Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 15, 2007 P & Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 28 of 80 Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one last clarification question for staff. I'd just like to - - the point at which this project is contiguous, is it a corner to corner -- Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, yes, it is. It's at the northeast corner it's contiguous with Tanana Valley. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Could we get a motion to -- okay. Siddoway: I will try it. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: ML Chairman, after considering all the staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15th, 2007, with no modification. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057, both items related to the Sagewood Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Item 14: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 29 of 80 Rohm: WOW, we are doing pretty good here tonight. All right. At this time I'd like to -- I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing from January 4th, 2007, for AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059, both items related to the Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. As stated, this presentation is in regards to the Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision. The applicant Providence Development has applied for annexation and zoning to R-2, R-4, and R-8 for 224.26 acres of property currently zoned R-R in Ada County. The applicant has also applied -- submitted a preliminary plat for a portion, 178.10 acres of that annexation area. The subject preliminary plat proposes 644 single family residential lots, 30 common lot, and one proposed city park lot within the proposed R-2, R-4, and R-8 zones. The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile south of Amity Road and currently as shown on the presentation slide, there are 44 single family home sites and associated landscape and roadways previously approved in Ada County as Blackrock Subdivision No.1. The existing home sites totaling 46.16 acres -- sorry about that. The existing home sites totaling that acreage and roadways include a request for annexation and zoning, but are not included in the subject preliminary plat. The subject property is within the area proposed to be a part of the City of Meridian's area of impact. I will give a little bit of context on this area. As you can see currently it appears there is no annexation path and I'd like to clarify that. This project received the annexation path through the previously approved Cotswold Village Subdivision, which is located to the north above Amity Road here, then, through the previously approved White Bark Subdivision, which is located on this parcel here. So, that's -- this would be the point of connection to the current corporate city boundaries of the City of Meridian. That's, basically, what's to the north would be this one previously approved subdivision yet to be -- yet to be constructed, and, then, various rural residential parcels used for both home sites and agriculture. To the east is Eagle Road, obviously, and the single family homes on large rural parcels. To the south are single family homes also on large rural parcels. And to the west, once again, single family homes on large rural parcels. I think it's important at this time to point out this is a significant transition for this area, as you can see. The approval of 644 lots down in this area will be a large transition from rural residential to more of an urban density. And it really will be the first extension of the City of Meridian this far south beyond Amity Road. And that is just a point of clarification and something that definitely needs to be considered, in staffs opinion. With that said, this area is part of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed -- the proposed subdivision does comply with that -- with the densities proposed on the Comprehensive Plan. It's an interesting designation. Because of the topography and other things, the Comprehensive Plan -- I don't have a slide, we didn't have it updated quite yet on our JS, but the Comprehensive Plan shows a line of medium density residential running kind of in this direction, with this area here being designated medium density residential and this area to the south and west being designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. And the applicant has proposed zoning designations in compliance with that. This area, which is not a part of the plat, which is -- and which is a part of the annexation area is designated R-2. There is also a line of R-2 lots that you will see in the preliminary plat, R-4 area, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 30 of 80 and, then, R-8 area as you go closer towards Eagle Road. Let's move on now to the aerial photograph. As you can see, not much to see here. You can see there was preliminary site work being done on that existing subdivision, but a rural area with numerous existing homes in the surrounding areas. This is the -- one view of the preliminary plat. It is hard to see. There are contour lines being shown. It's, actually, a good thing that we can see this, because it -- there is definitely a very significant ridge that runs through this property that, basically, separates -- separates the existing home sites from this propose subdivision. And that ridge is prominent and on a site visit I was out there and could see that very clearly. We can move on. This shows the roadway network and some of the other features of the plat. A quick discussion of the street network. The main entrance into this subdivision is going to be right here at the intersection of Eagle Road and East Teconic Drive. This Teconic Drive, which runs westward into the subdivision, will be designated as a residential collector with no front- on housing and a 20 foot landscape buffer on either side. That drive will serve the entire subdivision, including the existing home sites. That drive is -- much of the pavement for that drive has already been poured and this particularly -- this street was approved through Ada County to get these lots out here -- out here created. Other than that, there are various other streets as you can see. Maybe something different for the City of Meridian, there is not a single cul-de-sac in the development. All the streets -- the street network is kind of a modified grid that, basically, there is no dead ends, you can get around pretty well through the street network. And ACHD has taken a close look at this project. A traffic study was done and even after this project went through ACHD's commission, additional traffic -- traffic counts were taken to see how this project would impact Eagle Road, which is, obviously, a road of concern for the entire area. And after doing all that, staff received the most up to date information and ACHD found that, indeed, Eagle Road could handle this and they even considered a lot of other development that is proposed for the area in those counts. For more specific details you could see the ACHD staff report and also ACHD submitted a memo specifically describing that situation. Let's move on to the -- let's see. This is just some -- little sections of the plat maybe a little bit clearer. This is a good one to see the proposed park site right here located in the center off of that collector street, East Teconic Drive. And this is the other side of the plat. Here is the landscape plan. The applicant has submitted -- I'll just jump through here. Oh, I thought I put it in there. Yes, that would be great. We are going to a color rendering of the landscape, just to show a little bit clearer picture of what the landscape areas are that are proposed. As you can see, this would be the proposed city park site, designated to be about approximately 8.7 acres. Along with that city -- that proposed city park, there is also some smaller pocket parks or open spaces that are included throughout the development of various sizes from, you know, one to two acres, possibly bigger. Tree lined streets along the collectors and they also run a tree lined street up to the north like that. A landscape buffer is required along Eagle Road. And another feature of this -- of the landscaping of this -- in the open space of the development is a required ten foot wide multi-use pathway that runs along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek, which traverses across this northeastern section of the property. One issue that came up with this ten foot wide pathway is as you can see there is an outparcel that wasn't included in this development. It's not under the same ownership. And the ten foot pathway originally just terminated into that parcel Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 31 of 80 and staff, after looking at that -- and it's happened a couple other places in the city, where you have a -- that pathway gets almost to the arterial street and doesn't quite make it. And those situations, especially with small parcels like that of one or 1.5 acres, oftentimes they may never redevelop. You know, we don't control that. So, staff, after looking at that, recommended to the applicant that they come up with a solution and try to make that pathway at least allow for pedestrian connectivity to Eagle Road, a pretty straight -- in a -- kind of a straight -- or as straight of a line as possible. So, the applicant, what they did propose, was a micro pathway connection from the terminus of the multi-use pathway to the