Loading...
2005 03-03 - Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina March 3. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Bruce Freckleton, Joe Guenther, Anna Canning, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybOdy. We will call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, and we will begin with a roll call of attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The next item is the adoption of the agenda and if I hear no objection, I will assume that the agenda will go forward as stated. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 3, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: The item following that is the Consent Agenda, which consists of the minutes for February 3rd, 2005, and I have one change, so I will move that off the Consent Agenda and we will deal with it as a separate issue. And my comment is on page 48, the third line down, I am credited as saying: I have four grandchildren, which is not true. Somebody else made that statement and I'm not sure who it was, but it was not me. Rohm: I don't think I do. Zaremba: The statement is: I have four grand children. I have a 21 year old son that does live under my roof and we kind of are like ships passing in the night. Anybody remember making that statement? Rohm: It wasn't me. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 2 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: That was somebody who was testifying. Borup: Yeah. It wasn't from the Commission. Zaremba: Okay. We will, then, identify that as unidentified audience member. I just know it wasn't me. Okay. And that's the only comment I have on the minutes. Anybody else have any comment on the minutes of February 3rd? Newton-Huckabay: J have none. Rohm: None. Zaremba: 'will entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes as amended. Borup: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: AZ 05-001 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 156.49 acres to R-8 & L-O zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: PP 05-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 429 building lots and 35 common lots on 155.44 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: CUP 05-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 428 residential building lots, one church lot and 35 common lots located in a "mixed-use neighborhood center" designation on the Comprehensive Plan for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and' will, for those of you who don't come to these meetings very often, describe our procedure. The applicants and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of the subjects that we are going to cover tonight, so we will begin with a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 3 of 89 presentation by our profesSional staff, who will describe where the project is and what the project is and, then, we will run through any issues that are still remaining that they haven't been able to resolve with the applicant. When they are concluded, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and testify to anything else they think we need to know about the project or to discuss the issues that our staff has raised about that subject. We allow the applicant 15 minutes to do that, including any other professional people they might have brought with them as back up. FOllowing that is the open opportunity for the public to speak and we feel that if you felt it was important enough to come down here this evening and express your opinion, we want to make sure we hear you, so we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone, We will go down the sign-up sheet, but, then, we will also ask if anybody else has anything to say. During the time that you're speaking the applicant will make notes about what you're asking about and have an opportunity afterwards to explain or clarify anything that they can. We ask that you limit your remarks to three minutes. That's partially so with all the items on our agenda we don't end up being here until 1 :00 o'clock in the moming and we . find we don't do our best thinking at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, so we want everybody to have our best thinking. So, we do ask that you limit. Also, we know a lot of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the microphone, speak up, we do need to hear you. And our recorder also needs to hear you, so that it gets recorded for the record. And weare going to try something new tonight. If you hear a ding from over in this corner, it means that the recorder is not hearing you or us and we need to correct that to make sure that everything gets recorded. At the conclusion of the public testimony, then, the applicant will have another ten minutes to address any of the issues that have been raised and discuss them and, then, the Commission will discuss and, hopefully, make a recommendation to the City Council whether we feel they should approve or deny the application. We have a handy dandy little light system. If you will keep an eye on that? When it's green you have time to talk. 't will, then, flash yellow and that means please conclude within about 15 seconds and, then, the red light will come on, which is the end of your testimony and we will try and stick with that. If somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for a group and there are other people that say, yes, that's our spokesman and the other people are not going to speak and an example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, we do allow that representative of a group more than the three. Ten minutes. Up to ten minutes. 'f you don't need it, that's fine. And as always, anybody can step up and just say I agree with what Joe said before me and, then, if you need to add a point or two, that makes it go faster, but we know what you mean when you refer to somebody before you. That being the case, let's move forward, then. I will open the Public Hearing -- we, actually, have three related items four, five, and six on our agenda, continued Public Hearing for February 17th, AZ 05-001, PP 05-002, and CUP 05-002. These relate. to Bainbridge Subdivision and I will comment that even though this is a continued Public Hearing, when it did come up on our agenda for February 17th, both the applicant and our staff asked for a delay to review some changes and we took no public testimony, so if you're here for those items, you have not missed anything, we are starting fresh tonight. And we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 4 of 89 Canning: Chairman Zaremba and Commissioners, just a quick update on a couple things. Steve had -- and his wife had their fifth child on Monday and -- a baby boy, Jonathan Bennett and Josh and his wife J.C. had their first and second baby earlier this morning just after midnight. Zaremba: Must be twins. Canning: So -- yeah. Both four pounds. One's in ICU overnight, but, otherwise, doing well. And Craig is sick and in the hospital, but for a bit, but we expect him out Soon. So, I have been demoted to an associate planner tonight. I have done my best to get caught up on all these applications, but if you have questions, please, question me, and I will do my best. All right. This application is south of Chinden, between Black Cat and Ten Mile. Thank you. It's the first major development to go forward in this section. The application actually includes a portion of these two lots as well. I will talk about that a little bit more. But on the other side of the street we have Verona Subdivision and, then, you see part of Lochsa over here. There is nothing on the site right now, except this out parcel that has a residence on it. This is the proposed layout. They have what will function as a residential collector that comes from the half mile on Chinden down to Ten Mile. There is a park centrally located. They are working with the city to dedicate the park at this time. It's, I believe, seven and a quarter acres. And there is a small residential park as well. This actually shows the parks a little better. There is a Proposed church site to the north of the property and, then, there is kind of an unidentified parcel at this time that's about nine acres in size and I will go through that in a little bit. The proposal also includes 389 single-family residential lots and that was at the last Count. The applicant may have an update on that. There are 22 common lots and the one church lot that I proposed and, then, the one lot to be developed or redeveloped in the future. And those two lots up at the north end are proposed for L-O zoning. The remainder of the property is proposed for R-8 zoning. The density -- gross density is about 2.56 dwelling units per acre. If you take out the church lot and the -- it goes up a bit to 2.67 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the lower portion where the residences are is medium density residential and, then, there is a neighborhood center designation with a mixed-use regional commercial district on it that comes through the top portion of the property. You may have noticed at the beginning of the staff report that Craig explains the reason why that application was tabled, as we did have some concerns that the neighborhood center concept was not being met. We know that it's an issue that we need to go back to and look in the whole north Meridian area and so rather than address it with this application, that the applicant has just decided to remove those land uses and that's why you have the large property to be redeveloped and, then, the -- no development shown over here, is we intend to kind of figure that out later. This proposal allows for that to be decided later. And that's why they redrew and submitted different annexation descriptions. The applicant is requesting a planned development to allow for reduced frontage requirements and, then, block lengths that exceed 1,000 feet. The proposed amenities in exchange for those reduced standards are a 7.5 acre open space park that will potentially be dedicated to the city, the homeowners park, which is 1.37 acres and, then, on those there will be -- well, they haven't specified any tot lots, basketball courts Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 5 of 89 or -- but they may provide a private community center and pool in the area and they just have asked that those be considered at a later time. They do provide, in addition to the park space, they do -- the total open space does equal ten percent, but' want to explain that a little bit, because it probably doesn't look like it from now. The applicant is not required to put street buffers on this residential collector. They have voluntarily done that. We do allow those to count toward the dedicated open space. There is an issue, though, that the annexation boundary does not go to the edge of the proposed landscaping, so we do -- Craig does address as an issue of concern that -- because we don't have control over what happens in the county, we'd like to see that annexation boundary include the landscape buffer, especially if they want it to count toward the open space. And, then, within the subdivision they are proposing a five foot parkway that separates -- they have got an extra wide street section and with that they have added a five foot parkway