excellent mix. I really really like what we have. Let's hold the R-15 zone density, which is a really respectable five, and let's say 20 has got to be the minimum in the R-40. That will give me a blended gross of 7.5 to the acre for what I'm submitting, plus an elementary school. You know, that's in excess of that. I mean that's -- I have had to do this before where staff in Boise has said, look, for your multi-family we want a minimum -- we don't want anybody to come in here and dilute -- we want to put people where the services are, so -- and I have seen that happen and that will give us the density that maybe we are striving for, but if this Commission says, no, Matt, 20 is the max -- because I think R-40 will allow between 15 and 25 with good open space, good amenities. I mean it's not something we do. It's not something we Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 29 of 61 are striving to do and we want to do, it's something that the Ten Mile plan suggested we do, we agree, we are going to set it aside to either sell or figure out how to do it ourselves, it's not something we do, it's not something we think is going to go right away, it's just our contribution to the plan, that R-40, as a diverse mix and as a good buffer to higher intensities to the east. Number seven, please. So, if --' if we do hold 64 acres of R-15 and 13 acres of R-40 at 20, we will have 167 R-8 style lots, I'm saying over 5,000; 153 R-15 lots, which is under -- under 5,000, and, then, the R-40 units which 20 to the acre, that's what that would yield, that's where I get my -- you know, my 580 units, 77.68 acres, 7.5 units to the acre. I have -- this is definitely an R-15, because I have 71 percent of my site that's not R-8, so it needs to be an R-15. R-15 and R-40. Excuse me. You know, we -- that's what it really needs to be, based on its location. One more and, then, I'm done with the stats. I really got out of control, but I thought it was important to show this. I wanted to compare the current Comprehensive Plan over that 77.68 acres. Half of it, medium density residential, half of it's mixed use regional. In the proposed Ten Mile update, about half of it is medium density and the other half is split between medium high and high and this was the -- the gross acreage. Now, when I look at the net acreage -- if I add up all my R-8 building areas and all my R-15 building areas and my R-4 building areas, I'm really kind of meeting this thing to a tee. It was surprising when I ran the stats and it came out that way. That wasn't my intent just to design something like that, it's how it came out, that I have half my lots at R-8. I have half my -- you know, this is pretty close, within four percent of R-15 and I really think statistically, graphically, intensity in a mix, I think it's a good plan. And I wanted to point out one more thing. If you can go back to the overall landscape exhibit, please, as far as buffering. That will work. Thank you. These roads here on the south property line, you don't see that very otten. It's not a very efficient thing to do to extend your roads up to a property line. It's more efficient to curl them up here in back of your lots up to the property line. I did that. Staff recommended that way back when and I thought, you know, that's a good -- not only do we have a good mix of lots, but that's a good buffer with a landscape pathway, a park, I have got a road, it opens up the visibility to this pathway. It's costing a lot of bucks to extend these roads that much further. It takes away my density to extend it. That's more road I built that could have been lots. But as you can see I'm kind of caught in the middle of providing all this open space, providing all these roads and still haven't hit this high density and a good mix and I really believe that this Commission -- and I believe staff -- we have staff comments -- other staff comments or conditions from your other departments and staff's pretty much already wrote the conditions, they are just not officially there. I believe there is enough there to pretty efficiently come back in two weeks, hopefully, with staff recommendations for approval with any conditions they may want that allows us to vote on this in a way that moves us forward and treats us with some of the respect that comes with somebody that's done this twice, have been doing it for nine months, we were directly involved in the process, we added -- we brought this collector to the table. We worked closely with the parks department, we are working closely with the school, we are working closely with ACHD, we have done a lot here. This isn't an amateur effort, this is a very professional, fined tune -- this is probably a 15th generation design that may not have all the multi-family that somebody might think is appropriate, it is a mix that works for us. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 30 of 61 So, we hope with that that you can at least get us to come back and go from there. So, I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Borup: Has there been any thought on -- I mean I'm sure there has, because you have gone through a lot of scenarios -- on what type of lot size and product would even be possible to do under the higher density? Schultz: Our smallest lots are these on the east side where we have some attached townhomes on -- I think it's 30 -- it's been so long -- 32 and 35 foot wide lots that are attached, zero lot line, and it's not a product that we believe the market will embrace in this location, at least in Meridian for awhile. The market goes towards ~hat and that's all there is. Borup: A 30 foot lot is going to be two story, pretty much. Schultz: I was down in Vegas and there is some three stories. Borup: Well, right. I mean a minimum of two. Schultz: I saw three stories down there. So, there is ways to get the house people want on a smaller lot, I just don't know if we are there yet. And this is like a step, not a leap, towards the density that we are seeking in areas where we have transportation and this is one, that we -- if you're going to put density I think this is the section to do it. Borup: Well -- and that's what I was wondering, any product less than 32 feet you're looking at two or three story buildings. Schultz: Well, for sure, and it's all -- unless you do an alley loaded, it's all garage and it's -- it's nothing that we really want to have to do yet. It's coming some day. Maybe my kids. I don't know. But it -- maybe in five years. I don't know. But we'd prefer not to be the ones that -- and you might see some of that as we move south -- as we move north. There might be some of that product, it's just not what we are proposing. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Maybe while the applicant's here -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Go right ahead. Borup: Question from staff on what -- and that's -- what does staff visualize on the medium high density area as far as product type and lot size? Hess: Commissioner Borup, if you turn to page six of your staff report, our draft land use plan, briefly gets into -- it's a summary of what they are looking for. The medium high density residential district would like to see dense family housing types, like row Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 31 of 61 houses, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. Even apartment buildings and complexes to meet that density requirement. And I guess I would like to also make another comment based on the applicant's .