sidewalk network and, then, it's on the south of the outparcel another micro pathway connecting to Eagle Road. After reviewing that, staff thought it was a reasonable solution and because that outparcel is under the control of another property owner, the applicant wasn't able to push the ten foot wide multi-use pathway all the way through. And when that property does develop, that pathway would be required to go all the way through. Other than that, there are various development agreement provisions that were also included with this -- with this preliminary plat and annexation request. Some of the -- some of them -- most of them we have already touched on. One is the inclusion of that ten foot wide multi-use pathway. Another one is the -- that the applicant agrees to construct the 8.7 acre neighborhood park on this site. And just for a point of clarification, the process to get a neighborhood park actually dedicated to the City of Meridian, it requires not only this Commission's recommendation, but also the recommendation of the parks commission, which I don't believe, as far as I know, and verified this today, that the parks commission has looked at this specific design for the park. So, there are some steps that still need to be taken to make this park actually be eligible for dedication to the city. And the City Council is the final -- is the final say, basically, on that, whether the City Council will accept that or not. And the applicant, hopefully, will be able to provide some more detail on exactly how that process is going. As I stated, it's kind of a parallel process to this one and, oftentimes, there is not as much communication as we would hope. Other than that -- let's see here. There are some Public Works conditions that also were included in the development agreement, which if there are questions I'm sure our Public Works representative would be happy to answer questions regarding those at a later time. I think we could jump back to the -- we will just jump back to the presentation here. Actually, this is about where I wanted to go. The applicant has also submitted some elevations regarding this project. As you can see, various different designs of two story homes. And other than that, I don't think there was any other outstanding issues. Staff is recommending approval of this -- of this project and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come forward? Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes. Thank you. First is just a clarification and you did cover this, but this area is currently in the city's Comprehensive Plan. It was done as part of the southeast Meridian comp plan amended; is that right? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct. I do discuss the history of this area -- thank you, Caleb. This is the -- up on the slide now we Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 32 of 80 do have that -- that Comprehensive Plan area and this is the area we are talking about right here. So, the short answer is, yes, it is within the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and it's also in the proposed area of impact. That line -- takes more than just us to make that line move. So, that's why it's proposed. Siddoway: Right. Thank you. The city has acted on it and it's not been adopted by Ada County yet. Lucas: Exactly. Thank you. Siddoway: And your findings in regard to the density of the proposal in relation to this is what? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway,.1 also discuss that a little bit in the staff report. Looking at it, it's approximately -- and I say approximately -- 50 percent is low density and 50 percent is medium density. That's, obviously, not exact, but if you move to the -- if we go to the plat, you will be able to see that -- we could even leave it here. What the applicant is doing is there is -- the R-2 area is already existing in this area and the applicant has provided some R-2 zoning here and, then, a band, kind of, of R-4 zoning, which seems to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and I ran the numbers and they are in the staff report, but this area of the Comprehensive Plan does match up with the density as proposed on the plat and this area of the Comprehensive Plan matches with the density proposed on the plat. So, what they did was they grouped that R-2 and R-4 in the low density area and, then, grouped the R-8, which is a little bit higher density in the medium density area to comply with that. Siddoway: Okay. One follow up. Last week we saw a staff response to the south Meridian area plan that proposed some modifications to this. Is it staff's intention to go with -- to push forward what we saw last week or to go with what we are -- has been acted on by the city tonight -- or previously? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, it was staff's intention -- and we reviewed this under the current adopted Comprehensive Plan. Although we realize there may be some proposed modifications, those modifications are definitely at a conceptual level and staff looking at this didn't feel it was fair to the applicant after they had been told one thing, to go and try to change it at point. So, we did look at it under the current approved Comprehensive Plan that was passed -- was approved by the City Council just recently, actually, so I hope that answers that question. Siddoway: Okay. And my final question would be on the plat regarding stub streets. Just want to get staff's interpretation that we have accommodated stub streets where ever feasible. I know we have got this major ridge in there as a constraint, but it looks like there are stub streets here and, then, none to -- this one crosses the bench and, then, this is a stub street? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 33 of 80 Lucas: Correct. Siddoway: And. then. we have got one here. Okay. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, staff did look very closely at the stub streets. There is a total of nine and after doing a site visit, talking with the applicant about this ridge, and we feel pretty comfortable that they have done what they can, especially in this area here where the ridge is so prominent. This one here is even -- not that if -- it's right on the -- kind of the base of that ridge and it's, basically, the only spot that is available for a stub street, just feasibly to be extended. And, then, there is various stub streets that are proposed to the north and we -- staff did insure that each of those parcels to the north -- there is one that's under the same ownership, but each owner at least of those parcels to the north does receive a stub street. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether this is for staff or probably the applicant, but I'm just kind of curious within the existing Comp Plan that's noted, both the park area, as well as school property, were somewhat planned within the Comp Plan on that area. Was there any discussions with the district at all in regards to whether or not they were looking for property in that area? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, I'm not sure if the applicant has been working with the school district on that property. The school district did have an opportunity to comment on this application and I didn't hear from them regarding that -- regard a possible school site on this site, so -- Moe: In their comments they do not -- they aren't noting that, so I was curious. Lucas: Exactly, Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle, Eagle, Idaho, is my business address. We have been working on this application for quite some time. This applicant or this developer and other land owners participated in creating that southeast Meridian Comp Plan change. We brought before you at that time, basically, this layout. From the initial layout that we had and with some of the staff's revisions to that Comprehensive Plan, we needed to make some changes. If you could go to that overhead of the Comp Plan. Just to kind of help orient ourselves, we are located here. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 34 of 80 The boundary of our subdivision is here. The predominant ridge runs -- Boise Ranch Golf Course over in here and, then, all the way to Nampa. We are at the toe of the slope for the majority of the lots. We do have six lots that extends that non-farm development of phase one of Blackrock that are in here, so we have got six lots that are in the R-2 zone. As you look at the colored maps that we provided, the landscape plan -- Justin, if you could go to that. You can see over in the legend the lot sizes and colored toning -- basically what you're seeing is the different zones. We come in with an R-4 zone that comes down this residential collector here, comes all the way in, goes down the back of those lots and all the way over. And so this is the R-4 zone. The R-2 zone is the existing development and the six that are on top. We are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The overall annexation area that's being annexed, we have an overall density of three units per acre. We have -- in the development plan we had this existing alignment of the road that came in and is the entrance to the lots, the 44 lots, and these additional six that will be added that are up on top of the slope. At the bottom of the toe of the slope we put in a walking path that goes all the way along those -- the bottom of the slope that transitions between the two housing types and we feel it's a great amenity. We have micro-path connections. It looks like my pointer wants to