between the back of curb and the sidewalk and they are asking that that be included as part of their open space. They have calculated the full length of the residential roadways, they have subtracted 20 feet for each lot to account for the driveway. Staff did point that out as an option for this development and I just want to go on record tonight, though, as I'm not -- I'm willing to go with it, because that's what the staff report said, but I do want to look into it, because I'm not sure if we need to only count 50 percent of that area or the full area. But it was originally raised by staff, so I'm willing to go with that decision at this point, but may change my mind on that issue. We need. to do some research -- additional research. There is -- a big issue that I think I'll let Bruce concern -- or I think I'll let Bruce address, I'm sorry. Mr. Freckleton. And that's that there is no sanitary sewer system to this area, so it cannot be served at this time, so it does raise the question of whether annexation is appropriate at this time. Staff has suggested that the applicant enter into a development agreement as part of this annexation and the contents of that right now, as proposed, would be -- we have asked the applicant to provide a legal description of the Johnson property that will become a county enclave, so that we can have that description available when we choose to annex the property. And the development agreement will also state that the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension and, then, all future uses -- again referring to the area -- particularly this parcel, that they will be subject to the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time and that all future uses on Lots 2 and 3, Block 15 -- again up here -- shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval from the city and that relates back to the mixed use regional designation from the Comp Plan does require conditional use approval for those items for anything. I'm going to now address some of the special considerations that Craig pointed out in the staff report. The first one I already mentioned, it's that the landscape buffer on Broadbent Avenue is actually not included in the annexation proposal. And, then, the second one I wanted to highlight again was the -- measuring the -- the internal streets and point out the parkway there. One of the things they wanted to do was measure the -- they said all setbacks would be measured from the property line and in the event that that property line may be on the -- that the sidewalk may cross over that property line, Craig just wanted to point -- make special reference to the point that they need 20 feet as measured from the edge of sidewalk to their garage, so that there is room there to park a car and so that it's not hanging over into the sidewalk. The out parcels, the one I already -- the Johnson I already referenced, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 6 of 89 that we are asking for a legal description of that property. Craig has noted concern that because we are only taking portions of these lots that are up here, we are kind of chipping away at what is -- the remainder will be a county property and so we are creating out parcels in the county and his concern was the development of those properties. Once this becomes city property, any development on those parcels would have to be denied annexation before they could be built on, unless it were a single family home. I mean any other type of permit does require that it come to us first. But homes could be built on that. All right. Moving on. Craig has asked for a micro-path -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Do you mean homes plural or -- Canning: Singular. Zaremba: -- one lot that would be one owner? Canning: Well, there is a couple -- yeah, I think there is three different lots up here that will be created, but -- Zaremba: So, it matches -- one will be three? Canning: Yeah. Not likely, given the value, probably, that was paid for that property, but -- let's see. In lieu of this micro-path Craig has asked for a stub street in this location and he has left a little room, he said if it -- well, I thought he had left a little room. This is a potential school site. The applicant is concerned if it is a school site, he doesn't want to have a stub street there and he would rather have the micro-path there. Similarly, Craig has asked for a stub street to this property and, again, this is a potential charter school site, so the applicant has said in both cases he's in favor of the stub street, if schools aren't going to be in those locations. I'm almost done. Okay. And that was all. The one issue I didn't mention is that the church normally on the light office would be principally a permitted use, but, again, the reasons for requiring the conditional use for that item is because the Comprehensive Plan says anything in the mixed use regional should come before you for a Conditional Use Permit. And with that I think I will turn the microphone over to Bruce Freckleton to address the sewer issues and, then, we will answer any questions. Freckleton: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the situation with the sanitary sewer is this property falls in what we call the North Black Cat Trunk service area and at this point in time our City Council has directed our staff to begin design for the lift station. They have allocated funds for that. However, they have not allocated any funds for the construction of that lift station in our current budget. If they wanted to shift some money, put another project off, that certainly is their prerogative, but at this point in time we do not have funding for construction. So, I just wanted to point that out. And so any approval of this project should be subject to that sewer system being available in that area. So, I'll leave it at that, unless you have any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 7 of 89 Zaremba: I would have a question that's kind of a follow-up to that, I think. If building the sewer is not in the budget now and it may be another year or two before it got into a budget, I'm guessing, and annexation and zoning never expires, but their preliminary plat and any CUP may potentially expire before they can do anything, am I correct in that? Freckleton: Under our current code that's correct. Zaremba: What effect does that have on the applicant? It means they have wasted their effort at the moment? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is provision for time extensions. Right now the code just has -- allows one single time extension. However, the revised code that you all are considering next Thursday does have different provisions for time extensions that could potentially be in effect at the time this needs one and that would be basically -- if you're asking for more than one time extension, we can grant one, but you also can be subject to new -- to new rules and standards that are in place, And, then, my -- I forgot to show you elevations. I'm sorry. They have submitted some proposed elevations for the property and my other associate planner reminded me that I forgot to mention that staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions from Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, yes. Anna, a couple things, did we get any indication from ACHD? I understand they had a hearing last night or the night before. Did they take any exception to this project? Canning: The applicant will have to answer that question. I'm sorry. Moe: Okay. We can do that. Then, one other question I have in regards to the -- to the park. You stated they are negotiating that the city will take over that -- that portion for a park? Canning: Yes. My understanding is that the negotiations have gone quite far, but, again, the applicant can give you a better update on that than -- Moe: My concern is is basically on the Comprehensive Plan map there is parks on both sides of this development and whatnot and in larger form, if I recall, and I know that in the past the city hasn't really wanted to take on such smaller parks to have to take care of maintenance, so I was kind of surprised when I read that in the report, so -- thank you. That's it. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, none of -- if we recommend approval, none of this development can even begin until -- none of the lots; correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 8 of 89 Canning: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it be a little premature to try to move this through with the other issues, such as the property to the north, if they can't begin development anyway? Canning: That's why we give you the big bucks. Newton-Huckabay: I forgot my shirt. Canning: Just for the record, the Commissioners get a shirt for their efforts up there. That's about it. And they don't even get a turkey anymore. Zaremba: We are concerned citizens that volunteer our time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question. Bruce, what is the -- what is the time line, then, as far as it going back to Council for approval for dollars to extend the sewer lines? From today until two years from now or where are we at? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, there is ongoing discussions regarding the service area. I wish I had a clear answer for you on that. I really don't. There is studies that are being done and we haven't formulated recommendations and -- we are not quite there yet, so I don't have a good answer for you. Moe: I guess the only other question I was -- what kind of distance are we speaking of connections on this? As in miles or what? Freckleton: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Freckleton: Miles. Moe: Thank you. Borup: My only thought is we were just talking about the sewer and everything; I would be interested in hearing what the applicant has to say. I'm sure that's very much in their interest and they have probably got a lot of information already. Zaremba: We are ready. If the applicant would care to come forward, please? I failed to mention, everybody, when you come to the microphone, if you would, please, begin by stating your name and address. Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I have a small Powerpoint presentation. I will give you a copy for the Clerk for the record. Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. I want to just give you a brief overview of the Bainbridge project, as Anna has already done. Go to the next slide, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 9 of 89 Anna. It's a total of 389 home sites in the current submittal, 70 acres are yet to be designed, that's the area between Chinden and the residential collector road. We are contracting with a design firm out of Seattle to do some further design work on there. You will probably see some different densities in that area and I will talk about that a little bit more. We have designed in a seven and a half acre neighborhood park, a 1.4- acre commons park that's back in the southwest section of the neighborhood and, then, we have the 4.4-acre church site. Here is the neighborhood park that Anna pointed out. Here is the commons park. If we could go to the next slide. I just want to point out this is a schematic -- I have had some very extensive discussions with Doug Strong, your Parks Director, and we had the Land Group come up with a preliminary design. This area right here shows an overlay of the soccer field, just so that you get an idea of the dimensions of this property. I think somebody asked the question about whether this was a small park. The city has a policy that neighborhood parks in the seven to seven and a half acres or something, they are very much interested in and Commissioner Strong has -- Director Strong has indicated that interest. There was some issue in the staff report that wasn't really brought up here, it's not a condition, but the police department expressed a concern about on-street parking. Well, we have designed in this some parking within the park area, so -- there is also the issue of tot lots and other amenities. You can see right here we have a tot lot designed in here, we also have tennis courts designed in here. As far as future amenities -- could you go back one, please, Anna? We plan on doing a community center, but it will be in this portion here north of that residential collector, so that will be coming forward in a future submittal. And, then, if you could forward one more, Anna, to the commons lot. This is not proposed to have any internal parking, that's just a small one and a half -- 1.4-acre park that would be a walk-in park for the surrounding residences. So, we don't see that as a destination park. We will have a variety of housing options. Even in this first phase we have home sites ranging from 6,600 square feet up to 18,000 square feet. We anticipate homes ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 square feet. So, we will have a variety of housing options for different income levels and all demographics. In the future preliminary plat that we will propose in that area, between Chinden and the residential collector, you will see even more variety, with the patio homes and town-homes, perhaps, in that area. So, just wanted to give you that overview for the overall project, but as Anna said, we -- I think there has to be some more debate on the concept of the neighborhood center, particularly in that location, and for those of you who weren't on the Commission at the time that that was adopted, I was pretty heavily involved in that, Commissioner Borup was on the Commission at that time, but I believe if you go back to the record, it would indicate that those neighborhood centers were allowed to be included in as a way of incentivizing, but not necessarily requiring, and that also the locations could be subject to change. So, that's just a debate we need to have at a future time and, as Anna said, we have left that area open for that discussion. We are not proposing any development in that area at the current time. Staff issues. First, I wanted to answer the question about ACHD. They did approve this yesterday at their commission hearing, their noon commission hearing. I already talked about the regional neighborhood center designation. I talked about the parking for the neighborhood park and the commons park. The stub street to Lot 3, Block 15, as Anna pointed out, we are okay with adding that, provided we don't do a charter school in that area. If we do do a Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page10of89 charter school, we don't think a stub street there is appropriate, so we would like to have that to be a conditional condition. Is that right? Okay. And also the stub street into the 45-acre Christensen property. I know that the school district has been talking to the Christensen's, interested in acquiring that site for a middle school site and so if the area back there is ball fields or whatever that they put in with their middle school site, we don't think that a stub street is appropriate for that area and we would, instead, do a micro-path connection to that area. Let's see. Anna addressed the landscape buffer on the north side of the residential collector. We can expand our annexation area, if you prefer to include that area, so that the landscape buffer would be within city limits. The sewer that Bruce has mentioned -- I have been in quite a few discussions with City Council, they did authorize the design of that sewer line. I believe the intent is to move forward with that. It's not unlike some other developments that have been approved subject to sewer availability, so for that -- us, that's not a real issue and I, actually, think it helps the city in designing it's sewer line, so that it knows street layouts and so forth, so they can prepare for that. In fact, that line will have to connect further to the east to eventually serve -- is it Silverleaf project, Bruce? Yeah. So, I think it's helpful to know these road alignments, so that they can factor that into their design, which Bruce mentioned has already been contracted for. Let's see. Other than that, we are comfortable with the conditions. We appreciate the recommendation for approval and I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Did ACHD make an opinion on the two stub streets, whether they should be stub streets or micro-paths? Turnbull: They were not required by ACHD. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman -- it sounds like that you're comfortable with the sewer situation. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: To proceed ahead? Turnbull: Yes. Borup: There may be some ambiguity there. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. Turnbull: That's it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page110fS9 Zaremba: Yeah. For the moment. Turnbull: Okay. Zaremba: This would be the opportunity for testimony from the public, if you have opinions on these subjects. We have a sign-up sheet for Items 4, 5 and 6, all of which have nobody signed up. So, if I don't see anybody waving their hand or moving toward the microphone -- okay. Apparently those of you that are here are not for this subject. So, that means the applicant doesn't need to respond to any of your questions. Commissioners? Canning: Chairman? Chairman? Zaremba: Where is that voice coming from? Sorry, Lord. Canning: If the Commission wishes to approve this application, the two items I have noticed that need to be referenced in the motion would the annexation boundary with regard to the landscape and the stub streets. I believe all the other conditions of approval are okay as is. Zaremba: Let me finish Director Canning's thought first, though. The two items that you mentioned, do those need to be part of the development agreement on page 11? I guess -- Canning: I believe the schools and stub streets; the issue was brought up with the preliminary plat application. The annexation boundary probably needs to be with the -- well, it could be -- it could be the preliminary plat also. I don't know that they are worthy of a development agreement condition. They are probably okay just in the preliminary plat. Zaremba: So, if we add those to site specific conditions, that, actually, would end up being on page 17. Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I do have a question for the applicant. Please enlighten me. I -- why do you want -- what is the value of moving forward with a project, full well knowing that it can't move forward until the sewer is developed and you have no concrete date when that may come to fruition? I mean help me with this. Turnbull: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Rohm, I have had some extensive discussions with Brad Watson, the director of Public Works, with Charlie Rountree, Commissioner in charge of the -- the liaison to the Public Works Department. City Council did direct Public Works Department to go out and get this project designed. We Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 12 of B9 believe it's with the anticipation of getting that project constructed in the near future. Obviously, they had set their budget already for the year, so as Bruce Freckleton mentioned, they don't have it in the budget this year, but that, you know, the new budget year starts in another six or seven months, so we believe that this project will move forward. So, it will take some time between getting approval and, going forward and getting our construction plans drawn, and those kinds of things. So, we don't think it's premature. In fact, I think you will find that you have approved other projects between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road without the sewer there, contingent upon that North Trunk sewer line being constructed. It's not any different than -- Rohm: Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to it, I just -- I was just curious, but thank you. Turnbull: Okay. Zaremba: My summary would be you're aware of the risk and you're willing to take that risk; is that -- Turnbull: Absolutely true. I have already taken it. Rohm: Thank you. Canning: Chairman? I have a little more information for you. On page 15, site specific condition number two, that's the one that we have made to be modified to say like a -- something to the effect that in the event the 45 acre parcel and Lot 3 are developed to schools, stub streets would not be required and, then, we would have the micro-path required, but -- Zaremba: He offered a micro-path. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Which he's already proposing, but-- Canning: Well, he's not proposing a micro-path to the -- Lot 3. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And, then, the -- having the boundary of the subdivision -- could be a preliminary plat condition. It's discussed in the preliminary plat section, so -- Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, any further discussion? Then are we prepared to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I think so. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 4, and 6. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 130f89 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Any discussion or thoughts to be presented? Newton-Huckabay: I just would have preferred to see the whole project, given that there is no urgency with the sewer, other than I would think having your development at the beginning of the sewer design will probably help design the sewer, I agree with that completely. Are the issues of the property to the north so complex that they couldn't have been resolved and put all this together? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is a long-standing point to which Mr. Turnbull and I have agreed to disagree and we have looked through the minutes and I think it's a case of -- I don't see the flexibility that he sees and so we have agreed that we will all get together and discuss this, but it needs to be part of a larger conversation, because of some other issues. One was when Paramount went in, it was such a large planned development that it was able, through the use exception, to really modify the nature of the commercial uses that were originally envisioned for the area and it has and will have an effect on the surrounding mile section and so that's one thing that we feel we really need to look at. And, then, just different access requirements from ITD, different things that have happened through the development of a lot of the north Meridian area, we feel we really need to look at the remaining parcels quite closely and consider what the appropriate uses are. In addition to the fact that we have had an annexation request from the property from the north side of Chinden and that -- so, we -- there is a lot of issues we need to look at that were beyond the scope of this one and we thought that the discussion on the north part of this would be an important part for that discussion as well. So, we wanted to do it altogether. Newton-Huckabay: You did want to do it altogether, but -- Canning: On the north part. I think that the southern part is fine to consider on its own. I just -- we were just primarily concerned about the uses along Chinden and -- Rohm: So, possibly by delaying that we will make better decisions down the road? Canning: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Good. Newton-Huckabay: That's the only question I had. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 140f89 Zaremba: Just to clarify for me, is it your assumption that whatever is decided on the currently blank parcels would not affect what happens on what we have before us? Canning: No. I think -- well, I think what you have before you is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will integrate well with -- the way that Broadbent Avenue is designed there provides an automatic transition to whatever may be on the other side of that street, so I think that that, as designed, we can -- we can do pretty much anything up there and -- and should have a fine development. Zaremba: Commissioners, you need to talk through the microphone. What we say needs to be on the record. Newton-Huckabay: They were trying to decide who was going to make the motion. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. That means that I will entertain a motion. Borup: Okay. We are still in discussion, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure maybe some of the things -- was it -- and am I accurate stating that the applicant agreed on the landscape easement north of Broadbent would be included in this annexation? Zaremba: They would -- Borup: Their landscape easement would be included? Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: It's a lot. It would be a lot. Borup: It would be a lot. Okay. A landscape lot shall be included as part of the annexation? Would that be correct wording? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. That was the only question I had. Zaremba: Are you volunteering to make the motion? Commissioner Borup? Borup: I'm just seeing how many motions we had here. I don't think we have anything affecting the first one on an annexation, do we? Moe: No. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-001, request for annexation and zoning of 156.49 acres, with the staff report of -- for hearing date March 3rd, 2005, with -- as written in the staff report. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 15 of 89 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-002, request for preliminary plat for the same hearing date of March 3rd, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: Under site specific conditions, preliminary plat, page 15, paragraph two, where it talks about in lieu of the micro-path. a stub street to the 45 acre potential school parcel to the west shall be provided if the property does not become a school site. And, then, the next sentence, provide a stub street to the north through Block 15, unless that property becomes a school site. Does that need to be clarified anymore than that? I don't know. Zaremba: I understood that. Borup: Okay. And, then, on page 16, part of paragraph five, it discusses the landscaping on the north of Broadbent Way, they do not lie within the preliminary plat. I'd like to add either at the end of that bullet point or the end. of that paragraph, that the landscaping lot for the landscaping on the north side of Broadbent shall be included in this application. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: You have got one more. Zaremba: Oh, Commissioner Borup, you're -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project of the March 3rd date, to include all staff comments of the staff memo, dated March 1 st. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries as well. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 160f89 Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: CUP 04-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments, LLP - 3679 East Overland Road: Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 7. This is CUP 04-056, a continued Public Hearing from February 17th, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments, LLP, 3679 East Overland Road and, like the previous issues, when it came up for hearing on February 17th, the applicant had requested a delay, which we did until tonight. So, once again, there was no testimony and we are beginning. Nobody's missed anything. We will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought it wasn't on. This is a request for one drive-thru window. The request for two was -- the reason for the delay was for the redraw of this site. This is in Silverstone Business Campus. It is a principally permitted use for a restaurant, but all drive-up windows require a Conditional Use Permit to be heard. The site is right off of Overland Road and the existing landscaping along Silverstone Way, Overland Road, and Jade Road -- or Jade Avenue on this site, is all existing. The only thing that is being approved tonight would be internal landscaping that we have reviewed and it would comply with our landscape ordinance. It's difficult to see, but the portion right down in here, this is a separate parcel that will be coming through for future uses, most likely through a CZC or it was part of a one-time division that occurred on this property, which was a portion of the certificate of zoning compliance that is in progress as well on the site, and in order to be -- try and be quick here, this is a fairly straight forward standard condition of approval for this type of a use and if you have any questions I will answer them. Staff is recommending approval. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No, sir. Borup: None. Zaremba: Okay. Would the applicant like to speak, please? Larsen: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen and I'm here tonight representing Sundance Investments. My address is 210 Murray in Garden City. We are in concurrence with the staff report's conditions of approval and I would be happy to discuss any issues on the project that you might have. I really don't have any comments on it. And I would like to take a minute after you have had discussions or questions and speak in favor of the project following mine on Item No.8. Zaremba: Any question? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 17 0189 Borup: I don't have any questions. This is another project in the business park and -- Zaremba: He's only here because of the drive-up window. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I see no -- it's not near any residences or anything. Newton-Huckabay: What's the restaurant? Larsen: One of them is a Chinese food restaurant and the other one is a sandwich facility. There will be one on the -- better get my directions straight. The south end -- that goes from the south end up to the north end and, then, there will be another one over in the corner that would be a drive-in sandwich facility. Moe: I guess the only other thing I would say is that I like this plan much more than the -- the previous one that we did see -- Larsen: Thank you. Moe: -- with the second drive-thru. Zaremba: All right. Well, thank you. We will invite you back up in a minute, but in the meantime -- Larsen: Thank you. Zaremba: -- I think -- is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this subject? We do have a sign-up sheet that has no one signed up, but this would be an opportunity if you have an opinion. Okay. Hearing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 04-056. Zaremba: One moment. Let me ask Mr. Larsen a question. You said you wanted to make further comments about the next item. Did you want to make that during this item or do you want -- Larsen: That would be fine. Zaremba: Or did you just want to be invited back? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 18ofS9 Larsen: Either way. The next item is one that's out in Silverstone as well and since I have been involved in that project for some time, I just wanted to say that the next item would be a very nice-looking building and I hope you will approve that as well. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I think the record has to match the item that we are talking about, so -- Larsen: Okay. I will come back. Zaremba: I'll invite you back to speak on that one. Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Moe, proceed with -- Moe: I just made a motion to -- Rohm: Second. Zaremba: All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Great. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-056, to include all staff comments of the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and received by the city clerk February the 25th, 2005. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 05-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a credit union facility with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Westmark Credit Union by Westmark Credit Union - SEC of Eagle & Overland Road in The Silverstone Corporate Center: Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the next item, which is Item 8. This is a Public Hearing, CUP 05-003, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a credit union facility with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Westmark Credit Union by Westmark Credit Union, southeast corner of Eagle and Overland Road in the Silverstone Corporate Center and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 190f89 Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The previous Item No.7 was here. Item No.8 is here, also in Silverstone. This is a request for a 3,477 square foot credit union, Again, the request is only for the conditional use for the drive-up window, which is in this location. It will be directionally controlled by signage on the site as per condition and the applicant's request in their discussion with Craig Hood, who is not here tonight. This, again, basically, is standard conditions of approval. I didn't see anything in there that would be extraneous or odd for this type of a site and if you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No, sir. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we'd like to have the applicant come forward. I'm guessing that would be Mr. Larsen again. Moe: No. Zaremba: No, it's not. I'm sorry. Zabala: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tom Zabala and my work address is 565 West Myrtle Street in Boise, here this evening representing Westmark Credit Union. We have had the opportunity to review the staff's conditions of approval and we take no exceptions to that and we recommend -- or would appreciate your favorable consideration this evening. Are there any questions? Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Moe: No, sir. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Zabala: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Larsen does appear to have something to say, Larsen: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I am -- I'll give my testimony on the proper item now, but we are in support of this new building out there. It's a nice addition to the Silverstone Campus and we would like to ask that you favorably approve that conditional use as well. Zaremba: Thank you. We do have one other person signed up. Matt Schaffer, Schaffer or Scheiffer. Okay. Mr. Schaffer says no comment and he is marked as being in the for -- in favor column. Those are the only people signed up. Anybody else care to testify. Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 20 of 89 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for CUP 05-003. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second, All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes. I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 003, for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2005, with the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-003 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres to a R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 130 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots in a proposed R-3 zone with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Next on the agenda we have three related items, nine, ten, and eleven. So, I will open all three public hearings. This is AZ 05-003, PP 05-004, and CUP 05-004, all relating to Kingsbridge -- Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC, at 4070 South Eagle Road and we will begin with the staff report. There are plenty of seats down in the front, if anybody that's hanging out in the hallway would care to have a seat. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 21 of 89 Canning: That's okay. I wasn't ready. Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, just to give you a brief background again, this is the Kingsbridge Subdivision, which came before you last year and in the fall of 2004 they did prepare an annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for the same property, the same 76 acres and in that application the proposed lot sizes were below the 8,000 square foot minimum of the requested R-4 zone and the gross density was about 3.1 dwelling units per acre. On September 16th your Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit and, then, you voted to deny the preliminary plat. Then, in October the applicant's request for reconsideration of a revised plat that included 18 fewer lots and increased minimum lot size was not acted on by the Planning and Zoning Commission, so it went on appeal up to the Council. The Council did consider the applicant's appeal and the -- so they considered all three applications, but they did ultimately deny all three applications after the Public Hearing on December 14th. So, that's just to get you caught up a little bit. The findings for denial were approved on January 4th and the basis for the denial was the lack of transition between the project and the large parcels around it and, again, it's an unusual situation where we have a number of five and ten acre lots that surround the property and, then, one acre lots in the Dartmoor Subdivision. The other reasons were the amount of traffic that would use the existing street, Dartmoor Street. The proposed density was too high. And it was not in the best interest of the city at that time. Let's see if we can get an overall one. There is an overall one, In response to the City Council's denial of the previous application, they have revised their plan and have done the following items: They include more traditional lot sizes at the project perimeter. They have increased all the project perimeter lot sizes, as you can see, and I can go back on some of those zoomed ones. And the applicant's letter goes into more detail on some of these lot sizes and I'll get to that, I'm just trying to -- I'm going to go through the staff report first and, then, I want to get to the applicant's most recent letter, dated March 1 st, because I think that that best summarizes some of the details of the application. The gross density is significantly lower. They have come back with a request for an R-3 zone, instead of the R-4 zone. The minimum lot size, I believe, it states in the staff report 12,000 square feet, but I believe it's actually up quite a bit higher than that. And the estimated additional traffic on Dartmoor is less than 300 vehicle trips per day, based on the new layout. Just to remind you, this portion of the property on the Comprehensive Plan is designated as low density residential. The southern portion, as shown here that connected to Eagle Road, is designated as medium density residential. The applicant has request -- or has provided a -- submitted a planned development to request reduced dimensional standards and those are, instead of a 90 foot minimum for a lot frontage requirement, they are requesting a 60 foot minimum. Those are on non-cul-de-sac properties. And, then, instead of a 40 foot minimum on cul-de-sacs or approximately 90 degree curves, they are requesting a 30 foot minimum. For block length, instead the one thousand foot maximum, they are asking for 1,325 feet, approximately. There are just two blocks that exceed the maximum thousand foot block length. And, then, of the 130 proposed lots in the original application, there are 25 that did not meet the minimum street frontage requirement for proposed R-3 zone, so it is about a fifth -- only a fifth of them didn't meet the frontage requirements. All of the lots requiring reduced lot frontage are internal to the Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 22 of 89 subdivision and are not on the exterior boundary. In exchange for those proposed modifications to the R-3 standards, the applicant is providing the following amenities: Over ten percent open space, a community park on Lot 10. I think I have a -- there we go. I believe this is the community park here. And on -- that's on Lot 10, Block 1, and that contains a swimming pool, a barbecue area with picnic tables, and a tot lot. There is another park that has a water feature, benches. Then, there is a walking path along - - within that park and, then, along the tree lined corridor. The landscape buffer is on the corridor with Kingsbridge -- along Kingsbridge Drive, which is this one here, and it goes down and, then, out to Eagle Road. And that has a detached sidewalk and, then, a walking path on the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal, which is here. Small open space pockets, bridge and monument sign, and, then, ornamental streetlights. Under the special considerations on page nine, I did want to point out that -- that the applicant is proposing three stub streets to the adjacent properties and Craig notes that he's generally in favor of the stub streets, but I think that he wanted one shifted approximately 50 feet east, so that it could -- would better match up with redevelopment of the property that it was stubbing into. And, then, the existing residence is on this lot right here. We are having -- it's -- there is a large residence on that property that currently takes access off of Zaldia Lane, that in the past this property, because it was in Ada County, was served by BFI. BFI is willing to go down county private lanes. Once the property is annexed, it would be serviced trash collection by SSC. SSC is not willing to go down county lanes. So, we have required that this lot bring their trash out to this property -- it seems like such a minor detail, but this is the only one we haven't come to an agreement with as far as staff is concerned. And I know the public will have other concerns tonight for your consideration, but they need to get this trash out to this street, so staff wants to see that this property actually has ownership of a portion of this common lot and I believe the applicant is concerned about not having control over the maintenance of the landscaping in that area. So, staff feels that this could still have a landscape easement on top of it for now, that would go away upon redevelopment, but for the time being the applicant could have access to this, just for the sake of putting trash out on that street to be picked up by SSC. And, then, finally, the applicant has made a number of commitments in the letter that is dated March 1 st, 2005, and we do recommend that if the Commission chooses to make a favorable motion on this -- or a favorable recommendation on this application, that you include those conditions -- or that you include that letter in the conditions of approval as additional commitments by the applicant and that would be under the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development. Craig has not recommended a development agreement. I think he has tied this to the Conditional Use Permit. The -- you may want to ask for legal advice on whether that should be in there or in just the conditions of approval. I'm going to go ahead and go through that letter now. You can ask him later. He perked up when he heard his name, but now I'm not going to let him talk. The applicant -- let's see. The first thing that they address in their letter was just how they went about meeting with the property owners and as you get to the last paragraph on that first page, it is concerning the properties -- and this is the revised layout that you're looking at on this screen. They removed I believe five of the lots on this -- and the applicant might be able to help me out or correct me later, as the case may be. They removed a number of the lots in this area to increase the minimum lot size from just over 12,000 square feet, they are now Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 23 of eg between 15 and 16 thousand square feet, so a significant increase in the square footage. That did reduce the total number of lots from 130 to 125, excuse me, build- able lots. And it reduced the overall project density to 1.63 dwelling units per acre and increased the average residential lot size to 17,200 square feet. The applicant and the neighbors also worked on a number of issues related to the perimeter lots and the height of the house sizes. They came to an agreement that approximately one half of the perimeter lots where there were existing residences close by, that they would limit the height of those lots to single story, but, then, on the other half they would be allowed to .do two story. And those Jots are detailed in that letter. The third issue is in regard to an off-site improvements that the applicant has agreed to and that's to construct a concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter in Dartmoor -- and let me see if I can -- so, along Dartmoor Drive. And, again, these are off-site improvements. They have agreed to do a concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter extending along the north side of Dartmoor Drive from the Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the school bus stop at the Eagle Road entry, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de- sac to the north side of Dartmoor Drive, a painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway on the south side of Dartmoor Drive. They have also agreed to install a vinyl privacy fencing, extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge and install either a five-foot wrought iron or six-foot vinyl privacy fence on all other project perimeters. They have proposed a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots and those -- that would be done through the CC&Rs. And they have -- well, if you adopt that -- if you adopt these conditions, then, it would be a condition of this approval. It wouldn't just be in the CC&Rs. And they have created in a new five-foot landscape strip south of the six foot vinyl fence to install on the southerly lots abutting Zaldia Lane. And, then, Zaldia Lane is down here at the southern end of the project. And, then, let's see, they grade the 20 foot buffer strip along Zaldia upward to the fence line and there is just some very particular items here. Again, I just wanted to emphasize that these are -- these are items that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to do that -- in their discussions with the neighboring properties. These were not city imposed conditions of approval. So; I think with that I will try to stay out of trouble and leave it at that and I'll let the applicant -- I know they have a prepared presentation for you as well. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners to staff at the moment? Canning: I forgot to mention. Staff is recommending approval of this application and there are numerous letters with -- expressing concerns with this application and primarily it is the density. There is one letter of support from one of those surrounding neighbors in your packet as well that I wanted to point out, because sometimes they don't come to testify, that I just wanted to note that there was one letter of support and now I will answer any questions you may have. Zaremba: Those were in our packet. I did see the one is support and several opposed. Okay. The applicant -- thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 24 of 89 Canning: And it's going to take me just a second to get ready for -- I guess it's not for you. Is it for you? Are you doing the slide presentation? Okay. It will take me just a second to get it prepared for them, Commissioners. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Canning had raised one issue about the letter of the 1 st and if this Commission was going to give a favorable motion, whether it should be part of a development agreement or part of the conditions of approval and my recommendation if the conditions in the letter are acceptable to the Commission and part of the motion for approval, if there is one, that we make that part of a development agreement, rather than just conditions of approval, so that it's clear that those are continuing obligations that go with that development and whatever development goes on that property, that all of those improvements are going to be made. Zaremba: So that the proper format would be to attach this to the annexation and zoning and have a development agreement that references the applicant's letter. Nary: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ken Elliott. E-I-I-i-o-t-t. I am legal counsel for the applicant Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle. 83616. It's good to be back here before the Commission this evening on this project. Our goal in coming back to you is to develop a planned community offering a range of lot sizes and home products to meet a wide variety of age groups, family sizes, incomes, who wish to move into south Meridian. The Commission may recall this is our first project in Meridian. I will say we have learned a lot since the hearing last September, based on our meetings with neighbors and the rather pointed comments of the City Council members at our hearing in December. The city planning director even encouraged us to change the name of the project to try to clarify that this is a re-filing. However, we are proud of the name Kingsbridge, we are even prouder of the project that we have now before you tonight. The name was chosen for the prominent bridge that we plan to build crossing the Ten Mile feeder canal and, historically, it's also a small village located immediately adjacent to the Dartmoor Nature Preserve in England. So, we thoughtit was an appropriate name for a new community next to Dartmoor. Our new plan for Kingsbridge has dramatically changed from the preliminary plat presented to the Commission last September. I have given you a table, page one in your packet, that details the revisions to the plat. You will notice a considerable evolution from the original plat denied by the Commission back in September, to the revised plat that we, then, presented for reconsideration where we had down-sized it by 18 lots. That was, then, appealed to the City Council. Finally, the current preliminary plat before the Commission this evening is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 25 of ag based on direction we received at the City Council hearing in December. The results of that hearing are that we eliminated 95 more lots from the project, we increased perimeter lot sizes on the northern tract to an average of one half acre in size, perimeter lots on the R-8 zoned or designated tract on the south to an average of 16,000 square feet. Several of the City Councilors said they look at our property as an island surrounded by rural development, in contrast to the isolated pockets of rural land that are surrounded by city as it grows through annexations. We still believe our original plat of 237 lots, with 11 percent open space, community pool, park, park and other amenities, was consistent with the future land use map designation of low density residential and the R-4 zoning recommended last fall by the planning staff. However, we have also come to appreciate that our property is somewhere unique, because of the large number of clustered rural residences on acreage lots surrounding the site. We believe in strong communities, with elbow room, parks, and walking trails, that encourage neighborliness and promote an atmosphere in which parents can raise healthy, well-adjusted kids, and the remaining difference, I think, in our prospective and that of some of our neighbors, is that we strongly believe that these goals can be achieved on 10,000 square foot lots and in a well-planned neighborhood with a strong homeowners association and not just on one acre lots. You will doubtless hear from several remaining opponents tonight. From our conversations with the neighbors, we believe that a silent majority -- or, at the very least, a quiet one third to one half of the Dartmoor residents are now satisfied that we have done a reasonable job of addressing their concerns. We are hopeful that we have gained the quiet support or at least neutral acceptance of many of those neighbors who spoke loudly in opposition last September. My letter to the Commission, dated March 1 st, has now been detailed by the planning director and it confirms our agreement to additional changes that were not reflected in the application. We have deleted the five lots on the southern tract. We have designated 22 of the perimeter lots for single family dwellings or single story dwellings, rather, and we have listed a group of amenities that were requested by the Dartmoor neighbors for pedestrian safety and for the buffer between our neighborhood and theirs and we will agree to whatever form of condition or development agreement that we are directed by the city to confirm that. I understand you will hear testimony this evening from Brady Turner, who is the new president of the Dartmoor association. I'm hopeful that he will be willing to acknowledge the differences of opinion among the Dartmoor neighbors and that they are no longer a united front opposing the project. However, the letter that Mr. and Mrs. Tumer wrote to this Commission on February 21 st, and it's in the record, gives little indication that any compromises were made to address the neighbors' concerns. The letter says that we have not adequately reduced density in the current design, that our project is distinctly urban in character and that we failed to consider the City Council state of preference for much lower density, specifically, Councilman Bird recommend that if something came in approaching R-2, he would support it. Mr. urner has the right to his opinion. He certainly is entitled to express that this evening, I just don't think his opinion is supported by the facts that are -- that will be demonstrated by our application. Let's look now at the revisions we made to the project since last fall. The number of residential lots have nearly been cut in half from 237 to 125. The average lot size has nearly doubled from 8,400 to 17,200 square feet. Essentially, we are almost up to the 18,000 square foot minimum required for the R-2 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 26 of 89 zone. The minimum lot size has increased from 7,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The range in lot sizes has -- is now between 12,000 up to over 33,000 square feet. The gross density per acre was -- as staff mentioned, just over three per acre, 3.09 in the original application, we are now down to 1.63 dwelling units per acre. Page four of your packet is a table of residential projects approved by the city over the past couple of years south of Overland Road, extending from Linder Road on the west, to the city's area of impact boundaries on the south and east. There is a consistent pattern of gross densities in the range of 2.5 to three dwelling units per acre on R-4 zoned land. To our knowledge, Kingsbridge, with its gross density now proposed of 1.63 per acre, will be the lowest density residential project in the City of Meridian. 