- some of the .applicant's stats and whatnot. It looks like he was showing you statistics based on the entire 64 acres of residential subdivision. Staff doesn't really have a problem with densities and the lot mixes that are north of that line. That meets the R-8 standards, that meets what we are looking for as far as the Comprehensive Plan tells us. It's this area down here where it needs to transition a little better to those smaller lots and possibly even provide an apartment complex or something that will give us that higher density in this area. So, we are not looking for, necessarily, higher density to the north or maybe even -- maybe even to the southwest here. It's at the Commission's discretion, but we would just like to see a little more conformance, especially in this area here. I don't know if there are any other questions you have. I don't -- did I answer your question, Commissioner Borup? Borup: I think so. Well, I mean that's what you already said in the report, just increase the density and the only way to get that is what you stated is, essentially, apartment buildings. Hess: Provide row housing, more -- a lot of -- sorry, Commissioner Borup. A lot of this area -. Matt, sorry, you're a little in the way there. A lot of these here are not attached units. These clearly meet the R-8 standards. Let me go back to that -- that lot mix. Right here. These are single family detached units. This area could, obviously, in staff's opinion, be developed at a higher density. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Commissioner Borup, I haven't been that involved with the Ten Mile plan, so I don't pretend to know all of what each of these residential districts are requiring, but I don't think what staff is looking for there is all 30 foot wide lots throughout the subdivision. I mean it is a mix of housing types and getting some diversity in there. I hope all the lots aren't the average lot size and they aren't just all -- just for density sake to make them all 35 foot wide lots. I mean that's not what we want to see. It is more that mix, a diversity in transitioning to the higher density. So, just to clarify, that's what we don't want. What it is is what -- how Amanda kind of described it, but it isn't just all 30 foot wide lots. Borup: Well -- and a 30 foot wide lot is going to be a 22 foot house on a detached product. Schultz: Can I respond to the comment? Borup: That's why I wanted to ask that while you were still testifying. Schultz: This area right here is a real challenge for us. We have a great deal of slope. We intentionally made these lots a little bigger, a little wider, we have a third dimension here that's hard to see -- and, in fact, it's impossible to see unless you go out there and look and you know how to read the topography. But we have -- we tried to pre-engineer Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 32 of 61 some of this stuff in this area. Our density, obviously, is getting diluted by a lot of open space down here. The only other place where we could tighten them up is here. But, again, an apartment complex anywhere down here is not what we want. We have got -- we have got whatever you want to call it there, whether it's an apartment or condos or -- we don't know. I honestly don't know what's -- that is our area that we believe is adequately buffered. I think anywhere else is not adequately buffered. I believe it's not -- with the collector roads and how people will interact, these are not the places for it. But that's just our opinion and I don't want to -- back to my point about -- if we want to get our density up, this is where we get it. We get it over here in the R-40 and that's where you get it. Borup: You know, just look at -- it looks like there is about 11 feet of slope from this point to this point. . Schultz: From here to here on the -- Moe: Mr. Schultz, I -- if I could. You know, you have made the statement that you guys are not wanting to get into a situation of doing apartments and whatnot. However, with the Ten Mile plan -- I mean those ideas were put out there and they are still on the table to be developed. Schultz: And we have got it. We have got apartments in our site. Moe: But, again, that would be for the next portion of development, not where you're at at the present time. Schultz: That is our acreage that has been purchased and is under our ownership and we are submitting. That is ours. That is not owned by anybody else. So, we'd much rather put more of what we do over there, but it's not what the Ten Mile plan suggested. So, we -- we, actually, offered up the collector road here, knowing that this could do something other than single family -- I, actually, proposed about six or seven to the acre in here and they came back and said, no, we want something else. I,said, well, that's not what I do, but I will set it aside. I'll leave it there as a future use and we will get something back out of it, it's just not what we do. Another point about this area down here, this drain continues on at this angle. There is also a good deal of slope from here down to here. There is a good amount of vertical buffering, as well as the road buffering, as well as our density buffering going on. I think we are about buffered to death down here for anything else that's coming and I believe we are very well blended with what we have. I believe there are compatible uses in here. So, if we are worried about blending for myself, I'm not. If we are worried about blending to the south, we have got tons of buffering and elevation and the road. So, that maybe moves us over to here. If we put a high density down here that blows out my traffic study, you're talking about another collector -- this is a very finely tuned study plan. Lots of controls involved. There will be a collector to Mr. Siddoway's point coming from Ten Mile, crossing about down here -- or it might be up here, who knows, curving back over and that will be a primary east-west access for this higher intensity, with an outlet to the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 33 of 61 north, with another outlet to the north and a third outlet out to Black Cat. The primary collector road is going to come down through and interconnect with what we have provided as the foundational road for the area. Moe: So, it also -- you were involved in the charrette and whatnot. In regard to the plan and whatnot, when it came to this area in here I am kind of curious, were your thoughts known that you did not want to do any type of, you know, high density within your portion of this area and any thoughts that came to mind within the charrette on that? Because at the present time it sounds like it was pretty much -- Schultz: I've got the charrette here if you'd like to see it. Interesting conversation. This was the result of