Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 6, 2003Meridian Planning and Zonina Meeting November 6, 2003 The Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, November 6, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Michael Rohm, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Jerry Centers and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Bruce Freckleton, Tara Green, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call AttendanEe: X David Zaremba O Jerry Centers O Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, November 6"', and start with roll call of the Commissioners. Borup: Before we start our regular meeting, a little bit of information that I need to give and I may have a hard time. I hope you will bear with me but Tuesday night one of our Commissioners, Commissioner Centers, passed away in his sleep and he has been a real strong and valued member of this Commission. His comments were always pertinent and well thought out. Oftentimes I think he's kind of the glue that kept this Commission together, kept things rolling along and we are going to miss him greatly. For those that may be interested, his funeral will be next Monday at 1:00. You know, I think also maybe it would be appropriate at this time if we could have a moment of silence to remember, show our respects for him and his family. I'd like to go ahead and do that right now if we could. Thank'you. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 2 of 87 mix of single-family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. Our first item on the agenda is Soda Springs Subdivision project, the first three items, items four, five and six. They all three are continued public hearings from our October 2"d meeting. AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. I would like to, again, continue on these three public hearings at this time and do we have any additional staff report? Kirkpatrick: There is not an additional staff report; but I will go ahead and address some of the changes that the applicant's made. Let's see. Let me put up the revised plat. Okay. If you look at the northeast corner of the subdivision, the applicant has dropped one of the lots from the subdivision and put that lot into the open space. Previously, the open space of the subdivision, I think, was a little over six percent and they now exceed ten percent, so they can officially count this as an amenity towards their two required amenities for the planned development, and I will go back. The applicant submitted some photos of a tot lot in another subdivision that they are modeling their open space after, so these are some of the amenities that the applicant has proposed, including in that that tot lot, which will be a part of that open space. Their two amenities will be the tot lot and, then, the 10 percent open space and Ithink -- we have the applicant here, but I think those are the only changes that have been made since the last hearing. If you have any questions of staff. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Ihave -- I, actually, don't have a question, only a comment. I missed the meeting on October 2"d when this was first heard. I left a meeting that I was at in Idaho Falls to come home early to get here to be at the meeting, ended up spending the day and the evening with my wife in the hospital, so I'm sorry I wasn't here, but I have read all of the minutes of that meeting and I think I'm up to speed on what the issues were. Borup: Okay. Thank you, and I maybe should mention one other thing before we continue. This is just an agenda item. Items Number 9 and also Number 11 -- I don't know if we have anyone here for that -- both of those have been requested by the applicant to be continued. Item Number 9 is Blue Marlin and Number 11 was Farmers and Merchant's Bank. I guess at this point we don't have a date that they will be continued to. Do we have anyone here even for those? Okay. Are you interested in a date that it will be continued to? Which one were you here on? The Farmers and Merchants or -- for Blue Marlin? Okay. They requested for January. Zaremba: Move to early next year. I would suggest January 15th I think is a Thursday Borup: Does staff have any comment on time on that? That's pretty far out, so I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 3 of 87 Powell: The applicant is -- they wrote a letter and they know it's far out there. It was a similar discussion -- we had similar discussions with them as we did on the Kissler annexations that came before you. They are kind of unwilling to accept the residential component or the idea that there should be residential there, so they are -- I think they just want to go on hold for a while to see what they want to do. We have -- we understand they want to go out that far. I'm not -- I don't have any feelings one-way or the other as to the length of time. If your Commission is willing to keep it on your agenda, I don't think staff has concerns, but -- Borup: I think we are, but I don't think we want to keep continuing it every two months. Well, I guess we can make that decision in January. If they are not ready to proceed, we could -- Zaremba: Continue it once to January 15`h and then -- Borup: Let them submit if that's -- Zaremba: Yes. Borup: I mean they requested January, so they feel that's enough time, apparently. Okay. Zaremba: Can somebody confirm that the 15`h is a Thursday? I don't have a '04 calendar in front of me. I'm just guessing. We have a different public hearing open. Can we make a motion on that one? Borup: I don't know if we need to -- Zaremba: We will make a motion when we get there, but the interested party can know that it will probably be January 15`b. Borup: That's what I was to going suggest. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Yes. That is that -- well, that is the third Thursday. Zaremba: The first Thursday is the 15` Borup: The 151. Yes. Okay so, John, that will probably be the -- we are looking at the 15"'. We will handle that when we get to that item. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Did you have some other information, Wendy? I distracted everybody here for a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 4 of 87 Kirkpatrick: No, I don't have anything else to add. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their application -- or their presentation? Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street in Boise, representing JLJ Enterprises and the Soda Springs Subdivision. This is tougher tonight. I'm so glad you read the minutes, Commissioner, and I'm not going to recount all of that. Actually, what I wanted to do was just maybe recap some of the issues that came up during our discussions. One of those was the quality of the homes that will be built in the subdivision and I think we clearly showed through the photographs from both Todd Campbell Homes and Roth Homes that the quality is there. We showed you site plans and some elevations of those and I don't know we still have those on the PowerPoint. There we go. Some of the homes, and obviously, you can see that we are talking about some of the quality homes and, again, we did discuss last time that the -- some of the neighbors of ours visited the Heritage Commons Subdivision to look at some of the homes that were there, because Roth has been building in that subdivision. We also had mentioned some of the Todd Campbell projects, Palisades and Fenwick, but we, basically, want to show the homes that were actually to be built there. One of the concerns last time we spoke was about the density of the project. We are at just over five units to an acre. We have 11 acres, and now we are down 57 lots, because we have lost a lot. We did talk about the ways that we had worked with the neighbors. You know, we had a neighborhood meeting and we want to continue to do that. We have agreed to cedar fencing around the perimeter. There is a chain link fence now. We did agree that if there is a one-story house adjacent to us at Sherbrooke Hollows, we would build cone-story home that would include abonus -- could include a bonus room. However, the bonus room would not have a window facing the rear, so that there would not be an opportunity for that room to be looking over someone else's backyard. In addition to that, there was some contact and a proposal made to the homeowners association of the Sherbrooke Hollows board of directors and just to let you know, there was some concern that had not been a formal proposal. They did meet just this past Monday. We were -- I'll just hand these to you. Where the developer of the project did make a proposal to the homeowners association board to actually become part of the Sherbrooke Hollows homeowners association. Again, we also talked a lot about the home sizes. One of the things, if we become part of the homeowners association for Sherbrooke Hollows, one of the stipulations is that we would have home sizes -- now, we made our first application to the city and that application mentioned that we wanted to meet the minimum home sizes that is your minimum in your code. However, after meeting with the neighbors, we realized that they are really interested in looking at something a little larger and our builders probably will build something a little larger than those minimums, too, which go down as low as -- I think 1,000 for some, but about 1,100 square feet. We are proposing, of course, that single level homes have a minimum of 1,300 square feet. Two level homes that are located in the center of the project and along Victory Road would have 1,600 square feet. All the homes that are on the west and north side of the project that are along the perimeter that touch Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 5 of 87 Sherbrooke Hollows, the ones that are the 6,500 square foot lots -- let me just clarify that. You might put the plat back up. Thank you. These homes through here would all meet the minimum home sizes that are in the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood and that's 1,500 square feet for single level and 1,750 for two level homes. Of course, we also talked about the amenities and I think as we