1.63 is well below the two units per acre maximum called for in the city's R-2 zone, which is the lowest density rural residential zone found in the zoning ordinance. Back to the chart. Our total daily vehicle trips, because of the reduced density, have been cut from 2,268 down to 1,235. Because .of that reduced density and the reconfiguration of our streets, the daily trips through Dartmoor projected are reduced from 800 to less than 300 vehicle trips per day. The number of density of the lots around our perimeter generated considerable discussion at both the Commission and City Council hearings last fall. We listened and we have responded to the concerns of our neighbors. The total lots on our north boundary we have cut from 22 to ten. Total number of lots on the east boundary from 16 -- actually, that's incorrect. It's down to eight, rather than just ten lots. The south boundary along the Ten Mile feeder canal from 20 down to eight. And those along Zaldia reduced from 12 to six. We have also enhanced the landscaping along Zaldia Lane in response to the neighbors' concerns to the south. This is a diagram of a cross- section showing the way we plan to grade up the 20 foot buffer strip from Zaldia Lane up to the property line, adding an additional five feet of relief, then, a six foot vinyl fence on top of that berm at the property line and conifer trees 20 feet.on center all along the south side of the fence, rather than inside the backyard of each lot, as we had originally proposed. We expect to hear testimony from property owners on Selatir Place that the one half acre lots all along our northern and eastern boundaries do not create a harmonious transition from the rural one and five acre lots to the north and east. As I mentioned earlier, we have more than tripled the lot sizes along our eastem boundary from 7,000 to over one half acre. I'd like to show a quick Powerpoint presentation here. It's coming. This illustrates the view of our half acre lots from the three closest backyards on Selatir Place. We have drawn large houses with 60 foot wide by 40 deep footprints, full two stories in height, with roof peaks at 32 feet. These illustrate 4,800 square foot homes, probably among the largest that would be built in Kingsbridge and, yet, they still have 80 feet clear between the homes on the one half acre lots. Basically each house has two 40-foot sideyard setbacks, even with the large footprint. The closest backyard on Selatir Place is 450 feet away from the nearest Kingsbridge home and we will get to that in just a moment, I believe. Here we go. That's the Johnson residence, about 450 feet. Further north the Lavigne backyard is more than 600 feet from our nearest house or more than two football fields away. If -- and I hope when the city approves annexation of the Kingsbridge property, the adjoining five acre lots on Selatir Place would be entitled to apply for prompt annexation and zoning for three dwelling units per acre or up to 15 homes on each of those five acre parcels. Now, the present owners may have no plans to redevelop within their lifetime and that's certainly Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 27 of 89 their choice. If that's the case, their rural lifestyles will be preserved by the five acre lots that they purchased. The nearest new home in Kingsbridge will be in the case of the Johnson residence, about one and a half football fields or in the case of the Lavigne residence, more than two football fields away. The number of lots adjoining the rural lots has been cut in half from ten to five. For comparison, we also prepared a prospective view of the ten houses that would have been built if our previous plat had been approved. And, frankly, we see a great improvement and, frankly, an understanding for the concern expressed last fall. The difference in openness and vistas between the two densities is traumatic and we firmly believe we have created a harmonious transition that's sensitive to the lifestyles and the property values of the adjoining property owners. We have been in touch with three potential builders for our project. Scottsdale Homes, SH Homes, and Moose Creek Builder. These are three quality builders active in the Meridian and Eagle markets and these are samples of the types of homes that we would expect to see in Kingsbridge. There is no mention of a one acre lot in any of the residential districts in the city zoning ordinance and we must presume that the city considered and rejected such a land expansive development pattern for its future residential growth, keeping in mind the cost of extending public water and sewer to those one acre lots and the inevitable sprawl as the city grows. Meridian's Mayor pointed with pride last fall to the explosive growth of the city's employment base, particularly as a direct result of Silverstone and EI Dorado. The projection is that 14,000 jobs will be located in those two business parts by the end of 2005 and we just want to create a vibrant community that addresses a small portion of the city's housing needs south of the freeway, in close proximity to the major job centers, while being sensitive to the existing rural development on the adjoining county properties. We respectfully urge your recommendation of approval of the three applications and thank you for your consideration. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Elliott? All right. Borup: I do have just one, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I refer to your letter on single story homes. You say -- I think you state that single story homes on adjoining lots in close proximity. Do you have a definition of close proximity, what -- how many feet are you considering close? I saw your demonstration here -- Elliott: Up to about 100 or 150 feet. We-- Borup: Something close to 150 feet. Elliot: One slide we missed for the presentation tonight is the designation of those -- there are many copies I think here in the audience, but anywhere there was an existing house close to our perimeter, we designated a single story to -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 28 of 89 Borup: So 100 feet? Elliott: It may even be slightly more than 100 feet, but it's -- there is a clear line of demarcation between the ones that are close and the ones that are not close and that's what we tried to show, the closest one on the eastern boundary is about 450 feet. In Coons Hollow we have two northwesterly home sites, they have their building envelopes by plat at the northern ends of their five acre lots, the two easterly ones are at the south end of the lots, so they are far removed, six or seven hundred feet from our boundary. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. This would be time for public testimony and I do have the sign-up sheet. Let me ask first, though, is there a spokesman for a homeowners association? And are you speaking on behalf of many people? We will start with you, sir. Turner: Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I have been asked to speak for all Dartmoor homeowners this evening. I understand that I have ten minutes; is that correct? Zaremba: Yes. Turner: Okay. We recognize and thank the applicant for the good progress that they have made in reducing the density and enlarging the perimeter lots to help ease the transition. However, our primary concem is they have not gone far enough. The current proposal is only a one step density reduction from the previous proposal, from R-4 to R-3. The applicant states that their project is low-density rural residential zoning. However, R-3 is rural medium density residential district, not low density. Section 11-2 - - or 11-7-2-A of the city code states R-2 rural low-density residential district. The purpose of the R-2 district is to permit the establishing of rural, low density, single family dwellings and to delineate those areas where predominately rural residential development has or is likely to occur. The proposed development is entirely surrounded by rural properties one acre and larger. Even at R-2 zoning the minimum lot size is 58 percent smaller than the largest surrounding property. I'm not sure where Mr. Elliott got his information, but at our homeowners meeting last Tuesday evening, all of the homeowners of Dartmoor Subdivision agreed that R-2 zoning and not R-3 zoning is compatible with the surrounding properties. The Dartmoor homeowners association and all homeowners continue to stand unanimously in opposition. Our feelings are supported by the City Council in previous application hearings. Councilman Rountree stated, quote: We have an enclave, but reverse to the kinds of enclaves we typically deal with, the city surrounding a rural area, and in this case we have a rural area surrounding the city. The applicant stated that they meet the density conditions for R-2 zoning. If they meet the R-2 density requirements, then, we ask the project be zoned R- 2. Councilman Bird previously stated, quote: I think this setting, with the rural around it, I just can't go for the density. Now, if it was R-2 or something like that, I probably could Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 29 of 89 support it. Commissioner Zaremba, you stated last time before we were -- before that, quote, you were comfortable with low densities as we go towards the exterior of the city, particularly as they surround existing low densities. In this case the property is completely surrounded by low-density rural properties. There is no future city annexation path from Kingsbridge. Moreover, it is on the fringe of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, which stops with the properties on the east side of Selatir Lane. This will be the first annexation by the city into this section of Ada County. You have the opportunity tonight to create a rural buffer between the cities of Meridian and Boise and avoid the urban sprawl that spreads from city to city in so many metropolitan areas. We proposed at the City Council hearing on the last application that Kingsbridge be developed and marketed as executive homes, drawn from the executives and professionals working in the Silverstone, EI Dorado business parks, St. Luke's Hospital, and other Meridian businesses. This would give Meridian an opportunity to attract homeowners who would otherwise live in Eagle due to the lack of this type of executive home in Meridian. Mayor de Weerd has previously stated, quote: I also agreed with the testimony that this is an opportunity for the executive houses. She further stated, quote: Those jobs coming in do provide some opportunity for housing that currently doesn't exist. This is certainly an opportunity to provide choices in our city for different housing stock. The type of housing that surrounds it in this rural area-- and it is a city's area of impact, so it is supposed to be urban, but since the homes that surround this are not very -- excuse me -- are very nice, high quality homes, it doesn't make sense trying to urbanize this area that is very rural. We all know how congested Eagle Road is. I don't need to remind you of that. I work at Hewlett-Packard and what used to be a 12 minute commute for me is now 35 minutes and that's on a good day, if I'm lucky. And Eagle Road is only going to get worse. The applicant, we feel, with a little creative marketing, can use this to their advantage and provide an opportunity for the executive home buyer to look closer to their place of work and not have to traverse some of the most heavily congested roads in the state of Idaho. Schools in this area are already over capacity. R-2 zoning would help to reduce the impact on schools. We believe that the R-2 zoning would be compatible with the surrounding acreages, create a transition between Boise and Meridian and attract executive home buyers working in Meridian to live in Meridian, as opposed to Eagle. We would support this proposal at R-2 zoning with larger perimeter lots as transition. We do not support this development at R-3 zoning. We have a number of secondary concerns, some of which have been addressed by the applicant. We still remain concerned about the volume of traffic along Dartmoor Drive. Of course, reducing the zoning to R-2 would have the greatest impact on reducing traffic volumes along Dartmoor Subdivision. We would also like to see the applicant make Ivy Way Drive, which is right here, between Kingsbridge Drive and Maryvale Way a cul-de- sac. This would further deter traffic from coming down Dartmoor Drive and it would be a simple plat change. To insure safety of the pedestrians from both Dartmoor and Kingsbridge Subdivisions, we would like to see sidewalks installed along both sides of Dartmoor Drive to Eagle Road. Since these proposals are all off site and cannot come under a development agreement, we respectfully ask the city, as a condition of approval, to enjoin the applicant to