quit. We have micro-path connections that link to that and, then, along the southerly boundary we, again, provided another micro-path connection. We have a pocket park here with a gazebo located south of the main collector. We have a pocket park up here with a tot lot and, then, this particular one we have a basketball -- half court basketball. We have made modifications as they have come along from the staff. The police department had concern. We initially had them closer to the homes and we have moved them out away from the homes and closer to the streets. We had been working with the parks department and the parks commission, had one meeting before the parks commission. They were happy with the location of the neighborhood park. If you're familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and what it requires for a neighborhood park, it's a walking park, it's not the type of park that you would have a regional park, it is made for people within the half mile of any direction to be able to walk to. The majority of the area to the south and west of us is up on top of the ridge, but with our micropath that we have in -- as kind of a boundary of our subdivision on the westerly side and the path here, we have provided means for people to get there from the regional Ten Mile pathway that will go along there. We have connections that funnel people to this park. We tried to make that centrally located and something that the parks department would want. They asked for a tennis court. They said that they have had some responses that instead of maybe a basketball, that a tennis court might be something that they would like to see. There is two baseball fields drawn on there. Basically, what they asked for is a backstop. They don't want to have baseball games in these facilities, it's just maybe a little league practice or a family go out and play. It's not the type of facility that they put on their schedules and schedule events at those facilities. There is a pavilion that is located to the north of the parking area and to the west side of the parking area -- to the west side is a booster pump station that the Public Works Department will have ownership of. We have tried to create a mixture of lots. As you look at the open spaces that we have, when you take this pathway into consideration, the tree lined streets that we have, the greenbelt here, the parks -- did a quick calculation, it's 78 percent of all the lots in this development have one side of their Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 35 of 80 property that is shared with an open space. So, one of their neighbors is an open space and I think that that's something that you really don't see and I think that we have done a nice job. We have tried to create the connectivity. This residential collector helps get people back into the corner without having to drive passed people's homes. You can live in a spot back here, which these stub streets maybe eventually in the future may be quicker to go out to Amity through those future developments, but in the meantime with this one being out here, you can come up the residential and drive passed less than 15 homes and be to the very northerly portion of the development back in a corner without driving passed all of the homes that are in the development. And that's what these roads have done. The police department asked for some traffic calming measures. We have got these island bubbles that we put in on this section of street that they were concerned about. We have also put them here. Talked about putting cross gutters in some of the other locations to act like a speed bump. We can do that to handle the drainage and slow cars down at the same time. We feel that we have done a very nice design and tried to stub to all our neighbors where possible. This northwesterly stub is as far north as we can go and trying to get it so that you can have some connection there. We have two out-parcels that are a part of our project. By putting in this location here we have tried to provide them so that when that property redevelops and the city requires that they be cut off from the street and basically extend the landscaping and extend the pathway, that they can get some lots in there and develop as flexible as they can. Probably a knuckle is one of the options that we have kind of looked at would allow that to redevelop and, then, the homes would fan around that with a micro-path running in their backyard. We have the stub to the north of this -- I think it's ten acres, 15 acres. And, then, we have a stub street in the middle here. One of the things that would probably be nice -- one of the things that kind of came up in my mind -- this micro-path connection here to the greenbelt is probably a good permanent location, but this one that we put in at the northerly portion there of the -- next to that house, when that property redevelops I don't know if there is really going to be a need for that one and maybe that one being a temporary one that could go away in the future would maybe be a thought, but if we need it, then, you know, obviously, we will keep it there. But one of the thoughts I had had is that maybe we could Quitclaim that to the neighbors some day in the future to make their lots a little bit bigger. They'd have to do some improvements and make that go away and maybe they wouldn't want to do that. It would be all paved and landscaped as a part of us doing our development. I'd stand for any questions that you might have. Rohm: Thank you. The first question that I have is on that proposed park that would be turned over to the city, did you say that there were some parking spaces adjacent to that park or -- Brown: There is a parking lot in there, if you look closely at that plan. And, then, I also have a blowup of that, if you'd like to look at that. Rohm: Yeah. Let's take a look at the blowup of that, if you please. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 36 of 80 Brown: Yeah. You have the residential collector that comes in here on the south. The booster pump station that sits on this site. And, then, you have the parking area for that park. Rohm: It looks like approximately 30 or so parking spaces. I didn't count them, but -- Brown: Your eyes are better than mine, so I will trust you there. I'm not really sure. Rohm: Okay. Thanks. I really asked the question more from the standpoint that I think that it's important that everybody else sees that this park has accessibility, rather than it just be internal to the subdivision people themselves and having that parking lot at least people can come in and utilize it and get beneficial use out of it. Brown: With a neighborhood park you have -- again, it's just specifically for like a mile section. The city approved one to the mile to the north. It sets in the Messina Meadows development. This park will be about a million and a half dollars in donation from the developer and, then, he will put in all the improvements and the hard improvements is what the city says is a normal part of the process for them to reimburse them through park money. So, the things that the parks department or the city would pay for is the restrooms, the fountain, parking lot -- parking lot we are doing, aren't we? The parking lot we are doing and the tennis court they would be doing. So, they are like 300,000 and we are near a million and a half when you can take the land in consideration in donation. Rohm: Thank you. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: So, you would be doing -- would you be doing the irrigation system and the grass in the park as well? Brown: Yeah. Uh-huh. Siddoway: Okay. Brown: We have had numerous meetings with the parks department. We had those meetings well before we started submitting the subdivision. We were, basically, looking, you know, parks and schools, did they want to do a joint facility. We started down that road initially with them prior even to drawing the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Moe made a comment about, you know, there was on the Comp Plan a park and a school site. When they put those things on their plan, as you're well aware, they are looking for something in the mile. Since that time and since we have submitted the application, we have met with Wendell. With the topography that's in the area and the other schools that he feels that he's getting -- he has a 33 acre site on Amity Road. He also feels there is another site across the street that he might have an opportunity to get from the landowner there. There is also the school that is located in the Tuscany development, that he did not need a school at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 37 of 80 Rohm: Thanks, Kent. Other questions? Siddoway: Yes. So, can you point out quickly the multi-use pathways that you will be building? Are you building the one along the Ten Mile Creek adjacent to your property? Brown: Correct. Siddoway: And along the toe of the slope -- Brown: Correct. Siddoway: -- for this entire project? And, then, multiple micro-paths. Brown: Correct. Siddoway: So, is this location the bottom side of the existing slope out there? Brown: It is. There was some grading that took place on the hill when they done this and for the most part this is the toe of the slope. It might be slightly elevated. This whole area here is a continuation of that fanning effect that you get at the bottom of a slope and so it is slightly elevated, compared to like this being the low spot on the site. You can go out there today and you can -- it was very easy for the parks director and myself to visualize the park, because they have been growing turf on the property and so you can see the grass, do away with a ditch or two and you can kind of see what the park would look like. Siddoway: One last follow-up question. Those lots along the toe of the slope, I just remember on one of the previous slides in the PowerPoint presentation it had the topography. There were several lots that had quite a bit of topography on them. The lots that you have platted, are you convinced that they are build-able for slopes? Brown: Yes. And the slope was -- prior to -- that topography was prior to development of the other. We have gotten new topography, but I haven't been able to, you know, put that into this plat yet from what the surveyors had been out. Those lots are all 14,000 square feet at the bottom of the slope and they are very deep and over 140 feet deep. So, yes, they will easily have that ability to do that. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. Kent, just one other quick question, As far as the park itself with the city, the city, then, would take over and maintain that, but as far as the pocket parks and whatnot, that would be taken care of by the association? Brown: That is correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 38 of 80 Moe: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Would Barbara Fulcher like to come forward? Okay. From the audience she said she wanted to come forward, but her son's going to speak first and that's certainly acceptable. Fulcher: Scott Fulcher. 5505 South Eagle Road. Mr. Commissioner. Excuse my voice. I'm a little under the weather here. Could I go back a few slides. Would that be possible? Rohm: You need to speak directly into the microphone. Fulcher: Could I go back a few slides, please? I'm known as the outparcel, is who I am. Yeah. Right there. Beings we have been out in the country so long I don't have one of these fancy pointers. Moe: Right there you should have a small one. Fulcher: I don't even know how to use it. I'm the corner piece right there. Thank you very much. I'm really concerned right there. I mean they are going to have R-8 two story homes all around me I have been told. But I'm a little confused and maybe I don't know if I'm in the right place, because I was approached to buy my part by the developer, but it was not Provident Development, so I guess I'm a little confused. I was approached by Hubble Homes. Is this the same, Commissioner? Can you -- do you know? Rohm: Couldn't tell you. Fulcher: Couldn't tell you. Okay. So, I don't even know if I have a right to be speaking here, I guess. But I have a concern, because as I understand the presentation, there is one approach to Eagle Road and it's just above my house and I don't know how I'll get out on that road. I don't know how my aged parents right down the street will get out or the 90 year old lady across the street. I'm concerned about traffic. I'm concerned about -- I wanted to sell the property, because I don't want to be living there in this situation. I was told, though, if the greenbelt's going to go around me, I wasn't needed. And so any negotiations I had with Hubble Homes was dropped at that point. I would need to have a way to safely get out if I was going to be there. I would need a privacy fence of some kind. I would certainly prefer not to have stacked R-8 homes, two stories high, all the way around my perimeter, a greenbelt around my perimeter. I think it destroys the value my property. And so I'm just really concerned. I see this beautiful sign here, it says Meridian, Idaho, 100 years. Well, we have had six generations on that piece of farm ground out there and we helped build this here town. We really did. And it's just a surprise to me to see that that many homes in that small of an area, when you go out there now and it's nothing but beautiful farm ground, and it's just -- it's just going to be a tough pill to swallow, I think, for my clan, but if -- I would certainly like to work with the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 39 of 80 developer, versus have any issues, because where I'm located -- and I think most everyone here would agree -- pretty well changes my life tremendously. And so that's my concerns. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this individual? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a clarification. It sounds like you had mentioned that the family had been farming, so you originally owned this property? Fulcher: We originally owned most of that property, about half of it, yes. That was our farm ground. Borup: And so it was all one parcel at that time? Fulcher: Yes. Borup: So, when that -- so, when that was sold, you chose not to sell it at that time, then? Fulcher: No. That was sold -- my aged parents sold the farm and the truth of the story is it was a developer or two back and they sold it on one condition, as we had coffee and donuts in the front room, and that was that that would become a Banbury Subdivision. And that's why we sold it. That was the promises given to us. It changed. Borup: I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but -- Fulcher: It means Banbury is a lot different than R-8. That's what it means. Borup: Okay. But at that time you didn't want to sell your parcel. Fulcher: It was never approached. At that time -- Borup: Well, wasn't it all one parcel -- I mean that would have been the time to negotiate the sale, it seems like to me. FUlcher: I didn't want to sell my acre and a half when it was going to become a Banbury Subdivision. Borup: Okay. I understand. Fulcher: That's the way it is. Borup: Thank you. Fulcher: It becomes a valuable piece of property at that time where now it's not. And I would like to develop it, but I understand I'm agricultural and everything around me now Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 40 of 80 is going to be R-8, so, you know, it's a situation we will have to deal with. Borup: All right. Thank you. Fulcher: Any other questions of me? Rohm: No, sir. Fulcher: Thank you. Rohm: Now, Barbara, would you like to come forward? B. Fulcher: Commissioners, I'm Barbara Fulcher. I live at 5215 South Eagle Road. That little corner up there is us. Let's see. Scott said he had -- he didn't know how to use one of these, obviously, I don't. This triangle is us. We will be bordering all along here. I have another son that has property right in here. And, of course, this is Scott's that he just told you about. I really appreciated Justin's opening remarks, that this project will mark a significant change in the character and land use for this area. We have a lot of concerns. When I saw the homes up there on the screen that were shown, they didn't look anything at all like the Hubble developments that we have looked at over on Maple Grove and Five Mile Road and, you know, it's -- it's hard. It's really hard. And just as Scott said, we did -- we sold to a friend and it was -- we are going to do upscale - - no. No. No. No. This was all county. We were going to have the development on the hill. This was going to be in farmland for 15 years. My husband couldn't farm any longer and so we sold on that promise and we sold on that promise to a very reduced price, because I thought that would be the easiest transition that probably would never see it developed. Well, obviously, it has changed hands. We don't have any control over that. We don't have any rights over the buyer at this point, so I realize that. We don't have any rights as sellers. As adjoining landowners I feel like we do have some rights and so I'd just like to point out a few things. Scott mentioned the value of our land. It will plummet along side of a Hubble Subdivision. It will. That's only common sense. Our traffic problems -- I don't know quite what the ACHD was thinking, but I had a hard time getting out on the road at 6:30 this evening to come in here and, believe me, in morning hours and traffic hours, they never tried to cross the road to get their paper. And so this totally changes when we are going to put 644 more homes right there next to us with one access to the highway and that one access they tell me there will be a stop light there. This is going to back up traffic passed our driveways -- all of our driveways along there, Scott's and ours, and the lady across the street, the neighbors who are north, it is going to be horrendous, because I know we have had -- we have had soccer people out there when you can't get out the driveway at all. And so Eagle Road is a problem and it's just going to be more so. On staff report page eight, it says: Staff believes that a development agreement is necessary to insure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and does not negatively impact nearby properties. I want you to go to my written testimony, because it's a lot more in detail than what I -- I felt like I had three Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 41 of 80 minutes to do tonight and in staff report page nine on the second bullet it says: Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes, such as landscape irrigation. I have a real concern about this. What is going to be the effect on the level of our existing wells if hundreds of houses are -- can have wells to irrigate their lawns. what's going to happen to our well, because that's what we depend on all the time. The density -- the density of this project is absolutely absurd out in that area. It seems like most developments, the perimeter is larger developments and it gets denser as it goes to the center