went through our discussion, that's one of the places where we kind of got hung up and got stuck and that's why we are back here. We had proposed two amenities, one was a pathway that runs along this area in the park, it runs along the canal, and it's part of a regional pathway system that's included in your Comprehensive Plan, and we are also including a tot lot in this area. I want to show you the -- here is some up close drawings of those. In this color rendering now of the revised plan it does show the tot lot in this area right here in the park and what's so nice now -- we did lose a lot and now we do have, in addition to the pathway and the tot lot, over ten percent open space and we believe those are significant amenities and those are the things that do qualify us for a PUD. I know one of the issues that we will talk about -- probably the neighbors will talk about is I do recall Commissioner Centers saying don't just lose one lot, I'm not going to be impressed. I do want to explain that we did lose one lot, a 6,500 square foot lot, one of our larger lots, and it was located right here. We were able to take that lot out and did meet -- we were just under that ten percent, so we now are about 11 percent open space and one of the nice things about that is you will notice in here this is the open space for Sherbrooke Hollows. This is the edge of their property line right here. This would look really nice, because this, actually, combines -- could combine with their open space and I believe that's what the intent of some of these open spaces and connectivity are all about is to show that connectivity between the open spaces. The developer -- the engineer is here, he's been out at the site. There was some concern that there was an area here that was low and there is ditch running through here. That ditch will be piped and that area will be improved, so that it can serve as a park, so it won't be low and wet. That was a concern from some of the neighbors out there. On the drawing you also see -- I went out to a subdivision, a recently constructed subdivision in Eagle and found a tot lot that's very similar to what we are showing and it's shown on that little landscape plan. I know that you have to make particular findings to approve this. As I read in your code, for the Preliminary Plat, that the plat is in conformance with the comprehensive development plan and it certainly is. Again, this area is medium density residential. There is a neighbor center in the Comprehensive Plan across the street. There was some comments made at the last meeting that possibly the density we are talking about should be across the street next to the neighborhood center, but I would maintain that that concept of neighborhood centers means that there should be some commercial -- some neighborhood commercial and that density across the street from that center is very appropriate. I think it -- I don't know how to convince you of that, other than I know that in that comprehensive planning, those streets are not supposed to be barriers or borders to those neighborhood centers, those neighborhood centers should, actually, serve the whole surrounding area, not just the people that are on one side of the street. You also have to make a finding that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development and we talked about that last time. There are urban services available and Bruce was nice enough to clarify the sewer issue. There is sewer right there next to our project that we can use. He's going to verify that with some Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 6 of 87 calculations, but he doesn't see any problem with that. This project does continue the capital improvement program of constructing that pathway that is in the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see that there are any public responsibilities to this project, other than those general responsibilities of schools and public safety. We have met, again, with the Fire Department and they have approved this secondary entrance and this will, actually, be a permanent entrance. Before we had talked about putting in a temporary secondary entrance, but working with the Fire Department, we are putting in a 20 foot grass Greet pathway that will have a little gravel walking path in the middle of it and that will be a secondary access for pedestrians, but it will also be a permanent secondary access for emergency vehicles. Now, as we talked last time, this area right here abuts this property line, and anytime that property develops there will certainly be secondary access through that area, too. We are building the street here and, then, the people who eventually develop this can develop houses right off of that. We do expect -- the property owners, I'm sure, are here tonight and they will probably talk about them not developing, but we want to make sure that in the -- if sometime in the future, if it does, that there is an opportunity to develop that property. It's oddly shaped and it's kind of a small piece, so we wanted to provide that opportunity. We were surprised to see there weren't any stub streets coming out of Sherbrooke Hollows, so, you know, that's one of the things I know you all are looking at more closely now, too. The other finding is that health, safety, and environmental problems that have been brought to your attention could be handled and I don't know of any of those particular health, safety, or environmental issues that we haven't addressed or that could not be overcome, so I believe your findings are there. I do ask that you approve our plan as we have submitted, the revised plan, with the home sizes that we have included in our discussions with you and recalling the clarification on the sewer and I will stand for questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I don't think so. Borup: I think you have addressed what we talked about. Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Were you doing some stuff as part of your presentation? Jewett: Yes. Borup: You need to be a little faster. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 408 South Eagle Road, Suite 103, in Eagle. I apologize I wasn't here at the last meeting, I was out of town as well, and so I've to research the minutes try to answer some of the questions. Jane touched on most of them, but I will just touch on a few. One is my offer -- and the topic of the e-mail that Jane provided you, my offer to the homeowners association and maybe the definition of why I'm going this way or offered to go this way. Part of my belief in community planning is bringing communities together and bringing homeowners together in one community just seems to make more Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 7 of B7 sense, both financially and for the purposes of planning homes and common areas and use of those common areas and the mowing of those common areas. That's one general reason. Secondly, I saw a great benefit in this tot lot area to incorporate their common area and pipe the ditch they have open in their common area and improve it to be coherent with what we want to do so all the residents within both subdivisions could utilize this tot area. In trying to give some of the homeowners in Sherbrooke Hollows some belief that this is not going to, in any way, affect their subdivision, to give them architectural control and guidelines, because we are joining their CC and R's and their architectural committee, and then, lastly, is the irrigation system, which is operated by Nampa-Meridian out there. They want us to connect to that system, as long as we make some improvements. We will be making some improvements to their irrigation system, albeit, it's owned by Nampa-Meridian. Nampa-Meridian would want us to make those improvements and we are agreeable to do that. I think it's a win for both this development and Sherbrooke Hollows to have this homeowners association and that's why I tendered the offer and that's why I stand by the offer. One other issue that came up, as I read the minutes from the last meeting, was a comparison of our plat in density versus a comparison to what I think is Sageland, which is just down the street, and our -- I believe that our plat is of superior design, but we didn't have some of the hindrances that Sageland had in the fact that it had frontage on two streets, it was triangle, and it had a canal in the back, so albeit it might have been eight acres to start, it probably only has six acres of usable ground, so to take a comparison of 39 lots in eight acres versus our 57 in 11 is not a true comparison. Six acres into 39 versus 11 into 57 would probably be a truer comparison and if you look at the actual lot sizes in Sageland versus ours, we have some bigger lots and we have some smaller ones. I didn't take a look at the average, but I don't think we should be penalized because of what I feel is a superior design. When we had a neighborhood meeting, some of the homeowners discussed R-4 versus R-8 and as I told them there and I'll state it here, we were given direction both by Comp Plan and by staff that this is appropriate, this is something the city wants to see, especially in the area of this neighborhood center that's proposed across the street or proposed through the Comp Plan. We were more than happy to do R-4, but with the R-8 we are able to offer stuff like tree-lined streets, separated sidewalks, the tot lot, a little bit different design in the homes, a little bit of diversity. I mean 11 acres, I think we have offered some pretty good diversity here than just an 11 acre in-fill. I think we are being directed this way by a lot of factors and I think this is an appropriate use in this area. The last thing homeowners discussed quite a bit in the neighborhood meeting was home values and affecting their home values and my point to them is if I put 44 or 42, whatever I could fit on there, R-8 lots, and put 44 more homes just like in Sherbrooke Hollows, that will affect their value, because it just puts more of the same thing out there. To offer a diversity and a range of housing that will go from their level down a little bit more, maybe a little bit higher, that it just brings in a different variety of people that might move up and move down within Sherbrooke as far as buying and selling homes through the years. That I categorically would say this project will not drop any value. If anything, it would increase the values of -- or increase the desirability of the homes in Sherbrooke, because of the diversity that we are creating and albeit that may not chance the value up or down, it will make the area more Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 8 of 87 desirable, which just, you know, is a good thing. As a developer I'll stand for any questions if anybody has any specific of me. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: No. You did a good job. Thank you. Borup: Oh, I do have one question. I'm sorry. At the beginning you made mention of your letter and offer to the homeowners association. Have you heard back from them at all? Jewett: I talked with the property manager. Their biggest issue was being able to show good, architectural elevations on these narrow lots. I provided them, the board that's here tonight, with copies of what our proposed elevations is what you saw on the screen here. I think that we have answered that and I think they are waiting to see the outcome of this before they move forward. Borup: Okay. Jewett: I do know they have their regular annual meeting I believe at the end of November, so my hope is that they take this to the full neighborhood at that point in time. Borup: Otherwise, it looks like you would -- I mean if it was approved, you proceed with your own homeowner's association and, then, work with Nampa-Meridian however they prefer to do their irrigation. Jewett: It's my hope that -- Borup: Either that or bag the whole project. Jewett: I don't think I want to go that route. Yeah, we are prepared to form a homeowners association. That's not an issue. I think there is a loss on both sides if that doesn't happen, but we are prepared to move forward. We do it every day, so -- Borup: All right. Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We had someone that was ready to come on up, so come on up, sir Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen. My property is 2460 East Victory Road, which is just east of the subdivision here, and some of my concerns are the same as last time. They were talking about fences. They don't say that they are going to put a fence on my side of the property or on the -- that side of the subdivision. Everybody's talking about where the kids are going to play. If they don't do that, they are going to be on my Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 9 of 87 property all the time and they are going to the their ditch. I don't plan on tiling my ditch. It's not a deep ditch, but a kid could drown in it. I think that we do need to have a fence, a security privacy fence from the canal clear up to Victory Road. That is one of my main concerns, and the other concern I have is they talked about the irrigation with Nampa- Meridian. I have asked Nampa-Meridian what they are going to do. They have not gotten back to me. I do get my irrigation water from the Ridenbaugh Canal. It leaves the canal, goes underground, of course, and comes up and it's just on their side of the fence now. I don't know what that --what they are going to do with the water there, but I do ask that -- I need to have access to that water. I have had' a lot of trees planted out, I water them at least once a week when the water in the canal and I do have to have access to that water. I do need to know what they are going to do and I think that's mostly all my concerns right now. Borup: I had a couple questions. Anyone for Mr. Hansen? Zaremba: Ask yours and I'll I see if mine are -- Borup: A few things. The water -- you say your access point is on their property? Hansen: Yes, it is. Borup: Did you put that in yourself or -- Hansen: No. Nampa-Meridian put that in. That was there when we bought the property. It comes out of that -- Borup: Is that intended to water both properties? Hansen: Yes, it is. It waters three -- there is actually parcels of property there that it waters, mine, and, then, two over on their property. There are three head gates right there. Borup: Okay. Well, water in use is still -- and I don't know how Nampa-Meridian handles that when it's on another property, but you still need to have your water delivered to you. Hansen: Yes. Borup: Another question I had was on the fence. You were talking about having a fence along the whole eastern boundary of this. Hansen: Yes. Borup: Now, would you allow them to put a fence on your property? Meritlian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 10 of 87 Hansen: Yes; I would. There is a fence there now, but it's an old farm fence, the one like -- the wires that are six inches apart, not sturdy, if a kid climbs on it, they would probably tear it down in no time at all and I would like it to actually be a privacy fence. My bedrooms are on -- would be the west end of my house and if there is traffic on that road at night, they are going to be -- the lights are going to be shining in my bedroom window. Borup: Okay. That was all I had. Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: You hit my subjects. Borup: That was the fence? Is that what you were wondering? Okay Hansen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? N. Hansen: I'm Nancy Hansen and I also live at 2460 East Victory Road and I just had a few other points to make. I thought one of the reasons that this item on the agenda was postponed for a month or carried over for a month was that the developers would meet with the homeowners and they did not meet with us, they did not contact -- they did not call, they did not write. Perhaps they met with the Sherbrooke homeowners association, but they did not meet with my husband or I or make any contact and so like offering the fence around the perimeter is what she said, but we didn't -- we don't know still if it involves us or not. At the last meeting also they mentioned that they did not feel like they should do any landscaping between our property and that subdivision, because of our property in future development, possibly and they also noticed that we had planted trees. There is a line of trees there now and that's true, we planted those trees, we water them, and we take care of them, and I feel that they should have to do something to enhance the property if they build this subdivision next to us. I still would like to have somebody mention about -- we would like the developer to present specific designs and plans to this committee before the agreement is given and that any condition or agreement negotiated through these meetings be written on the plat, so that they are adhered to in the future. That was a problem with a past development. And -- Borup: You understand there are some things that are appropriate to be written on the plat and other things that it's not appropriate. N. Hansen: Well, probably so, and this may not affect our -- I mean if you're talking about the plats next to the homeowners association next to Sherbrooke Hollow -- Borup: No. I'm talking about the whole project is considered a plat N. Hansen: Okay. So, that if they say -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 11 of 87 Borup: There are some things with the county engineers did not want to see on the plat. N. Hansen: But if they agree to having single story houses in certain plats, that should be written on the plat -- Borup: Yes. N. Hansen: -- so that in the future any developers -- Borup: Yes. That type of thing N. Hansen: So, that you don't have two story houses built where they shouldn't be, and we would like to insure that lights along the proposed road bordering our property be hooded. My husband already talked about the developers being responsible for the cost incurred to change the irrigation source, if that has to happen. Finally, I just want to say we did not have plans to develop our property, we still don't have plans to develop our property, and they continue to speak about future development and that may happen, you know, 20, 30 years down the future, but we plan on living there for quite awhile still. Borup: Thank you. That is part of this Commission's responsibility is planning and I can't tell you how many times I have heard that exact thing that you said and two years later they are in front of us. N. Hansen: Well, you know, what happens -- Borup: With no plan. N. Hansen: -- is other people develop around you and it becomes a different neighborhood than you planned on -- Borup: Exactly N. Hansen: -- living in. Borup: That's why it's important for us to make sure that we are preparing for the future. N. Hansen: We are at your mercy and -- to keep our lifestyle halfway what it is, we are at your mercy. Borup: Thank you. Do we have -- you, sir. Semaha: Good evening. My name is Lucien Semaha. I live on 3036 South Grimes Creek Avenue in Sherbrooke Hollows, and before I start, I also found out today about Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 12 of 87 Mr. Centers and I'd like to say just a simple word if I may, that for those of us who work in the industry have lost a true friend, so I just want to leave it there. Borup: Thank you. Semaha: And, personally, I was looking forward to conversing with Jerry tonight and I feel I was robbed from that opportunity, so that's where I am at emotionally at least at this point. I got a copy of the minutes, as you all have it, and Mr. Centers -- you know, and I will quote a couple quotes that, you know, I really read them over and over and over again. Then, when we look at this -- and I'll make my comments in a few minutes - - it says what bothers me, too, is the fact that the developer has just given us the bare minimum of the maximum. I will make further comments in just a few minutes about that, and also he continues by saying the project down the road that has 39 lots -- and he's referring to the opposite -- the one on Locust Grove -- they need to give -- to give up some more of their lots and give back some open space. If they come back with one lot, which they did, that's not going to impress me. Okay. In