the charrette at the end of September. I think that was when we went through the week long intensive -- and we submitted about three or four plans during that time and we were very quick and very proactive in our coordination with the recommendations that people were throwing out every day, you know, can do you this, Matt, can you do that, can you change this, and we said, yes, here is what it looks like. So, we were very responsive and very intensely involved in that and what came out of it was -- it's interesting, because we did participate that this follows our exact road. I mean we were -- we were really providing the template for them to draw all of these lines in the charrette. We provided this collector. We offered to build that. They knew there was a road down over here, they knew -- you could see the results are a school, which came out on that last day of the charrette. I was still pushing "for some higher density residential over there and they said that's a good place for a school. Okay. It's a school. But as you can see instead of high density, this used to be medium high. This used to be medium high over here and it's just -- the city has taken this and tweaked it, taken off of these little sketch, artistic renderings of how streets mayor may not connect. It was -- you know, this is a 2,000 acre plan they did in a fairly short amount of time. So, there was -- it wasn't surveyed, it wasn't an exact plan, but it was a good -- it was a good plan for the money. For the amount of money that was spent it was a good plan. So, even though they had a plan, they drew some roads in that didn't necessarily follow -- this never followed ours, but they fit it through and it provided a nice -- you know, looks good, nice boundary. What we are saying is is here is medium density residential, here is medium high density residential, I have an entire site of medium high residential zoning. I have a blend of single family detached, higher intensity, plus some high density residential over here, which will be our highest and most intense buffering will be to Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road will be our highest intensity buffering. That's where we put our higher types of use. The rest of it we felt that we went above and beyond with our buffering, went above and beyond with our lot mix, and went above and beyond with our density, which, like I said, I'm not sure that only five -- five units to the acre gross density with 17 percent open space and if you really look at the stats I think you will find that this is a step of density up from average. It's not a leap. Moe: But, again, you are not planning to develop the eastern portion, this R-40? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 34 of 61 Schultz: We are -- I am not right now, because I don't do multi-family. If my client came to me and said, Matt, could you do that I would say I'd recommend you to somebody that does do that. I mean me personally. My client will own that property and will want to do something with that. He is -- he paid good money for that property and he's going to want to do something with it. Either he sells it to somebody that does do it, or he does it himself. Something will happen to it. Our primary goal is to do this product first. This may come at the same time, it may come later, I'm not sure. I do not know right now. But our focus is -- is the detached product. That's what we do best. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Siddoway: Hi, there. I was involved in the charrette. Haven't been as involved since, then, but for me the Ten Mile specific area plan is so much more than densities. Most of the discussion in the -- does it comply, does it not comply, so far has centered around density, but there are entire sections of that plan that deal with design standards and a quality of the place. Have you -- one, have you submitted design standards for your project. Could you talk about what -- what makes this a special place, because, in short, the whole reason the Ten Mile specific area plan was done was because this was supposed to be something special, something -- something amazing, to be quite frank with you. Schultz: Right. Siddoway: And when I look at the plan I still see a fairly standard subdivision just with some high -- you know, higher than usual densities. Could you talk about the quality aspects a little bit? Schultz: Yeah. We are blessed here in Treasure Valley with high quality builders, you know, that we do a lot of quality product and we do feel like we have a great sense of place and destination in terms of our linear and central open space, which are great amenities and really attract people. We are really -- you know, let's face it, the school -- an elementary school in a neighborhood is a great thing, too, and that's a lot of usable open space we are not even talking about. The "people that are attracted to -- I know, myself, I'm attracted to that. I don't know how everybody else feels about that. We do have a diversity of product types and, let's face it, what attracts people to certain locations is do you have to buy a 400,000 dollar house or can I get one for -- in the hundreds still in Ada County and that's hard to come by. So, we are looking to still provide some -- some diversity in the market product as well to get people to want to come here, varying types of people in the long term, as this does develop out over the next -- I don't know how long it's going to take, ten years -- five, ten, you're going to get a lot of mixed uses out here of commercial and employment and this is just one facet of that -- of an overall plan that hasn't developed over -- even longer than ten years, because this is 2,000 acres we are talking about. But, yeah, as the pieces come together this is one component of that. Back to the discussion we had last June where Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 35 of 61 we were talking about if this is mixed regional or not, does every site need to be mixed use regional and all those aspects of what makes mixed regional within every application that comes forward or can one site have a component, the next site have the other component and the pieces become the greater whole. You know, we really -- as far as the design standards of the homes and what are they going to have and do they have, you know, the things that people want. We have not got to that level of detail, because, one, I'm not going to make excuses, we are still under the current comp plan technically. I know that's no excuse, but we are. Technically we are. We do not known when our new one is going to get adopted. It could be a year, it could 18 months, it could be -- who knows if they even will adopt it as last proposed. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We do believe this is a good -- it does still conform to it and there is nothing -- it's not like we are saying -- you know that the Comp Plan -- we are waiting for this to get adopted because the current one shows industrial and we are looking to do residential. We are not waiting for that to happen. It's -- the pieces are there for us to move forward and I believe the greater good items that we have -- that we have offered to bring to the table, along with our diversity -- and if it is a condition of approval that we bring back elevations specifically for design review, then, please, make that a condition. We just -- we just want to be treated with conditions like we feel it would be appropriate and go from there. Right now we don't have any conditions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Borup: I guess I need to ask one that's been -- I have been questioning since the very beginning and that's the definition -- and I'm not familiar until now with the term medium high density. Has that been in the Comp Plan previously? Hess: Commissioner Borup that might be a really great question to ask your fellow Commissioner Steve Siddoway. He was very involved with the Ten Mile plan and he could probably better answer that question. Borup: Is this the first time that's -- Hess: This, in fact, is. Borup: -- this has been used for the Ten Mile plan? Siddoway: It is. The medium high is a new designation that came up in the discussions for this -- for this area. Borup: And what's that definition? Is the 12 per acre -- Siddoway: Yes. It's an average target density of 12 per acre with a range between eight and 15. Borup: Okay. As stated in the staff report that is the definition? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 36 of 61 Siddoway: Even the definition of medium density for the Ten Mile specific area plan, I believe could be more density than the current comp plan as well. So, the definitions that you see in the staff report reflect designations that are specifically being proposed for this area. Schultz: And I'll admit that threw me off. I was going to point out that I think medium density is defined incorrectly here, based on my ignorance of what the Ten Mile plan was proposing for medium density. Because it says it's above when R-8, which is medium density, only -- you can at best get up to about six at best. And so R-15 must take off from where R-8 leaves. Siddoway: Actually, I don't think that's true. The medium density is defined -- is an average of six, with a range between three and eight. Schultz: What I'm telling you is your dimensional standards don't let you get there -- Siddoway: Oh, the dimensional standards. Schultz: -- they don't let you get to an average of six and that's where we kind of hope for all these higher densities, but the reality is that you can't quite get there from here. Siddoway: Yeah. I know what you're talking about. Schultz: So, it's tough. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a pointer? Mr. Chair? Okay. The conversation has been a little circular for me, so I just want to be clear. Is this the problem area right here? Borup: As far as staff, yeah. Siddoway: Everything-- Hess: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- Siddoway: Everything below the black line. Hess: It is staff -- or at Commission's discretion where -- what they want to do with this - - this southern area? If you feel the density is fine in this area, then, that's up to you to decide, but I mean -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, I'm getting distracted with all the ambient-- Hess: Oh, that's fine. That's totally fine. Newton-Huckabay: Can you start over? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 37 of 61 Hess: Like Caleb was stating, this is -- this is -- this is kind of a fuzzy line, so it would be at your discretion where you would want to set that line to be. If you felt that it maybe wasn't appropriate to necessarily have higher densities in this area, maybe more over here, then, that could be something that you decide, but, yet, it would still generally comply and at least mostly conform with, you know, what the Ten Mile plan is looking for. So, we are just looking for kind of a step above what they have offered, something that better compiles, because right now we don't feel it does. Newton-Huckabay: So, right here and right here. Hess: Where -- do you see the black line? Newton-Huckabay: The black line. Hess: That is, actually, the dividing line. Let me go back to -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Somebody -- people keep pointing here and here to the orange and blue lot. . Hess: These are actually -- this is all the same designation right here. Newton-Huckabay: I understand that. I'm just trying to identify what piece of the part below the black line that the applicant and staff are not agreeing on. Hess: All of the area underneath the black line is designated medium high and if you notice over here we have got higher density -- or higher square footage lots, single family detached units over here. Lots of single family detached units in this area that don't necessarily meet the high -- the medium high density definition. So, we are just looking for something different, something that would bump up that density, because right now we don't see single family as achieving that. Moe: Commissioners, if we don't have a specific question to the applicant right now, what I would like to do is go into public testimony, because we do have others that would like to speak to this -- this hearing, so anything else for the applicant right now? Okay. Having said that, then, there was no one signed up, but if there is someone that would like to speak to this hearing, please, come forward. Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 150 East Iron Eagle is my business address, with Bailey Engineers. Since being with Bailey we have seen this piece of property three times. Once before with this applicant and once before with another. The previous applicant before Mr. Schultz, you know, kind of debated whether having that higher density and a little more intense use was something that would be approvable beyond you and not necessarily that he couldn't build it and in this version that we are going forward with, we have met numerous times with staff and have tried to make any changes that they have come up with. From the original submittal there used to be a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 38 of 61 smaller piece up here, because they felt that there needed to be a road that went east- west. We negotiated and worked with them and said, well, maybe that road should be here, because of the topography on the site. Again, there is -- you're going uphill to get to Franklin Road and from an engineering standpoint that topography of this site makes some of the things that are being asked a little more difficult. This higher density that's being asked at this time wasn't really ever brought up in the pre-apps that we have had. We have met with Amanda, we discussed about dropping a lot up here, because it might be kind of difficult for a common driveway to access back in here. We did that. We added another lot in here, but as Commissioner Borup brought up, there is like 11 feet here. We were seeing 14 feet from where a house would sit here to where the backs of this is. There is a ridge that runs in this area and the larger lots that are in this area are generated because of the topography. Now, Commissioner Borup and Commissioner Moe