of the development and -- but you see that -- that would not serve the purpose of this -- of this developer, because he wants his large lots up there facing the bluff where they will have a better view than those out on the perimeter of the area. So, you will find that all of the R-8s are the perimeter and that is what will be facing us. I feel as existing landowner we deserve more consideration than that. I think we deserve the large -- larger lots, as well as the potential development on Blackrock. The way it is now, I just briefly counted, we are going to have 25 homes along our line there, probably the back sides of them, two story houses, and, I'm sorry, but if it's anything like the one on Lake Hazel and Five Mile, it's boxes and that's just the appearance that it gives. In health and safety, this development offers little to enhance-ability or the availability for any family activities. In those lots bordering us and around the perimeter, those houses are so close together there are no lawns, absolutely no lawns, and, you know, I'm not opposed to low income families. However, I think that the developer should provide a larger lot, more attractive housing, and maybe just a little less profit. This development does not match the stature of Meridian at all. And just a comment on the parks. This comes from a mom. I hear all of this professional testimony and everything and I think, wow, why should I say anything, but that is snuggled back there in the middle of those houses, there is no public view to any main highways at all. I mean I look at the park that's being developed on Victory and Eagle, it's right up there in the corner where it's in full view of the highways where everybody can see into them. I think of Storey Park where it's in full view of everybody. And that's snuggled back there amidst all those houses, which probably are going to be empty a good share of the time and when kids come home from school where else can they go. There is -- they don't have any lawns, so they have to -- if they wanted to play, that would be where they would go. And, I'm sorry, but that is exactly where would be a perfect place for Joseph Duncans to loiter. And so, anyway, my next point, compatibility, protecting existing residents. And on -- Rohm: Ma'am. B. Fulcher: -- staff report, page seven. Rohm: Ma'am? B. Fulcher: Yes. Rohm: You're going to have to conclude here shortly. You're about three times your three minutes already. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 42 of 80 B. Fulcher: Okay. I will do that. I will do that. All right. The goal is -- and the objective is to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. And, then, here again, Commission and Council, on page seven, said to rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the Public Hearings. And that's what you're getting right now. There has been no consideration given to existing property owners. Proof. All larger lots are self-serving to the exclusive housing development on Blackrock. This development is totally backwards. Most developments have higher density in the middle and flow out to larger lots. Of course, this doesn't meet their criteria for Blackrock. This developer is trying to mix apples and oranges. He's trying to combine an upscale development on that hill, subsidized by the many many many low income housing lots on the flats. Summary. It seems to me that the City of Meridian would encourage the high density towards the center of the city and flow out to lower density on the perimeter of their Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this individual before she sits down? Thank you. Russ Fulcher, did you want to speak? R. Fulcher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Russ Fulcher, 4035 South Linder Road, Meridian. And that's my momma and I kind of like her. I have -- this triangle piece right here is me and so I am the owner there. I'm also state senator for -- for this area, so I kind of have a couple of hats that I wear today. As my mother pointed out, we did sell this in 2003 as a retirement vehicle for my parents and we knew we were giving up our right to this. We aren't arguing that. But we did, unfortunately, sell to a gentleman who opted not to keep his commitment, so we are heartbroken over it, just quite frankly. This has been in the family since 1919 or 1920 or so. And, you know, my family put their blood and sweat into that dirt for a long time. And so it gets a little emotional for us, so we are opposed to the development in the current form. This, Commissioners, I would just appeal to you is what happens when -- when we try to annex outside areas of impact and I and my colleagues are so pressured to try to change that law and the impact of this is like dropping a city inside the country, because that's, basically, what this is and there is two issues that I'd just like you to consider. One is the compatibility issue, the other is the transition -- the density transition issue specifically. This development is tremendously different than the surrounding area. Unfortunately, I don't think you can probably pan out -- pan out any further, but what you see is just a development. If we were to pan out further -- well, there you go. We are dropping this thing out in the middle of the dirt, in middle of the country. The conflicts as a result of that incompatibility, absolutely, positively, will occur. We know that. We have experienced it in other areas. I'm not going to go through what those might be. I would underscore just a little bit the health and safety concern of Eagle Road. That's a two lane country road out there and we did meet with ACHD and I realize it, obviously, meets their criteria, but I would encourage you, if you would, just drive out there. I don't know what standards they have or where those standards come from, but that is a two lane country road and it's just not ready for 2,000 more people. In terms of the transition, the -- it's been talked about already, so I'm not going to cover it much, but this is very low density here, up to right here next to us, the rack 'em and stack 'em and so I was just disappointed that the developer, who I met with on multiple occasions, just Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 43 of 80 trying to -- not to stop, but just to give me and my family the same consideration of the density next to them that they did with the Slackrock folks. And, unfortunately, that was turned away. So, to close up, September 16, 2006, the Mayor presented to us and the local officials this wonderful plan and it's called Meridian, the Star of the Northwest. Pretty good vision. Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, that -- can you pan back to the other one, Justin? That is not even close to this. There is a solution. We are not trying to stop this, we just want lesser density. There is plenty of profit to go around. And if it's less dense, it will help us, the neighbors, make it more compatible for the surrounding people. Appreciate your consideration. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Not at this time. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back -- oh. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application before we move forward? Would the applicant like to come back. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle. I'll start with Mr. Scott Fulcher. We did contact Scott. The staff said that they would like to see that pathway to go back out to Eagle Road, so we did approach him. We even provided a conceptual drawing. I have a copy here that we can plop up to show how his property might redevelop at some time in the future. We did even offer him some money for the property to try to secure that and, then, knowing that we would have to submit another preliminary plat for the four lots that would happen as a part of redeveloping his -- his property. I think that that pretty much discusses what he talks about there. Providence Development is a subsidiary or a child of Hubble Homes. They are part of the development company, development arm for Hubble. Barbara talked about density and our location. From the design standpoint of this, the thought process -- I mean I live probably as close -- you know, as Scott lived in that house, I live closer than he probably does to Eagle Road, just across from St. Luke's Meridian and I'm in a half acre development and it's kind of the wrong location. You know, we are surrounded by commercial development and other development and it's changed while we have lived there. But long term, as Meridian Comprehensive Plan and what you have proposed out there, and the adopted Comprehensive Plan for this area, the thought is is that this is going to be higher density and that you transition inward. The thought process, as I put the design together on this application, is that you have less lots here where, basically, it stops. You don't have a means of going up and over the ridge, so you're going to go in a certain distance and stop. We already had an existing development that was approved on top. We transition with the larger lots, which keeps, again, as I earlier spoke, people driving passed other people's homes. If we had more houses here and less houses there, the transition just didn't make any sense. Realizing that in this short area and you have all been commissioners and staff people of the planning department here in the City of Meridian, you have seen those parcels come back before you with higher densities and redevelopment and even commercial development along major roads like Eagle