the beginning when the -- when we met with the developer, during our neighborhood meeting, the lots that were abutting Sherbrooke Hollows all the way down, based on the first plat that was presented to us, there were 15 of these bigger lots around Sherbrooke. Now I believe we have 11, because the drainage pond area you can't consider it as a lot, and down where Victory is we have eleven, now we have 13. Okay. Again, they took acouple -- one lot from the obvious area that you see to bring it to the common area and, then, they added another lot down there, you know, on Victory, where the easement was for the Fire Department and I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out, really, you know, what happened. These lots that you see in front you on Victory they have been down sized. They have been down sized to accommodate the extra lot and the easement of 1,800 square feet versus over 4,000 square feet that was there first and so they narrowed them further in order to accommodate -- Borup: How much did they narrow them? Semaha: Well, I did my calculations yesterday at midnight, so I truly don't remember but it came -- Borup: Well, you're making a pretty strong statement there. I'd like some clarification on that. Semaha: Well. Itook -- Borup: Well, let me just cut to the chase. Our plat shows they are both still 45 feet. The old ones are 45 the new one is 45. Semaha: Okay. Well, for some reason, you know, I noticed that, you know, they were narrowed a little bit in order accommodate, you know, the -- Borup: Well -- but the numbers don't say that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 13 of 87 Semaha: Okay. Well, the other -- the other issue that we have is that those lots on Victory, they are 90 feet deep. Most of the lots in the whole subdivision are a hundred or more feet deep and if you put a 1,300 square foot home on the 90-foot deep lot, the concern is if they are designed to accommodate families and a backyard, they truly are not going to have a backyard. That's another issue, and -- Borup: Well -okay, and we are going to need to restrict time a little bit, but -- Semaha: Sure. Sure. Borup: From the testimony last time I don't believe they said those were necessarily for families, they said they would be similar to some other projects and it would be young professionals or empty nesters in a lot of those homes. Semaha: So, why are we putting the tot lot? Borup: You're talking about the homes -- the lots that were smaller and the families are going to want the bigger lots. Semaha: I agree. In all due respect, the majority, if not most of the development, have smaller lots. I mean it's obvious that that's the case, and if we -- if the argument was we need more open space for the children and we are not inviting children to come and live there, what are we doing? The other issue that Sherbrooke Hollow has also is that drainage lot we found out that it abuts to two properties. Not one, two, and the concern is that if it floods -- because we can't control Mother Nature. If the water is going to go this way, it's going to -- if it's directed to go this way, it's going to go this way, then, what guarantee do these neighbors have that their backyards are not going to flood. So -- Borup: Are their backyards lower than this property? Semaha: We don't know. Borup: I mean it's there now. Is it lower than what is there now? Semaha: I'm sorry? Borup: Is their lot lower than the existing ground? Semaha: I really cannot answer that question. I really don't know. Our concern is that the water is flowing from this whole subdivision into that lot, when it rains or whatever the case might be, and there are two neighbors -- two backyards from Sherbrooke Hollows that will be affected. Maybe moving that lot towards Victory, you know, and having it drain on that area versus, you know, it draining, you know, towards Sherbrooke, maybe would be more appropriate and that's the question we are asking you tonight and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 14 of 87 Borup: Well -- and that's why I asked that question. You're assuming that the water is going to flow uphill it sounded like, but -- Semaha: I'm not assuming anything. It's a simple, logical concern, that it's a drain lot where water is going to accumulate -- Borup: And every subdivision in the city has one. Semaha: Right. We do have one -- we do have one also in Sherbrooke Hollows, but it's deep enough that it's not going to, hopefully, go into the neighbors. I mean it's very deep. Borup: And do those flood a lot? Semaha: I'm sorry? Borup: Do those flood a lot, the ones in Sherbrooke, do they -- Semaha: They do. A lot of water does accumulate, but the houses are high and the lot is very low. I mean if that's -- if that's the intent, then, you know, we just -- Borup: Well, it doesn't sound like they are flooding, then. The ones in Sherbrooke are not flooding and affecting the neighbors. Semaha: They are not flooding, because they are designed in such a way where the houses are much higher than the flood lot. It's already -- you know, the ground was raised where the flood lot is low and the houses are high. Borup: They are designed that way, because they have to be designed that way. That's a requirement. Semaha: But the thing is, you have backyards that are already existing, where the developer has no control over that level, which we don't know, and that's a concern. And -- I mean these are, you know, the things that the neighborhood and the board has a concern with at this point and I will leave it right there. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Did you have something else from -- Semaha: No. I will cut it short -- I will cut it short as you requested. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Is there any interest in the expanding your homeowners association to include -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 15 of 87 Semaha: I would leave -- I would leave the comment to the board members, because they met and they did some research about many things and they will come with a logical response and actual and factual response about that. I cannot answer that question at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Semaha: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Who is next? Chapman: Thank you very much. My name is Frank Chapman. I live in Sherbrooke Hollows, and I'm the treasurer of the homeowners board and I ran some figures this afternoon, because the -- they have proposed to be a part of our association and I -- after Iran the numbers and based on our dues structure, we would be 3,000 dollars in the hole if we allowed them to come into our association, because right now our homeowners pay 150 dollars a year and our budget just breaks even on that. If we bring these folks in, they would only contribute -- 57 homes at 150 dollars to be 8,550 dollars and as the result of bringing them in, it would increase our insurance rate, it would increase the landscaping costs, the repairs, the management costs, so that our expenses would be 11,435 dollars and they are contributing 8,550 dollars, so, as you can see, we will have approximately a 3,000 dollar loss by bringing them in. Borup: It doesn't make good business sense it doesn't sound like. Chapman: And I'm a licensed CPA in the State of Idaho and I feel very confident in these figures. Borup: The insurance does go up proportionally to the number of lots? Chapman: Correct. Borup: Is that how that's affect? Chapman: Yes. The same way with the -- we have actually gone out and gotten landscaping bids that would cover the Soda Springs and the Sherbrooke Hollows and it's just not economically feasible. Borup: Okay. I can see that. Again, that would be between you and the developer, if that works out, but -- Chapman: At this paint we are -- we don't want to ask our people for an increase of dues to bring them in. Borup: Makes sense to me. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 16 of 67 Chapman: So -- Borup: Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add? Chapman: That pretty well concludes -- Borup: Okay. Your understanding is that -- is that correct, as far as the irrigation, that's something Nampa-Meridian would control and -- I know they do like to tie areas together, so that that probably would be the case there, that it would probably tie together. Chapman: We have a member of the board that could probably speak to that better than I. Borup: Okay. Questions from any other Commissioners? Zaremba: You answered my question. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Chapman, and again, the irrigation thing is not something that I don't believe the city is going to really have any control over, that's going to be up to Nampa-Meridian in how they want to design that and run that. I mean it's under their jurisdiction anyway. Do we have anyone else that has anything else they'd like to add? It's your turn. Butler: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mark Butler, 52 North 2nd Street, Eagle. I'm actually here for something else. I'm with a friend. I thought it worked well, because I hadn't anything positive come from, you know, anybody, except for the applicant. Having been a land use planner for 15 years, working in local government for 12, the last local position being the planning and zoning administrator for the City of Eagle, and now with my own business, Land Consultants, for four years. I'm not representing Mr. Jewett, but I can just tell you, he came through with Jane through Eagle with a development with a little higher density than this and it's being developed right now and Eagle accepted it wholeheartedly and you know how tough Eagle is with wanting large lots and so forth. It, actually, has lots smaller than this, even on the perimeter, where the development was adjacent to the Rick's River Ridge, where they had eight to ten thousand square foot lots, and I think what you're going to see here is a housing product that is going to be in high demand. When put the garages to the back like they have done here and create a situation where you have a neighborhood friendly development with the houses closer to the front, you do nothing but increase property values. This is a product that's going to be in high demand and I would urge you from a planning perspective, not representing anybody, to approve the R-8 zone to allow this type of development and to approve it as is. I mean that park is ten percent and that's going to be plenty fine, no respect to what Mr. Centers said, but maybe when he heard this additional information he may have changed his mind and you all see that happen from time to time, you will have one position, but you get additional information and you change your mind. I think you have plenty of open space in here, but just to conclude, I Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 17 of 87 think it's an excellent development, something you're going to be proud of and, you know, these folks are going to be friends with the people who move in here and they are going to be going -- you know, their kids are going to be playing soccer together and it will be a whole different situation when this is developed. Right it's like a fear of the unknown and I can assure you that this gentleman does a really good job on this. Mr. Roth also, who I don't think is here today. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have some others? Okay. You need to come on up to the mike and state your name and we will hear your question. Godby: Good evening. My name is Louise Godby. I live at 2238 East Mackay Court in Sherbrooke Hollow. I'm one of the lucky ones that live on the end of the cul-de-sac next to the canal. I have an unfenced yard, enjoy the common area that Sherbrooke Hollow has. My concerns -- and I apologize for not being here for the whole presentation, because I had a conflicting meeting to attend and a presentation to make. My concerns are, knowing that very well, and having heard last time that nobody had looked at the back of the property, the property line starts at the middle of the canal and by my measurements the property line or their half of the canal is approximately 20 feet. There is a service road on top of that that is about 13 feet and, then, a steep canal bank that I don't know -- I don't know how to measure it, it's probably another 10 feet out of there. Is that taken out of the total of the percentage of open area? Because, obviously, we can't have kids playing on the canal. Borup: Well, there is a chain link fence separating the canal from the park -- from the open area that they are proposing to put in. Godby: And that -- then, open area consists of the chain link fence back? Borup: We may need some clarification on that. That I'm not sure. The plan does show a chain link fence separating it from the canal. Godby: Because I know they figured the property amount from the boundary, which is the middle of the canal. I mean that's -- that's something that I'd like to find out if it's really that amount of land they thought or not. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The rule is that the open space has to be usable area, so -- Borup: We'll get an answer on that. Zaremba: That's a very good question. We'll get you an answer. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant will address this I'm sure in their rebuttal, but the canal is not included in the open space calculation. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2D03 Page 18 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Outside the fence line is -- Borup: So, it goes to the fence line or to the right of way, the 50 foot -- the plat shows a 50 foot -- Kirkpatrick: It goes to the 50-foot right of way. Borup: That's where the fence is shown on that same right of way. Kirkpatrick: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Yes. McKibben: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Sherry McKibben, I'm an architect and urban designer, 515 West Hays in Boise, and I have been doing a lot of work with the community here in Meridian to try to envision what growth would look like in Meridian and I'm very pleased to see that the neighbors are concerned about, you know, their neighborhood, because neighborhoods are what make a great city. Great neighborhoods are made up of a diversity of housing types to accommodate your diverse population and as we are seeing, about 60 percent of households with one or two people in them, we are not actually accommodating the choice of housing for them and I see that this project does that. I also have always advocated for the connectivity in subdivisions, so that there are alternative path choices for walking and for vehicular traffic, so that we are not adding to the width of our roadways. So, that you can choose to go multiple directions for your destination, which may be, actually, in a diagonal pattern. I'm also seeing that open spaces connected to existing home space and that's a very valuable thing, so that people can choose not to go along the arterials to find open space and can connect within their neighborhoods. One of the wonderful things about the Comprehensive Plan in my view is the neighborhood center on the map and as difficult as they are to envision, because we have so few, hardly any, to look at, they can be fabulous places that create a sense of place in our neighborhoods and a neighborhood is not a subdivision. A neighborhood is made up of multiple developments that come together because they have the ability to connect and natural boundaries and what we have been trying to do across arterials, which are natural boundaries, put some commercial that can be used by subdivisions and connect to those subdivisions. To support that commercial, the developers tell us that we need rooftops in the walkable area, reduced transportation, people can walk. They don't have to walk every time, but the availability there is very important, because people do choose to walk some trips. So, having a little bit more density near that neighborhood center is what that's all about and that will enable you to choose maybe in the future to have transit of some kind, shuttle buses, buses or whatever, to collect people, young people, older people, that choose not to drive. The visual picture of this neighborhood with the garages on the back is something that is of great value, creating a character that -- it has people at the front of the homes looking out of the homes, instead of garages out in the front blocking the view of the street, so it actually makes it a safer place also. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 19 of 87 Borup: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else before the developer replies? Come on up. Buckland: My name is Gene Buckland. I live at 3003 South Gold Bar. I have a couple of considers -- or things to consider. First of all, the safety issues. You're putting a tot lot right next to one of the largest dangers in the valley and that's a canal. I work and I have worked in the nuclear industry where radiation is a large consideration. The three things that you look at are time, distance, and shielding. You are attracting children to a safety hazard. They are going to put a fence. We all know that children do not climb fences and they don't go around them or under them. So, we have taken care of the shielding part. The distance, you put it right next to it, so you have made it as close as you can get it, so from a safety standpoint this doesn't look very smart. There have been some comparisons between this subdivision and Heritage Commons. Well, the biggest thing that I notice the difference between this and Heritage Commons is Heritage Commons' common area is in the center where the majority of the homes can see the common area. If you look at this plat map, less than ten percent of the homes can actually see it. If you're attracting your children there and it's next to a safety hazard, wouldn't you want to be able to see them? Wouldn't you want to be able to -- we all know not everybody is going to be paying attention to their children a hundred percent of the time, so that's another consideration. Another item is in the last meeting there was a similar plat -- I think it was on Ten Mile Road, similar size, had a lot lower density and their roads were 33 feet across. This shows 29-foot roads. The reason why they went to 33-foot roads is from another safety standard or safety concern was the Fire Department requested wider roads, so that they could gain access in case of an emergency. If you have a larger density, I would suspect that you have a larger probability of having the need for emergency equipment. Also, I'd like to bring in one other item. If you take a look at the area that is surrounding this subdivision, this board is, if you will, home designers or interior decorators. Meridian is your home. The one square mile around this area or half square mile, if you take into consideration you have got a school and other lots around there, you've started a decorating of this particular room and now you're going -- you have finished three walls and you have got a certain number of wall space that's left, you've started one motif, if you will, we will say western with colors and different sizes and such and now you're going to put in something completely different. You have got three walls completed, you throw in the third wall or the last wall and you're going to do a modern black and white block style. It doesn't appear to fit. I am not against diversity I don't think anybody else is. If you go right across the street, you have your diversity, you have other options, and you have smaller homes, whatever, that meet the marketing that these people are saying that's what they are going to target. I think that in this area, if you look at the grand scheme of things, you are meeting that intent. I would encourage the board to consider maintaining a similar style on the north side of the road between Eagle and Locust Grove and have the diversity where you have already planned it. Thank you. Are there any questions? Borup: Just one for clarification. I was interested in your comments on the open area and from some other testimony, my understanding this is -- all this is open area from Sherbrooke? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 20 of 87 Buckland: That is correct. Borup: So, Sherbrooke's open area stretches along that whole way against the canal. Buckland: That is open area, but the children are not attracted to that area. If you look at little bit further over, there is an open area at the end of Mackay Court. If you like, I can -- Borup: Well, you have got a -- Buckland: Well, not Mackay Court. I'm sorry. Mackay Drive. Borup: You have got a light right there at your -- Buckland: Right there. Borup: Right here. Okay. Buckland: Yes, and that is a pretty good size common area, several homes can see it, and also it's open on the one end with no fence, that's where the majority of the children play. As you can see, there is minimal safety hazards, other than the road, in that area. Borup: So, this open area that has been touted to us as being such a great thing, you don't think it is, then? Buckland: I'm saying it's not being used, because it's fenced on the one end -- well, on the north end it's fenced by the Nampa Irrigation and it's basically not encouraged for people to go in there. Maybe in the future they will put a gate that they will encourage people in there, but right now it is not. Borup: And there is not access from here? Buckland: Yes, there is -- Borup: There is access there? Buckland: I have never seen anybody use it, so -- I don't normally go over there, and I know that my children and -- Borup: Well, the last time I walked back there, there was access, but it's been a couple of years. Buckland: Okay. Borup: But Ididn't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 21 of 87 Buckland: There may be access there, but I'm just familiar with access right here. Borup: So, there is, it looks like. Buckland: Yes, there is. Borup: Okay. Buckland: There is access there. Zaremba: But you're point is it's not attractive to children, it would be adults that would use it as a walking path. Buckland: Exactly, and if an adult is going to fall in the canal, then, sorry. But children need -- we are their custodians. Borup: So, your area is not fenced? Buckland: I don't believe so. It is fenced? Borup: Okay. The testimony -- we need to get you -- Zaremba: It's not on the record. Borup: It was mentioned that that area is fenced clear along the canal. Obviously, it's not an appeal to you because you have never been there I can see. Buckland: Not really. Borup: All right. Thank you. Buckland: Any other questions? Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Did you have some final comment, Mr. Jewett? Jewett: Thank you. Just for point of clarification. I believe that's a drainage lot, so I don't know how conducive it is for playing after a rain. I'll just touch on a few of the issues that some of the people had. On our neighbor to the east, I appreciate his offer to allow us to put a fence along -- on his side of the property line, because that's one of our issues, ACRD will not allow us put it -- if you can go to the plat, please. ACRD will not allow us to put a fence in their right of way here, so if he allowed us to put a fence on his side of the property line, we would be more than happy to accommodate that and put that in. As he stated, he has a lot of trees. He has a considerable windrow of trees along there that already acts as a natural landscape barrier. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 22 of 87 Borup: So, is there room between the trees and your property to do a fence? Jewett: There is an existing fence. Yes. Borup: So, it will just be right along the location of that existing fence. Jewett: So, he has a natural barrier and I don't think that anything I could do could improve that. The irrigation, he's a winner in this one, because his statement that we now -- these two parcels irrigate currently off the same head gate, once we go off that head gate and we pipe it directly in, he doesn't have to share it anymore, it's all his now. So, he will be a winner in regards to the irrigation. Comment was made regarding specific plans architectural plans should be submitted before anything gets approved. I think the offer to allow the homeowners association architectural control and using the guidelines was a fairly reasonable offer and I think I understand that if they want to decline that, that's their option, and we just move on accordingly. Again, I don't believe we have narrowed any lots along Victory. We redesigned this corner, because of ACHD's -- wanted to move the entrance, but I -- and we did take some lots there and move them there, but Idon't -- Borup: That was a change I noticed. The one lot went -- you changed the orientation of it, so instead of -- Jewett: That's correct. Borup: -- being the long way, it was anarrower -- Jewett: Yes. We did change the orientation, because the way the entrance to the subdivision modified from the original layout to meet ACHD's requirements. The drainage lot. My engineer is here or somebody that works for my engineer is here tonight. He could gladly answer any of your questions regarding the drainage and the drainage lot area. Borup: I think the question on that was -- is this drainage lot higher thari -- higher in elevation than the neighbors to the west. Jewett: And -- two things. No, it is not. It is lower, and, number two, there is a drainage ditch that is located along here and, then, piped through Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision, that's our source of an overflow. So, the potential -- Borup: The exiting ditch? Jewett: The existing ditch. So, that will be our source of overflow, so I don't see that as a problem. I know in our original plan, the drainage lot did split two lots. I can't tell by this one, but I don't believe it splits -- it think it's behind -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm being told that it does split two lots. But our intention is we can landscape behind that if somebody Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6.2003 Page 23 of B7 has an issue with looks, but as far as flooding, I -- we are required -- or my engineer is required to engineer that that happen, so -- Borup: Understand that. Jewett: I won't touch on the HO issue anymore. Their decision can be in the form of a letter and that's done. I won't argue expenses, what they calculate the homeowners association. If I have to set up my own homeowners association, I'm required to go out and set those same expenses, budget, and charge the lots accordingly. That's what we do. Appreciate the comments from Mark Butler. The open space and drawing towards the open space, I believe on the Comp Plan that we are drawn by a lot of pathways that are along canals and that's -- we are being steered that direction and so locating tot lots along that seems to be a logical choice. In this particular instance, it's logical. Use of that tot lot, again, whether or not we join Sherbrooke Hollows HOA, that tot lot will be available to any child, parent, or anybody in Sherbrooke Hollow, because it is going to be a community and we will not fence it off and say you can't come and nor would the city allow us, and who's to say retired people can't have grandkids that want to come over and play in it. There are many friends, children, it's -- there will be people utilizing the tot lot, whether they actually live in the subdivision or visiting the subdivision or in Sherbrooke Hollow and in Thousand Springs or even across the street in Tuscany will come over and visit friends. That's what a neighborhood is all about? There was a comment made regarding Heritage Commons Park that is in the center. I don't know how -- it's a different feel, it's a different design. I don't think we all need to do the same thing. It has its purposes ours has ours. The only thing the 33 feet versus the 29-foot, we didn't have any interconnectivity here, unfortunately, to Sherbrooke Hollow and so our design is very grid like. It provides multiple ways of getting to the central paint, so traffic is diverted, so the 29-foot is well warranted here and was approved by ACHD. So, we could actually go 33 feet and it doesn't the plat. We are doing a 50-foot right of way in a lot of that area, so -- so, unless I missed something that's real important, I will stand far any questions. Borup: Questions, Commissioners? Rohm: I just have one question. Does this common lot in the adjacent subdivision -- this is your common lot. Is this their common lot as well? Jewett: That's correct. Rohm: And so your intent -- Jewett: Oh, no, that's -- Rohm: Okay. This is a lot here? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 24 of 87 Jewett: No. That is their common lot. This is the back of the last house. They have a fence that goes from here and here and there is a ditch here, but this is all green common lot for Sherbrooke Hollow. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Anything, David? Zaremba: No. Borup: Maybe same -- you had mentioned at the beginning about a fence to the east and without really detailing what you would be proposing for that, and along how much --are you talking from your common area to Victory? Jewett: We would be willing to build a privacy fence from this location to this location. Borup: Okay. Jewett: And, if wanted, to this location. I don't believe in fencing off common areas. Borup: That's what I was thinking, too, but -- except there is access to the neighbors, so Jewett: Then Iwould -- Borup: Or some type of fence. Jewett: Chain link, so the feel would not be closed off and so that would not be a privacy, but in this area from here to here it could be a full privacy. But I just think common areas should have privacy fences. Borup: Okay, and that would be the same type of fence around the rest of your property? Is that what -- Jewett: Yeah. Six foot cedar. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Jewett: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? Still some questions that we need to discuss? Zaremba: Well, it's a tough one for me. We ask for innovative projects, we ask for higher densities, particularly near neighborhood centers, and this project answers a lot of those requests. Totally unrelated to this and not having anything to do with this project, I spent several days last week knocking on doors in Thousand Springs and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 25 of 87 Sherbrooke Hollow and talking to people about their issues and what hasn't come up is the distance that these residential areas are from any emergency response and how long it would take to get there and that's a big issue in that area. I drove around the area quite a bit and, frankly, I have become uncomfortable with the number of people we are putting at risk by not having Locust Grove Overpass done and not having the Fire Station on Eagle. The number of homes that are already developed in this area are pushing the limit of safety and Tuscany, which has already been approved, has some houses being framed, but not occupied yet. We have hundreds of more residential buildings that have already been approved and appeared yet and, I don't know, I would seek the opinion of the other Commissioners. We are verging on irresponsibility of approving anymore subdivisions until those two things have happened and nobody has raised that as an issue at the moment, but I know a number of people in the neighborhood -- both those neighborhoods -- not talking about this project at all, just talking about their own homes and their own safety and I worry that the City of Meridian -- you know, I'm not anti-development, but I -- it scares me to be approving anymore development until I see ground being broken on a Fire Station south of the interstate and Locust Grove Overpass. That's an opinion. I don't know if I have any support for it or not. Borup: Well, I would be interested in what the Fire Department has to say. Zaremba: Well, I notice we don't have any -- normally, we get a letter from them that say this is outside our five-minute response zone, and, therefore, it's a danger. I do not see that letter in relation to this. Clearly, the applicant has been talking to the Fire Department, because they have agreed on this second access and how it's going to work and the Fire Department is not throwing up their hands and saying no. Borup: I mean we did receive a letter from the Fire Department. Zaremba: I did see a letter, but I didn't see the -- this is outside the five minute response sentence that's usually in there. Borup: Right. So, they had no written objections. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm kind of -= my objection, actually, have really nothing to do with this development. I think it answers a bunch of things we have asked for. Borup: Well -- and I'm wondering -- back to the Fire Department, the last -- the last report they had we are talking about -- I mean we have got the site and it's planned for. I think part of the -- as I understood it, part of the reason it hadn't been built yet, they are waiting for population increase to somewhat justify it, weren't they? Zaremba: Well, I think that's coming. That population increases has already been improved, if you count Tuscany and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 26 of 87 Borup: Well -- and I don't remember what those numbers were that they were looking for and if we are there yet or close enough that they should be -- Zaremba: Well, I guess my concern is -- I do transportation issues, so I go out and time traffic and do all sorts of stuff like that. I went over to what I believe is the nearest Fire Station on Franklin near Meridian and I timed how long it took me to drive to this area. It took me -- going across Franklin and down Eagle and making the turn onto Victory, on Victory, I passed Brandy's Jewell at seven minutes, I got to the intersection of Gold Bar and McKay at eight minutes. Granted, I'm driving a car. Borup: Did you try it the other way? Zaremba: Iran into no traffic. Every light I hit was green, except for one that was turning green as I approached it, so I slowed down a little bit. I know I can make the corners faster in my car than a fire truck can. The roads are uneven and there is much uphill, so I probably had better acceleration up the hills than a fire truck could make. My assessment is that an expert fire truck driver, using their lights and sirens and their ability to change lights, might be able to beat me by 30 seconds. So, there is a long response time getting to this area and that's plus whatever it would take to stop and hook up to a hydrant and actually get water on a fire. So, you think here is a neighbor, they see smoke coming out of somebody else's house, which has been happening for some time, they call the Fire Department, 15 minutes later they have got water on the fire and probably by, then, we have got three houses involved. My concern -- Borup: You didn't try the other direction? Zaremba: I didn't come down Meridian. Borup: Okay. Well, you took the longest route. You realize that. Zaremba: Well, Locust Grove would be the shortest route, but it doesn't connect. Borup: No, but going to Meridian is a shorter route than the way you took. Zaremba: And across Victory that way? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: I didn't go that way. Borup: I mean it doesn't make a lot of difference. Zaremba: It seemed shorter to me, but -- anyhow, my concern is -- and, actually, not specific with this project, but just whether we need to wait until we got the services available. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 27 of 67 Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I tried to take very good notes as I listened to each person speak this evening and there were a number of issues, of which I listed six of, and I'm just going to go through them quickly and kind of give my summation. The first one was the fence along the east line and I believe the developer has concurred with the property owner to the east that he's willing to work with him. Borup: Well, more than that. He said he'd put the fence in. Rohm: Right. Right. The fence would go in. So, you know, I checked that one off. The second one is the irrigation issue and, basically, the property owner is going to have full use of the water and he will, actually, have better use of the water than we did before. That was -- that was the second issue that was brought up. The third issue was the homeowners association, of which the existing homeowners association said that they were not interested in this development joining and the developer says that they will form their own homeowners association and will -- and I'd like to speak to that for just a moment. In that I believe the desire to join the homeowners association was not so much to benefit themselves, as in to provide the people with the assurance that their development was not going to go sideways from what they have seen within their own development. So, it appeared to me as if it was an offer and of which logical objection, based upon cost, and I don't have any problem with that, but at least there was an effort to meet in the middle there and I appreciate both sides of that issue. The next one was the common area and the concern about it including the square footage adjacent to the canal. Staff has addressed that issue and it doesn't appear as if the common area includes the portion that cannot be used and so the ten percent common area seems appropriate for this development, just as it would for any other development. The last issue that I made notes on was the safety issues associated with the common area being adjacent to the canal. That common area is going to be fenced, just as the adjacent subdivision's common area is fenced from the canal and it seems if it's work for one, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work for the next one. That's -- that's all the notes that I took. It appears to me that all of the verbalized concerns have been addressed, but, quite honestly, I believe that the nonverbalized concerns are based upon the square footages of the homes being proposed and lot sizes being downsized from the adjacent subdivision. To that, I would like to say that I believe that the lots adjacent to the existing subdivision have been -- have taken that into consideration and there is a transition and it appears as if there has been an effort to meet on that issue as well, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Good analysis. I think that covers the notes I had. Well, Commissioners, would we like to proceed? Zaremba: Let's see. We are not going to ask for any more discussion. I would move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items. Rohm: I'd second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 28 of 87 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on items four, five, and six. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Then, I would ask staff to go through their report -- my latest staff comment is for the hearing of October 2nd and there are a number of items that have been solved since, then, and perhaps prompt us on what has been solved. Kirkpatrick: I believe that the primary issue and why we continued the item -- the hearing item last -- when we were here about a month ago, was that they did not clearly meet the two amenities. There was some debate over whether they are counting the regional pathway as an amenity, whether that could be counted. They have, essentially, solved that problem by increasing their open space to over ten percent where now they are providing the tot lot and the ten percent open space. So, they now clearly meet the requirement for two amenities for the planned development. Let's see. And I'm not certain if -- when we were at Planning and Zoning Commission last hearing if they had resolved their issues with the Fire Department. Those issues have since been resolved, regarding where they can have the second access point, and we have a letter from Meridian Fire Department, dated September 19th, regarding the revised plans and approving the temporary access, and those were -- those were the significant procedural issues that were -- that needed to be addressed in the last hearing. Are there any other questions of staff? Borup: Not from me. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I guess I will say again, my objection to this is not on the merits of it. I seem to be taking a position about the Fire Department that even the Fire Department is not taking. If it's the intent of the Fire Department to have a certain amount of development before they move to build a Fire Station on Eagle, that would give me reason, actually, to approve this, rather than disapprove it, to help move them along. I'm not sure that moves the Locust Grove overpass any closer, but we have a new mayor that's intent on having that happen -- or a mayor elect who is intent on having that happen. So, the only other piece of it we haven't discussed -- and it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, whether this hurts or helps property values. I think -- well, you know, we asked to have not just the same old cookie cutter things and to have, actually, a variety of housing types available. If this is done in an attractive manner, I -- just a personal opinion, not facts, I could see this enhancing the value of the neighborhood itself. If the Fire Department is not hopping up and down saying we can't do this, I think I'm ready to move that we do it. Rohm: I'm with you. Zaremba: Do you want to do it or do you want me to? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2D03 Page 29 of 87 Rohm: I'll make a stab at it, because I've -- Zaremba: All right. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: The reason that we push that back and forth is that we have depended on Jerry Centers to make most of the motions. He keeps very good notes and we may add one or two things and he's missed for a lot of reasons. Rohm: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send continued Public Hearing on AZ 03-023, request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zdnes for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road, on to the City Council for approval. This motion should include all comments staff the report dated -- I believe it's October 13th. Borup: October 2nd is the one I'm looking at. Zaremba: I just had it in front of me. Rohm: Excuse me. October 2nd. Borup: And, then, received on the 26th. That was for the October 2nd meeting. The hearing date was for October 2nd. Rohm: Okay. Borup: They sent the minutes on the 26th. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second for annexation and zoning. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send PP 03-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 58 building lots and eight other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone in proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road, to the City Council for approval. This motion includes all comments from the staff report dated October 2nd. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 30 of 87 Zaremba: I would ask that we add that the preliminary plat that we are referring to is the one received by the City Clerk on October 23rd and that that changes the number of building lots to 57. Rohm: So amended. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Discussion. Would it be appropriate to add about the fence along the eastern boundary? That was part of the testimony, but it's not showing on the plat. Zaremba: That would be plat, as opposed to CUP? I think that's correct. Rohm: Yes. So add that to the motion as well to include the map along the east line -- the fence along the east line. Zaremba: Which may, with the cooperation of the eastern neighbor, be on the eastern neighbor's property. Borup: Right. Which is a little different to do an off-site improvement, but the developer has agreed to that and the neighbor has agreed to allow that. Zaremba: I second the amendment as well. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send CUP 03-043, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mix of single family detached residential lot size and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory on to the City Council for approval. This motion includes all comments from the staff report dated October 2nd. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. The only question I had on that was the -- the house sizes that were given to us in the meeting last month, I don't believe are part of the staff report, are they? But can we assume that would be incorporated in on the testimony or do we need to restate those? Zaremba: Spell those out? Kirkpatrick: I believe it would need to be added as a condition, if you do wish to include it. It was just a part of testimony at the last hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 31 of H7 Borup: Okay. Rohm: Was that not 1,500 square feet for a single family? Borup: Yes. Well, yeah, and the north and -- on the west and north lots is 1,500 feet on the single, 1,750 on the two story, which I think was equivalent to the Sherbrooke covenants, and 1,300 single story on Victory and, then -- and, then, on the alley lots, which would, essentially, would be the rest of the lots -- that would be the rest of the lots in the subdivision, is 1,300 on single, 1,600 on two story. Is that what the -- Powell: The applicant is nodding in agreement. Borup: Okay. That was my note from last time, so -- Rohm: I think it's appropriate to add that as an amendment to that motion. Zaremba: And the second accepts that. Borup: Okay. Powell: Chairman, before you vote on that one, can I -- I would prefer to leave a little room to say that it be referenced on the plat, rather than specifically noted on the plat. It's an issue that we need to raise with City Council, but we are trying to -- Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering. Right now this is under the CUP, but should it be on the plat? Should we have done that on the last one? Powell: If you ask for it to be referenced on the plat, I think we can accommodate it that way, but I would prefer you use the word referenced, rather than specifically stated. Borup: Okay. Powell: Just -- it's a larger issue. If you would like for me to explain it further, I will, but I'll leave it up to you. Borup: I think we will take your word for it. Rohm: So referenced. Zaremba: This restriction that we making under the CUP will be referenced on the plat. Rohm: On the plat? Yeah. Zaremba: I second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 32 of 87 Borup: All right. Chris, do you have any questions on that motion? Can you figure out what we did there? Gabbert: I think you guys have it well done. I just wanted to reference and make sure that the -- this is an open discussion now when you guys are making your motion. Did you open the hearing again? Borup: No. No. This is just between the Commission and staff. Gabbert: Okay. Borup: And you, and why, do you feel it needs to be -- I mean we didn't -- we haven't brought up anything new. Zaremba: At this point I would say we are discussing the motion, which is not an open hearing issue. Borup: Right. All right. That was my question, is that motion kind of jumped around a little bit and I wanted to make sure you felt that you understood what -- for you report. Okay. Zaremba: That you got all the elements of it. Rohm: And if not, we can go back to the minutes. Zaremba: Yeah. There you go. Borup: Maybe you could figure it out from the minutes. Okay. Do we have both a first and asecond -- I mean a motion and a second? Zaremba: Yes, and all the amendments. Borup: All in favor. Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Okay. That does conclude this project. It will be going to City Council for Public Hearing there and I guess we'll have the same process all over. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval. Let's wait a couple minutes. Rohm: Yeah. Let's -- Borup: Do you want a break right now? Rohm: This seems like a good time for a break. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 33 of 87 Borup: Okay. Let's do that while the audience is leaving. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess. ) Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Borup: We will proceed. Yes. We'd like to continue with items number seven and eight, Public Hearing PP 03-029, request preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.065 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision and CUP for the same project, CUP 03-048, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for nursing home care. I'd like to open -- I'd like to open both public hearings at this time start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning Staff. The applicant Pinnacle Engineers has requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development on 2.07 acres of land located in the north -- located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a third of a mile west of Linder Road. The subject site lies within a public, quasi-public area on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The property is presently zoned L-O and is currently used for church-related activities. The submitted preliminary plat proposes six office lots, with the landscaping, driveways, parking and common area within easements. The CUP PD includes a request to allow the operation of a nursing home facility in the L-O zone and modified development standards, including reduced building setbacks and reduced landscape buffer widths abutting Cherry Lane and adjacent to the exist building. As part of the PD, the applicant is proposing two small landscape plazas with the picket fences as the two required amenities. The first plaza is located in the front of the nursing home facility and is approximately 1,750 square feet in size. The second plaza is located on the east side of the eastern driveway and is approximately 1,300 square feet in size. The plazas compose approximately 3.5 percent of the gross site area. Staff has recommended, with conditions, approval of the submitted preliminary plat. Although this site is currently zoned L-O, staff had recommended denial of the submitted CUP PD, because at that time it did not appear to be consistent with the Meridian City -- City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has since submitted a letter addressing staffs recommendations and I believe that you all should have a copy of that. If not, we can get you a copy. But staff did recommend denial of the CUP PD and will stand far any questions you may have.