being construction type people, you have grading issues when you have one house that's sitting up high and a house that's sitting below and trying to keep drainage out of each other's lots. To do that what we end up doing is making the lots a little deeper and trying to provide some width in there so that they can get the drainage around the buildings and not into these buildings and that's why some of that's taking place. And this one issue I think that has kind of been overlooked is we have this open space, which is a natural feature that runs through the site, is a regional pathway and we have provided connectivity to it. That is something that makes us kind of a gem along the pathway of this regional path that will go through this area and can take these residents down further. In our discussions with staff that's one of the reasons that we put the park so close to it is that it would be a gathering place within the development and, obviously, that's located in the area that they are asking for some higher intense uses. We have tried to buffer along the south. There is also the Williams pipeline that's further south that is also being used as a pathway. I think that with the site and the way that we have done this, we have tried to move along and do different thi.ngs. If you want to give us direction as to how you might want to see something else -- I mean I guess we have townhouses here, if you want to direct that we put another row of townhouses, we could probably only do that in this location, because when you get into here that becomes difficult with the topography again. Apartments in that kind of situation also would be rather difficult. I don't know if I need to wrap up, because you beeped at me, but I can. Moe: Please. Brown: The transition down here, overall what we have tried to do and I think that the one that shows the overall density and the lot sizes, we have tried to have a blend. As the numerous applications that come before you, everybody talks about blending. An apartment type of user is different than a single family user and generally viewed as detrimental to your home values. Taking an area and just saying, okay, we are going to have apartments here and that's what's going to bring the density. The things that I got from Mr. Schultz's presentation is that overall with this R-40 that's here we can bring the density to what would be anticipated for the area and at the same time make what's working with the site and with the topography work. I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 39 of 61 Moe: Any questions of the Commission? Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Having one, would the applicant want to come back up? Borup: There is nothing to rebut. Moe: Pardon me? Borup: There is nothing to rebut. Schultz: Just real quick I'd like to -- I don't have a lot to say. Kent said a lot of stuff, I have said a lot of stuff, but I do want to say that we have not ignored anybody during this. We really thought we were a go until Monday. We thought we were going to have staff -- at least staff conditions. We didn't find out that the recommendation was for denial until Tuesday, two days ago. So, this is nothing that we have -- you know, they said denial, we have been saying no, no, no all along. This is -- like Kent said, we have been working along thinking we were making the revisions we needed to make until Monday that we got the actual staff report and it said it. So, we had two days of hustle, but it hasn't been enough, apparently, to convince staff to see that other way, but I do think we are right there to where we can at least get conditions of approval and those conditions may be something that doesn't work, but at least we have some conditions to work with. So, thank you. Mae: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. Moe: I would assume we are not going to close the Public Hearing, because we are going to have to -- Borup: That depends on which direct we are going for the motion. Moe: If you were going to close it, I'm assuming that -- well, if you're closing you're going to probably deny this, because if you close it you're not going to be able to do anything but deny it or approve it that way it is, so we need to have discussion first. Borup: I would like do that, too. Moe: So, having said that, anybody have anything to discuss? Mr. Borup, do you have any questions, sir, or comments? Borup: Well, I -- I guess, first of all, I like the variety of lot sizes. I think that's what we said last time. That was without the benefit of the Ten Mile study and we have that now, but -- and I have got to agree with Mr. Schultz's comment on -- the density does average -- I mean it's -- the percentages do come close to the original percentages, only they are mixed through the area, which I do like. There is a difference between putting Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 40 of 61 lines on a flat piece of paper and looking at the topography and I can see some problems in complying with that in this area south. This area here would be very difficult to meet the density. There is a lot of -- there is a lot of grade differential. If the Commission felt that something needed to be done, you know, it could be done over in this area. That's a fairly level area and that would be an area that density could increase, but I think -- I don't know what kind of product you could build on doubling the density in that area. I mean you got to work within the constraints of the property that you have. Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have any comments? Siddoway: I do. While I agree with most of the comments to Commissioner Borup in relation to the plat, if this was a plat specifically, this is also an annexation and one of the main questions is -- you know, is this in the best interest of the city for a variety of reasons. I commend the applicant for the changes that have been made from the original submittal. It does -- it does come further into compliance with the Ten Mile specific area plan, but for me it does not go far enough and I will try and explain that a little bit. A large block of single family, detached, garage front houses on smaller lots doesn't have the showcase appeal to me that this area is striving to become. For me to be comfortable annexing it I would want at least proposed a whole series of design standard guidelines from the applicant to show what makes this something special, something of a showcase to match this area. I look at the buffer along the south and I ask, you know, are we -- is buffering the right thing? Are we trying to isolate, segregate, are we -- or should there be more thought put into the transitioning, the integration with the overall area and what the areas around it are. I lean towards wanting a revised development plan with some very specific design guidelines that are in harmony with the spirit of that Ten Mile comprehensive plan and, again, I think that this is on the right track, it just doesn't go far enough for me to be comfortable with it. For me the two options would be, one, deny it and move on or, two, when is the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment -- is it February? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, for the rest of the Commissioners, the earliest we could have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission is April -- I think it's the 7th, maybe the 4th, but six months from the last one. We had one in October, so it will be April. Siddoway: Okay. Well, I mean that pretty well sums up my current feelings, so I'll stand there. Borup: I think Steve hit on one of the thoughts I had. We are talking about a plat that's not been adopted yet. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments? Newton-Huckabay: Overall I generally don't -- other than I agree with Commissioner Siddoway that some elevations would be nice. I haven't spent a lot of time with the Ten Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 41 of61 Mile area plan, other than the short introduction that we received to it and as luck would have it, I, actually, was traveling the first time this came before the Commission and the second time this came before the Commission and so this the first time I have seen this and so I feel at a distinct disadvantage there regarding the past submittals of it. I kind like the mix of the smaller lots and the bigger lots within it. In two dimensional I could say, well, why don't we just put more houses right here, but remembering back to this area, there is a lot of variation in the land out there, so I mean if it doesn't work and it's not practical, it doesn't work and it's not practical. So, I don't necessarily think adding more in here is going to make that -- I kind of like the way that this whole thing right here appears to me like it would look. You get a combination of the smaller and the larger lots. I kind of like that particular area and I think that bumping the minimum over here to me seems a fair compromise. So, I guess I'll end my comments there. I guess I would be somewhat on the fence. 1-- Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I would be -- I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I guess I should say that. I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I think it would be reasonable to ask for conditions. I would think that if staff and applicant have the time and to -- you know, get together over a table, they should be able to come up with some kind of compromise on that. Moe: Okay. Well, because I have been here the other times it's come before us and the last time it was here I do remember that I was very much in favor of the project and, then, it went to City Council and City Council denied it -- or, basically, turned it down, basically waiting on the Ten Mile plan and to see what came of that. So, when I started reviewing this the other day I, quite frankly, wondered why this was back before us, because of the fact the Comp Plan change has not come before us and I don't -- I don't -- I guess my concern is is that if, in fact, we were -- we were ready to approve it as it is noted today, all it's going to do is turn right back around and come right back, because Council I don't think is going to act on it until the Comprehensive Plan changes have been reviewed and accepted and gone forward. A couple things within that that I -- that I'm concerned about is is I think that although you don't do a lot of high density construction per se in apartments and whatnot, you know that that is something that is wanted. I know you have got the R-40 over there, but you're not planr'!ing to develop it and you're looking possibly to sell it off and so, you know, it's -- I'm just not getting a lot of confidence that you're willing to do something in the R-40 area right there and so, therefore -- and I do understand that that's not what you guys do, but I guess -- so, tonight, I guess I'm saying that there are components of this project I do like, I do like the mix, but at the same point it's -- it is not meeting what has been developed so far in that comp plan and so I have a hard time -- I'd have a hard time approving anything tonight. But I'm not sure I want to deny it either. I think if they could work with staff to basically -- I realize you want to get going on this thing, but I think working with staff through the process and seeing what happens. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 42 of 61 Moe: Yes, sir. Borup: A couple things -- thoughts I had with the others. I think that's right, I had the same feeling that if this was approved as is I don't think City Council wo.uld be looking at acceptance again. I don't know that they necessarily need to wait -- or maybe ask that. Are they waiting for the adoption of the Ten Mile area or are they just looking at something that's going to substantially comply with it? Or do we know? Maybe-- nobody knows what City Council is thinking. Is that what you're saying? Either way -- either way it would be a tough sell, probably. I have been thinking about what Commissioner Siddoway said about the vision for the area and I -- I don't know how well that's put down on paper, but -- and I'm assuming that the applicants would like some -- if we could give some suggestions on things that would make it -- that the Commission would feel that it would be in more compliance that they would be looking for any suggestions. So, that being said, I guess I do have one suggesting thinking about talking about the concept and the look of the area and I don't know if that -- but an area -- and I'm not sure where it would be. The topography here would make it difficult and, I don't know, maybe down there, but some -- some alley-loaded product. Those can be a little narrower lots on detached, but you can have some -- or get some pretty good density on a row house type effect and doing those narrow lots with front loaded garages turns out to be real ugly product on a narrow lot, because all you have got is garage and a front door. The only way to get a nice architectural design is with an alley- loaded -- alley-loaded product and you can have some beautiful product that way. I guess not necessarily telling them what they need to do, but that would get the density up partially. I think it's -- I think it's real close and something that would have some of that is something I would be completely in favor of. I mean it's -- in my mind real close now, but that would -- that would get the density up in those areas in at least part of that area that would be practical. That would be my suggestion. I don't know if you have looked at -- I don't know if the applicant's looked at something like that or not, but you can have some design doing that, so -- Schultz: The meeting is not closed -- or the Public Hearing? Borup: Right. Schultz: Could I ask a question real quick? Moe: Sure. Schultz: If we are talking about alleys, that's, obviously, an option in today's market and we do have some alley-loaded product that we could use. What percent -- we are looking for a little bit of direction of what percentage -- we, obviously, can't do all alleys with the geometry and things like that, you need some front loaded. What percentage is a good percent? We are just looking for a little direction, because we c;an -- we want to