Road. So, that's the thought process that I went through as we did the design, is having less density internally, and we have, basically, R-4 homes here, even though -- or the R-4 zoning, but the lot sizes of most of those are closer to the R-2 zoning, 14,000 square feet. I think some of them maybe are 70 feet wide, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 44 of 80 instead of 80 feet wide, that that zone would require. We have the micropath that is a buffer in between us. We have 50 feet on our side of the ditch and as that property redevelops between us and the Fulchers you will have a hundred feet for a buffer strip that's between the two properties. Yes, we are all around Scott Fulcher's place and we have made an effort to try to purchase his property and couldn't come to an agreement on the price. My client stated that they have given him a fair market price and so that's kind where it left and we made other provisions to meet your staff's requirements. Moe: Kent, on the property there, I'm curious, are all those R-8 lols right in there? Based upon your-- Brown: Yes. Moe: -- your colored rendering here, it looks like it may be an R-4. Brown: The lots are a little larger, but the zoning is R-8. Yes. And part of that is is that those -- some of those lots are deeper in there, so that those people do have a little bit more of a backyard than -- you know, speaking to what -- we all have different likes and different -- my wife likes to mow a lot of lawn, so that's why we have a larger lot and we choose to do that. But our lots -- you know, my lot on a half an acre is 180 feet deep. The lots that we have in here are 140 and, you know, some are greater, like I think this is close to 200 in the corner there. And, then, back up in here we have -- as we go around that edge, some of those lots are a little larger as they fan out. Trying to meet the road configuration in there. We really did try to make it so that that wasn't one of those outparcels that couldn't redevelop in the future, understanding that the transportation people don't want the Fulcher property, the Scott Fulcher property to not exit out onto Eagle Road, they want to -- they are going to reduce the number of conflicting pOints there and we did provide the -- what would be the Fulcher homestead up here on the other side of Ten Mile, a stub location and we tried to put it in a place where as that property redevelops. As I met with Russ, I said, you know, maybe we could move it down, but we have to work with the roads that are internal and meeting the offsets, you know, if they thought that there was a better location, if it needed to go a little bit further south and more to the center of their site, but I tried to put it in a location looking at their property line, so that as a road come in that there would be room to put lots on the north side of that stub street that we would be proposing there. The discussion about wells. This will be served with pressure irrigation The conditions require a pressure irrigation. The comment about wells is your standard comment that as a secondary source that they might be able to do that. At this point we don't have a secondary source. We are talking to some other landowners about maybe a possibility of a secondary source. The land's currently being farmed and the turf farm uses a well to keep all of that green, which is probably more water than all those homeowners will use, because they are greening the whole thing, versus the roads and the houses and what's left. We are in the area of impact. We have been adopted. The plan for this area takes you all the way to Columbia Road. We are well within the area of impact. Yes, this -- anytime that the city extends out, the first one that goes out there is a little different. If you go to the aerial. Amity Road, you have Messina Meadows that's in this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 45 of 80 location. This property is under a developer's control. This is the White Bark property that was approved with an R-4 zoning in that location. You have one landowner, Mr. Ward, that is here. And the Meekers that -- did I say that right, Russ? What's -- Meek. Nice couple that own this piece. And, then, you're familiar with these people from our White Bark that have something there. Yes, we are the first urban development in this mile section. There is some rural estate lots and I think that that's why when you looked at the Comprehensive Plan, keeping those that are on top of the slope, they are going to be that low density and there isn't much opportunity for change there. The property across Eagle Road has been purchased by developers that -- the remainder of the sod farm over there, anticipating sewer getting to the area. The original developer that did the 44 lots on top of the ridge at the time when they were negotiating for that property. That was all that they could do, but the way that the non-farm developments work in Ada County is that you're allowed to do one house for every five acres that you have. So, that's why they only did 45 on top of the ridge. That's why they didn't do like we are doing and adding the extension of the cul-de-sac on that one portion, even though they had area up there, they -- they only did the 44 that was there and, then, they had to set the rest aside and the rest being set aside until sewer is available. Our clients have extended sewer to the area as a part of an agreement with the city. They agreed that when they were contiguous to the city limits that they would ask for annexation and they are in compliance with the agreements that they have with the city. Do you have any questions? Rohm: The pressurized irrigation system, that is going to be off of surface water as its primary source -- Brown: Correct. Rohm: -- and the secondary source would be the deep well? Brown: If we can get a well, yes. Rohm: But the primary source would be surface water? Brown: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Brown: The property has been supplied water by Boise-Kuna and we will continue to do that and have a pressure irrigation. In fact, the facility was built with the non-farm and we will just expand it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 46 of 80 Siddoway: Mr. Brown, could you address your privacy fence, your fencing plan for the subdivision, particularly the perimeter fencing plan. Brown: We will have vinyl fence out there. Six foot. We will have four foot fence that backs up to the Ten Mile and four foot fence for those lots that back up to the park and anywhere that we have the pathway, we will have the six foot with the top two feet being lattice. Siddoway: And next to Mr. Russ Fulcher's property -- or Scott Fulcher's property? Brown: Scott Fulcher's property would be a solid vinyl fence. Yes. Siddoway: Okay. Borup: Six foot with the -- Brown: Six foot. Yes. Siddoway: One thing I'm curious about -- has ACHD required you to trust for any portion of the cost of a bridge crossing Ten Mile? Brown: I believe we would, but I can't remember that. It would be a total guess if I -- if I gave you an answer. I could go look, but -- Siddoway: That's all I have right now. Brown: That's a standard operation for that to happen. Siddoway: Right. That's alii have right now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions? Moe: Maybe I don't need to ask this, but I'm going to anyway. How is that? In regard to the -- to the homes that abut the folks here, are you anticipating all those to be two story homes that are out there or will there be some single stories or do you have any idea at the present time? Brown: At the present time I don't know that we do, but Don Hubble is here and he can speak to that if you'd like. Moe: I would like to get an indication of that. Brown: Was there anything else for me or -- Moe: No, I'm fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 47 of 80 Brown: Mr. Borup? Borup: My question was on houses, so I think he can answer that, too. Brown: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Hubble: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Don Hubble, president of Hubble Homes. And in regards to the style of home that will be built along the Fulcher property, our business plan is to allow our property buyers the opportunity select their floor plan. We offer both plans, single level and two story, and I guess depending on the mix, we normally get 15 to 20 percent of our homes to be single level and it could be more, but there will be a combination of both. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Hubble, the question I had was just on the -- there had been some talk on a lot size, but do you know about what the house depth may be? I mean the plans you submitted are 4,400 square feet, 3,500 square feet, and maybe down to 2,450, if I read that right, but do you know what the depth may be on the average -- Hubble: I think our depths range from 40 to 52 feet, perhaps even 56. Borup: Okay. I mean that -- I mean even an average of 50 feet, that leaves -- that leaves at least 35 foot in the backyard, so 20 feet beyond the minimum setback it sounds like. Thank you. Rohm: I have a question for staff. Justin, did you say that this was approximately 50 percent low density development and the other 50 medium density, the R-8? Lucas: Chairman ROhm, Members of the Commission, correct. And that's approximate. I didn't do the exact acreages, but as you can see on that Comprehensive Plan exhibit that was shown earlier, about half that dark green, about half that yellow, and that's the differentiation between -- dark green being low density and yellow being medium density. And the range there on low density is up to three dwelling units per acre and medium density is between three and eight dwelling units per acre. And as you can see, this development comes in at about -- excluding the existing 44 homes previously approved -- let's see here. The density comes in at 3.6 dwelling units per acre. And including those homes, as Mr. Brown said, it's about three units per acre. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything else. Borup: I have got a question for staff. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 48 of 80 Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I didn't -- in the past there has been a limitation on the number of homes built until there is a secondary access. Was that addressed by -- I may have missed that in the staff report, but -- Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I can look and see if there was a specific condition from the fire department in there. It looks like Mr. Cole may be doing that right there. If not, it's because the fire department is assuming that White Bark, the subdivision to the north, will go through, a long with this subdivision, so that secondary access would be provided from Amity Road to the north. Borup: Okay. Lucas: And it looks like the fire department condition 3.9 does address that. Borup: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if any of the staff here tonight will know this or not, because this may be a building department question, but I'm wondering if you're familiar with -- does the current UDC address the quality of building material, siding, things like that, or is it left open? Lucas: Chairman ROhm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far as I know -- and Mr. Hood can correct me if I'm wrong -- currently the UDC, the unified development code, which governs the planning department regulations and the subdivision of land and numerous Public Works Department regulations, there are no residential design standards which address -- which address siding, any type of materials, or anything like that. If it's going to the International Building Code or the building code from the building department, they may have some standards regarding fire -- fire protection and things like that, but I'm not sure of their standards. Siddoway: Okay. Borup: Usually the exterior siding materials are -- they are standard -- standard material, all come from the same source. It's pretty much the same on any house in the valley. You know, they are all from a major -- major manufacturer, so -- Rohm: Any other questions for either the staff or applicant at this time? I think at this time it's probably appropriate, then, to close the public hearings. Could I get a motion to do so. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15. 2007 Page 49 of 80 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on continued public hearings from January 4th of AZ 06-058 and PP 06-059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make some final comments? Borup: I guess one of the things that has -- I mean a lot of influence to me is it does follow the Comprehensive Plan and they even went to the extent of -- of -- it looks like following the Comprehensive Plan map pretty close and, you know, we have been told those are fuzzy lines usually and so they. have made some effort to follow that and adjust the lot sizes accordingly. I mean there are an awful lot of lots in here, but I -- the minimum lot depth I saw in there was 105 feet, which is, again, above what we normally see most of the time with 100 foot lot depths, it allows for a little larger backyards and -- though I can kind of sympathize with the Fulchers and what they are going through, they were the ones that originally owned this property and that was the time they had control to maybe have some influence and, you know, they chose to sell and pass that on to someone else. I would be in favor of -- I mean of the project. I see nothing in the -- in the Comprehensive Plan or in our other codes that would justify not. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: First a couple of comments on what I like the most. I really like the park system and specifically that their -- these parks do have quite a bit of frontage to them. Mrs. Fulcher mentioned a concern about, you know, hidden spaces and I share those concerns with public open spaces and it's been somewhat of a crusade of mine to avoid open spaces that are hidden and we have several examples of, you know, schools built ten years ago or so that are completely wrapped by housing. What we have here is the park fronted by the major collector of the subdivision. It also has continuous frontage along here. I believe that if this plan had come before us even five years ago we would have seen, you know, these parks wrapped with homes and wrapped with homes with some smaller leftover areas in the middle and this doesn't -- this doesn't do that. This does give quite a lot of visibility, in my opinion, to those park areas and I commend the developer for laying those parks out that way. I don't -- I do find that the densities of the proposed subdivision comply with what's been approved by City Council for the Comprehensive Plan, so I have -- I don't really have any direct concerns about the density. I have thoughts going through my head about the quality of construction, which is why I asked my previous question. You know, I have seen houses on very small lots half the size of my own that sell for twice as much as my houses is worth, so I know that quality is somewhat independent of the size of the lots and -- and I don't know -- this may be -- I'm wondering if -- the thoughts going through my head are could there be some things added to the development agreement that would address some of the look and feel of the homes, such as not allowing vinyl siding, things like that. Requiring wood -- you know, wood or stucco, which appear to be what's in those elevations that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 50 of 80 are submitted, but is there any .- I was just looking. Is there any legality issues with the -- we can address quality, because this is an annexation; correct? Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. yes, your annexation is discretionary and if you want to make that a condition of your annexation, it's been done before. Siddoway: Yeah. And I don't know if there are specific thoughts about, you know, what's intended here. We already closed the Public Hearing, but my thoughts are stemming along the quality. I don't have a problem with Hubble Homes per se, I just want to -- because I know that they have done many many upgrades. I just want to make sure that we are getting, you know, quality. Borup: It sounds to me like when you say quality you're talking more of design -- architectural design. Siddoway: Yes. And materials. Borup: Well, materials are pretty much materials. I mean if you have got, you know, hard board siding, it's hard board siding. It doesn't matter whether the house is, you know, 400,000 or a million. Most of the time probably have the same siding on it. Now, if you're talking about maybe adding some more architectural details, then -- Siddoway: Yeah. Like the wainscoting along the-- Borup: Yeah. I don't know if that's necessarily quality, unless you consider, you know, stone a higher quality than hard board siding. Siddoway: Yeah. So -- that's my thoughts. I guess I'll leave it there for now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Borup: If I may, maybe just to kind of -- on top of what Commissioner Siddoway said, has there been any CC&Rs submitted? I know we don't approve them and require it, but oftentimes they do. That's where those type of things would be addressed. Lucas: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, no, we haven't reviewed any CC&Rs or received any type of architectural guidelines or anything from the applicant regarding these -- this application. Only the elevations that were proposed. Borup: Okay. Lucas: And just to be clear, currently the development agreement doesn't address any type of architectural elements, details, or elevations at all. I'm not -- the staff report doesn't tie them to anything currently. Oftentimes when -- when an applicant submits the elevations, it's for illustrative purposes and we leave it up to the Commission or Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 51 of 80 Council to -- if they so choose to specifically tie the developments of certain elevations, certain materials, certain architectural elements. Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Commissioner ROhm, I guess I would pretty much mirror exactly what -- Commissioner Borup in regards to the overall project as far as the Comprehensive Plan. It does meet the intent of the Comp Plan and this body. Our main objective is to review each project and its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it does that. I, however, would -- as far as some of the layout, I would like to have seen it a little bit different, but, again, on a whole it does meet the Comp Plan and amenity-wise and whatnot I think it's a very nice project. I, too, I guess, would be interested to discuss it a little bit more in regards to putting some conditions on the development agreement, if you're so inclined. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to ask to reopen the Public Hearing and allow the developer's representative to address that. Rohm: Is that a motion? Siddoway: So moved. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing so that additional questions can be asked of the applicant. Hubble: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we did bring some architectural drawings here to show tonight and I can give you a little overview of what we are going to do. Shall I take a few minutes to do that? Siddoway: Thank you. Hubble: First of all, you know, our business plan is to allow the buyers to select whichever model they choose and, then, once they select that floor plan we give them a multitude of options for the elevation and, then, what kind of features to put on that exterior. So, just as an example here, the two series of floor plans that we will offer would consist of eight floor plans in the Legend series and five floor plans in the Signature series, so we'd have a total of 13 floor plans. Each floor plan has a total of four different elevations, four different looks with the roof lines and the gables and the porches and so forth. So, just within those options alone, that's a total of 52 different combinations. And, then, if you can flip to the next slide. Then within those four different elevations we have a ten percent brick option, we have a 30 percent brick option. We have the hard board siding option and, then, the same thing with stone, ten percent stone, 30 percent stone, and, then, a third car garage. So, the full array of different options would be 312 different choices. So, the goal is to not have the same Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 52 of 80 home next door and provide a good streetscape. But also to allow the buyers to make those choices. Siddoway: So, is the hard board an upgrade? Hubble: Yes. Siddoway: And that's the siding type? Hubble: Yes. Siddoway: Is the default vinyl? Hubble: Right. Siddoway: Okay. Hubble: Okay. So, then, the additional elevation and choices are we can change the shutters, we can change the front door, change the garage door, change the window grids and, then, add countless color options. The next slide, please. Okay. This is an example -- we just brought the two plans, but this is a 3,500 square foot plan and this is the Elevation A. So, this is the most basic elevation. Now, I do want to point out that in other communities, like you mentioned, in Charter Point and so forth, we have already added a number of architectural features here that are different than our base plans. We did this when we approached City Council with our last community, Solitude Subdivision, in north Meridian, and worked personally with a number of Council members and the Mayor and came up with some compromise and tried to satisfy the architectural requirements. So, this has the gable roof. It has an eyebrow roof over the garage to give it an additional dimension there. We have the colonial grid window. Full covered porch. Garage columns. They are kind of hard to see in this rendering, but there is additional architectural relief on both sides of that garage in the form of a column and, then, we have the flat shutters. So, that's one option. Here is the same plan with a stucco elevation. So, this will be an upgraded cost, but it will have a two tone stucco and the two front gables. Still the eyebrow roof over the garage. Colonial grid windows as a standard, but they can select their option. Full covered porch, garage columns, and board bat shutters. Elevation C, the next one. Now, here is a different roof line. The hip roof with two gables coming out the front. We have got combination siding, the gable roofs. Eyebrow roof over the garage. Perimeter grid windows. Full covered porch. And garage columns. And, then, Elevation D, is that same different roof line, with a single gable front over the garage and has a combination stucco and shake siding. The one gable with the hip roof. Eyebrow roof over the garage. The grid windows. The covered porch. Garage columns. And traditional shutters. So, those are the four standard elevations. And here they are again. You can see in the comparison. So, the roof lines change. This one does not have a whole lot of change in the porch. A lot of times the porches will change. And the window configurations. And, then, let's see, we have got another one here on another floor plan. Okay. This is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 53 of 80 a different floor plan. Now, this series is going to be a wider home. The last series we looked at the homes are -- standard widths are 40 feet. The third car garage makes them 50 feet. This series the standard width is 50 feet. The third car garage will make them 60 feet wide. So, here is the base Elevation A, two front gables. Still the eyebrow roof over the garage. With grid windows. Covered porch. The columns. And the slat shutters. These are probably, essentially, similar architectural details, but that's how it looks on a larger home. And next elevation. Let's see. I guess that is the plan, so that's how that particular home looks in Elevation C. And the next one is Elevation D. So, those are your four different looks for that particular plan. And remember that the home buyer has the option of the amount of brick or stone to put on the front and the choice of sidings and colors. Let's see. Oh, one more -- Moe: Along with that point -- along with that pOint of the homeowner gets to make that decision, do you, then, at least review what your -- what each one of their neighbors is doing next to them to make sure that you're not duplicating the same house? Hubble: Absolutely. And our architectural control says that they can't have the same home across the street or next door. Now, they can select the same plan with a different elevation. Moe: Okay. Hubble: And I think just the last -- the last slide here -- oh, just as an example, too. These are alternatives for the rear architecture. When a home buyer selects a covered patio these are some examples of how those will be built. So, there is the option that it won't be just a plain back of the house, that there is some architectural relief on that. And I think our last slide is a home that we just built over here in north Meridian as a model, so it's kind of dark, but it's -- and this is a sales office, so the garage door will be where those glass doors are. That's an example of what we were building. Siddoway: Do you have any examples with the ten percent brick or stone, by any chance? Hubble: I don't have any renderings. Siddoway: Okay. Hubble: I can sure get those, though. Siddoway: That would be my -- okay. Thank you. Hubble: Any more questions? Borup: Mr. Hubble, maybe just -- would you have any estimate about what percentage homes would have one of the upgrades, something additional to the very basic? You know, either adding stucco or stone or-- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 54 of 80 Hubble: I don't have the statistics, but I think somewhere between -- I think roughly two- thirds to three-fourths of our homes have got some kind of an upgraded elevation. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: My current thought is -- I believe that those brick and stone accents add a lot. And the hard board I think does, too. I would -- I would suggest, just for discussion, that the ten percent brick or stone accents with hard board would become the base line and, then, they could upgrade to the 30 percent or the third car garage and the other options as well, but that was my current thought. Rohm: I don't -- I can't think of a single subdivision that we have made that a requirement to date, but that's certainly your prerogative to have that -- that thought process, Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: In the interest of moving on, I move to close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. I guess at this point in time it would be the prerogative of the individual making the motion to modify or submit recommendation to include additional information over and above what was in the staff report, but I'm certainly interested in hearing a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-058 and PP 06-059 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19, 2007, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of file number AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059, to include all staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Siddoway: Aye. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 15, 2007 Page 55 of 80 Rohm: It's been approved. There was one dissension. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you all and at this point we are going to take a ten minute break. (Recess.) Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. And before we open up this last Public Hearing, I'd like to return to the start of the agenda and we continued Item No. CUP 07- 001 to the end of the meeting, because the applicant wasn't here and I have been informed that the applicant has requested that we continue this to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, with that being said, I'd like to suggest that a motion be presented to continue this to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1 st, 2007. Item 6: Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011 Request for a Rezone of 1.0.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3 common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Rohm: Okay. That being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, of RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, both items are related to the Sundial Subdivision and begin with our staff report.