work with staff if they will work with us. We don't want to just throw the whole thing away. We'd like to make some -- we can make some revisions in certain areas and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 43 of 61 hopefully that could be met with one more variety of product -- alley-loaded product. One more component. I don't think you go all alley, I don't think that's -- Borup: No, that's not what I'm thinking. I was thinking this area down in here and maybe some row houses alley loaded. You can have some nice designs. Schultz: And alley-loaded product is not a problem as long as we are not doing that little thing, because there is a misconception about density with the current alley regulations with the fire department and ACHD and we -- setbacks, we -- there is a possibility of getting more density if there would be some flexibility in those things. Borup: I was thinking in the medium high density area. Schultz: Right. But we are going to be, you know, a little bit higher, but it's not going to be spectacular. Borup: No. I meant in the geographical area where the alley loaded could be. Schultz: And that's something we can do. I don't want to throw the whole thing away, though. I don't think you throw it all away. Moe: I don't know that I could give you, you know, any percentage per se, but I think the main -- the most important thing is is that you can work with staff, but, basically, on the area -- the southern portion to bring up the density and that's, basically, what they are looking for. Schultz: And as long as we can have this public forum and discussion that that is exactly what we are looking for, then, we feel like we have accomplished something tonight. Moe: Well, again, tonight staff has already made the statement they don't have a lot of problem with the northern portion of this property, it's just that they were looking for higher densities to the south to make for up for it and I, too, agree with Mr. Siddoway, you know, some elevations and some standards that you're looking for and whatnot, I think are going to be very valuable to bring this thing a little closer to reality. Borup: You can have some alley-loaded product without front streets on them or where the -- what the design in front of the house would be on a parkway, something like that. Schultz: I have done that and that goes back to these conflicting regulations on how wide that needs to be. You're almost better off with a street in, because of -- but you're right, I have done some fronted alley loaded on open space and at first people go, well, what are you doing, but it, actually, when you see it, it looks nice. Borup: Very nice. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 44 of 61 Schultz: It's different. And that's something we could do in this area around the park or whatever. Borup: And that's what came to my mind when Steve was mentioning the vision for the area. I don't know if that was -- I don't know if that was one of the things, but when I started thinking about an area to be unique and different, that would go towards it. Schultz: We just don't want to go down in denial. Hopefully we can move -- go back and talk to them, come back here whenever it's practical to come back. I'm not so sure Council's waiting to adopt that plan to approve this, they mayor may not. It's hard to read into their minds on any given night what they are going to do. It all depends on how the presentation goes and the response and they do what you do. They make a decision based on the testimony presented. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, sir. Hood: Commissioners. Since this is an open forum -- and just -- we'll kind of just, you know, use it for working with the applicant and we'd kind of just like to get some input and we are just thinking out loud, too. Maybe -- maybe get some MEW lots or some lots that aren't fronted on a public street, but there is a private street in the rear, maybe fronting some along the drain, the Perdham Drain, having some front doors and that's different, we don't -- I can't think of any project in the city where your front door would, actually, be there and, then, you have a private street in the rear loading the garages. I mean that offers -- it's the same product type, but it's a little bit different flavor, you can kind of use that as -- Schultz: The only fixed point we have is I got a sewer line that's 36 inches in the ground right now. That easement was granted. It's in the ground. So, I am fixed here. You know, that's one thing I cannot move. Hood: So, the easement, though, is -- I mean it's 30 feet wide or so? Schultz: Yeah. The sewer needs to fall within -- I guess technically you could put it in a future easement, but ideally they want it in a public right of way for access purposes and things like that. Borup: Yeah. They want -- Schultz: Especially a 36 inch line. I mean that's something you have got to really have some room for. Hood: But rather than a public street, maybe a private street there arid you could run the private street -- I mean it's still just pavement and then -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 45 of 61 Schultz: The private street versus alley issue is something that, you know, I have never really wanted to dive into fully, because it complicates things with ACHD and -- but alleys are something that we could do with a MEW facing onto some open space. That is definitely something we can do. I just don't -- I don't want to get up here and design at the podium, because it could take all night. But I do definitely want to come back and show you something different that's, hopefully, based on the input we received that would meet your approval. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Siddoway: And, staff, do you feel that there is room to work with -- what exists north of the line that we have been talking about with some modifications -- and modifying what's south of the -- that line in a way that will bring this into compliance with that draft plan in your mind or is it too far off or -- I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Do you feel like there -- I think we are ready to make a motion for continuance to work with staff and I'm wondering if you feel that's reasonable. Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I do think that's a reasonable decision. We still support our recommendation for this plan to be denial, so if you decide that continuation is in the best interest of the applicant and us, so that would -- this does not have to be denied -- then, I would be -- staff would be favorable towards that motion, so -- Moe: If I might just -- I think he was looking for a little bit more -- I realize that you guys are more than willing to work with them to make changes, because that's what we want, but I guess I'm understanding you as you're wanting to know whether staff feels there is room to make this thing work. I mean I'm basing that on your comments that you had no problems with the area to the north, but you did want some reworking to the south and so if you can come together with them and work that through, is that something you think can happen? Hess: Correct. If they -- Commissioner Moe, yes, if they can make the effort to provide what we were looking for, we are definitely in support of that, so -- Moe: Thank you. Borup: And maybe that's one of the questions what I was looking for. But I have got concerns of trying to do 12 units per acre. It's going to come out looking like an apartment complex and I don't know if that's the vision for that area or not. Something with a row house or even a detached row house alley loaded -- I mean esthetically has a very nice look, but you're talking trying to get 12 units per acre. It's going to be an apartment complex design. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? And I would just say that while we may not be looking for the apartment complexes that we have seen around here, there are other versions of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 46 of 61 apartment complexes and I'll give an extreme example, just to make a point and, then, back off. But, you know, you can go to New York City and the apartment complexes are very different. Now, we are not looking for New York City here, so I'm backing away now, but my point is that the apartment complexes that we have seen would not be the vision here, but there are certainly other forms of apartments that could be great. Newton-Huckabay: For example? Borup: Winding Creek in Eagle would be an example. No. Those are six units per building. Siddoway: And they would be multiple story, most likely. Baird: Mr. Chair, for the purposes of the record, could I recommend that we not have a give and take from the audience at this point and that we speak to the Chair. Moe: Yes. That would be fine. Siddoway: Okay. I'm ready to make a motion, but I am looking for a date. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, I guess my first thought -- and I talked to the applicant, actually, before the hearing even started this evening about potentials for this application and there is, obviously, some -- we are going to need to communicate and it's going to need to be revised. Just so you know, our hearings -- the 1 st is not good -- February 1 is not good. January 18th I don't think is even a possibility based on the discussion so far tonight. That's only two weeks. February 1 st if full. The 15th we moved two big projects to that agenda. It's not very full per se, but those two projects we moved tonight are fairly large projects. We do have a couple more that we are trying to get to the clerk's office this week, so I don't know if that's enough time or not. I don't know -- I imagine Mr. Schultz will probably be in tomorrow talking with us, but I don't know how much time he's going to need. You may want to -- you know, we will work with them, I just don't know if even that's enough time to really get a new plan, bring it to a comments meeting, see if any other agencies -- you know, ACHD may have comments if things change. I don't know how much things are going to change, so we probably need to reroute this to -- you know, again, the highway district, the fire department, see if they have any -- the police, see if they have any concerns. March seems like forever, but that may be -- you know, may be a good place to go. So, that's just my two cents. Moe: I would anticipate around the 15th of March. You know, I would also say that probably does another -- another point and that is you're saying the Comp Plan Amendment is coming up in April, between now and, then, I would prol:>ably be wanting to get a little bit more into that, as well as even talking to some of the Council members just to get some opinions of theirs, just so I can kind of review that a little bit better as well, so-- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 47 of 61 Borup: I would be curious if the applicant feels he needs that much time. Moe: Would you, please, come up. Schultz: I don't think I have a choice, but -- I really don't. I mean I'm not going to be -- you know, downplay the amount of work to be done. Borup: Well, the option would be -- Schultz: We are going to do a great deal of work, but we are very efficient at what we do and very quick and very motivated. But, at the same time, if it's not practical, then, it's not practical to us on an agenda. But time is not an issue with ~s. We are very motivated and very efficient. Borup: An option would be to do it two weeks earlier and, then, if it's not ready do a continuance. Moe: The 1st of March? Borup: Yeah. Moe: I don't have a real problem with that either. My biggest concern is that you bring up and it -- perhaps time isn't a real concern of yours, but I'm concerned about time on staff as well with the other projects. Schultz: I understand there is a lot of stuff going on. March 1 st is great. We appreciate it. Thanks. Moe: Thank you. Anybody have a preference for the 1 st or the 15th? Borup: The 1 st is almost -- I mean that's almost eight weeks. No. What, a good seven weeks or whatever. Siddoway: Have we been putting continued hearings on the second meeting in general, to hold the first meeting each month for the new applications or new applications are going on all -- that was two years ago. Moe: I guess I could probably go with what Commissioner Borup said. I think we could go to the 1st and if we have to continue it, we have to continue it. Siddoway: All right. I'd like to make a motion that we continue Public Hearing -- looking for the number. AZ 06-061 and Public Hearing PP 06-062 to March 1st, 2007, with direction to the applicant to work with staff to bring the development plan into stronger compliance with the proposed Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and also to bring forward some specific design guidelines that are in conformance with that plan, so that what is brought back at that time is more than just a different density plan, it is also -- it Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 48 of 61 also includes the proposed design guidelines in conformance with the concept for that area. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1 st, 2007, and requesting that the applicant work with staff as noted in the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. We will see you back the 1 st of March. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: At this time we are going to take a five minute break real quick and, then, we will come back and hear the next. (Recess. ) Item 13: Item 14: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi-family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Moe: At this time I want to reconvene the hearing and open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly Place Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Watters: Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Waverly Place Subdivision. The subject applications were previously heard at the Commission meeting on November 2nd, 2006, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare Findings and conditions of approval. Staff had not prepared conditions of approval, because staff is recommending denial of the project. The subject property is 5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The property is located at