negotiate a contract with the Dartmoor homeowners association to construct these sidewalks at applicant's expense prior to the completion of phase one of Kingsbridge. The applicant has offered to install vinyl privacy fencing Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 30 of 89 along Dartmoor Drive to the cul-de-sacs, but is apparently under the impression that the homeowners do not want that. I believe there is confusion on this point and we have at least one homeowner that would like to reopen discussions on that point. We thank the staff for the recommendations to prohibit construction traffic along Dartmoor Drive or the ditch riders access to the Ten Mile feeder. However, since the recommended placement of the signs at the entrance -- at the entrance to Kingsbridge Subdivision, construction traffic will have already driven through Dartmoor before seeing those signs. We feel this needs to be addressed further. One option would be to install speed bumps just to the west of Kingsbridge on Dartmoor drive to further discourage construction traffic. We also feel that this needs to be a condition of approval. The applicant has offered to restrict some of the perimeter lots to single story homes in the CC&Rs. We feel this is a wonderful concession, we really like this. However, we feel that many people don't read the CC&Rs prior to building their homes. We would like to have those lots restricted on the title deed and the plat as well. We are concerned that the development of this property will reduce the irrigation tail water flowing off the previously irrigated land into the Dartmoor pond, which has been used for our fire suppression and irrigation. We are also concerned about the location of the storm water basin, roughly at Newbridge Drive and Benter Way, that is right about there. The general slope ofthe land slopes down in this direction and down in this direction from the holding pond. We are concerned also that there is no holding pond on the 20 acres to the south of the Ten Mile Lateral. Historically, our water -- storm water and drainage has been piped across the Ten Mile Lateral in a feeder pipe, roughly about here, into a ditch that is, then, fed into the Dartmoor irrigation pond. We need a guarantee that the storm water runoff from the -- within Kingsbridge will be contained within Kingsbridge and will not contaminate our irrigation or domestic water, nor will runoff flow across any Dartmoor properties which are at a lower elevation. I don't have time to discuss the remaining recommendations that was in the staff report. We thank you for a lot of the excellent recommendations that you had made. We would request and agree with Mr. Nary that the city enter into a development agreement with the applicant to insure that these recommendations are fulfilled. In closing, while the applicant has stated that they met with the homeowners, what was unsaid was the proposal for their review was submitted on January 14th and the meeting with the homeowners did not incur until January 26th. Based on the comments made by this Commission and by City Council, it was the homeowners' understanding that it was your desire that the applicant would meet with the surrounding homeowners to resolve outstanding issues prior to submitting a new application. We were very disappointed that this did not happen. We feel that there is still a number of issues that need to be resolved before providing our support for this project. However, this hearing deadline did not allow sufficient time to allow continue ongoing negotiations. We are, therefore, asking this hearing be continued to allow time for the homeowners and the applicant to resolve these issues and come to an agreement that both parties can support. Thank you for your consideration. Zaremba: Question for Mr. Turner? Borup: Yes. I had one. I don't know if we have ever heard -- how many residences are there in Dartmoor? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 31 of 89 TUrner: There are 15 -- there are 15 homes in Dartmoor. Borup: Okay. And do you know what the square footage would be of the smallest home? Tomer: The CC&Rs require a minimum of 2,000 square feet. Borup: Two thousand. Okay. Turner: I be.lieve my house may be one of the smallest and it's currently 2,400 square feet. Borup: All right. Thank you. Turner: You're welcome. Zaremba: Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Turner spoke clearly and eloquently and we understood his points. We have quite a number of people signed up and I will go through the list, but if you are a person who signed up and Mr. Turner was speaking for you, would you, please, indicate that. We understood what he said. Let me begin with -- I believe it's Lisa Becker? Becker: Lisa Becker. Anna, could you, please, put up the map that shows our property? Canning: It will take just a moment. Becker: Okay. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Lisa Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. I have three issues that I want to talk with you about today. The density of the transition lots. There is no landscape buffer along the east side. And there is incompatibility with the land use in the existing area. I can show you where we live. We live on five acres right here. I wanted to talk a little bit about the lot size comparison. This is a scaled representation of our lot. It's 5.4 acres. This is what they want to put beside it. Half acres. I don't consider that transitional density. What we are proposing is one-acre transitional density. This is a representation of one acre scaled to size compared with our lot. The Comprehensive Plan states that new urban density subdivisions which abut low density residential land, use landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more compatible lots. So, I think we need to talk about what larger, more compatible lots look like. I don't feel a half acre is a larger, more compatible lot up against five acres. And they do that in the Comprehensive Plan to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural densities. Kingsbridge has actually provided neither a landscape buffer or larger compatible lots against our property. I agree with the comments earlier. Mayor de Weerd stated that she would like to see a high-end executive development in this area. I talked with the developer about the beauty of the lots that would be adjacent to us. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 32 of ag One acre lots would have an unobstructed view of the mountains forever, looking out over our five acre pastures. He could actual get prime price for that. So, we are proposing that you combine Lots 5 and 6 -- he has five and six into one acre lots and Lots 3 and 4 into one acre lots along the southeast edge of the property. We are proposing that he provide landscaped buffer. Currently, the only buffer that's there is the irrigation easement and it's just a weedy fire hazard. So, we ask that you follow the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about how new zoning must be harmonious with the current development and just to give you a feel for the -- the feel of that area, they are basically surrounded completely by five and ten acre lots. Dartmoor has the smallest lots, they are one acre, but, basically, it's surrounded all by five and ten acre lots and its home values are between 350 and a million dollars. So, that's the feel, that's the character of the area that we want to preserve. Appreciate your time. Zé remba: Thank you. Bob Becker. You're welcome to state that you agree with the previous speaker. Is that what you're indicating? You wouldn't disagree with your wife, would you? B.Becker: There may be only one -- there may be one point. Zaremba: Please state your name. B.Becker: Could you bring up the picture of the surrounding property -- our properties? Bob Becker. I reside at 3421 South Selatir Place. Zaremba: Thank you. B.Becker: Our lot's right there. This lot right here, this is 2.71 acres. That was a requirement as a buffer lot when they put in this subdivision right here, which is called Bremerton, and these are one acre lots and they put a 2.71 acre buffer lot between these larger lots and our subdivision and these one acre lots. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to require one acre lots back here against a 5.75 acre lot, a 5.41 acre lot. A 5.41 acre lot. I'm sorry. This is the 5.75. This is the 5.4. This is the 5.41. Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Yes. One. If, in fact, you had acre lots there, would you be opposed to do two story homes in that area, then? B.Becker: No. Moe: Okay. Thank you. B.Becker: Anything else? Thank you. Zaremba: Frank Shoemaker. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 33 of 89 Shoemaker: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I currently am building a home approximately right there on Zaldia Lane. Five-acre parcel. Address is 4497 Zaldia Lane. The developer proposes a 50 percent ratio of homes along the area right there. I believe there is a ratio to -- as a transition period for Dartmoor. On this side in here he has 22,000 square foot lots. That's approximately a ten percent ratio. Down here on Zaldia Lane, the south end, he has 16,000 square foot lots, which is approximately a seven percent ratio. He argues that because that area there is zoned medium density, which it is not, it is in the Comprehensive Plan as a future consideration. I guess currently it's RUT zoning, rural urban transition, one home per five acres, with one home per one acre with city services extended. Because of the high density and the medium density he proposes against our five and ten acre lots there, he proposes at least over 17,000 square foot -- or 16,000 square foot lots. That area is no different than that area or that area. We should be the same, no matter what the conclusion is, on these perimeter lots, we are perimeter also. The developer -- we have asked for one level homes and the developer has -- has identified I think three or four homes right through there as one level. However, there are two lots right here, I believe Lots 8 and 10, that he does not designate and we would appreciate those to be one level homes also. Because my house is right here and Phil's are right there, so that is a direct view of our property there like so. If he would like to move some two story down here on South Eagle to buffer the extensive traffic noise, that would be -- that would be all right. In conclusion, I would like to say that the -- as stated here earlier this evening, the City Council suggested estate size lots. The lots that are proposed are not estate size lots. It appears to me the developer is more concerned with satisfying the needs of the Dartmoor people, because the perimeter people, as you can see, they have a 50 percent ratio that backs up to them, we have a ten percent and a seven percent ratio abutting the transition area, which I don't think is correct, but I do appreciate the one level homes. Thank you, Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I have a question of Mr. Shoemaker. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Shoemaker: Yes, sir. Borup: You had made a statement on estate size lots? Shoemaker: Yes, sir. Borup: What is the definition of an estate size lot? Shoemaker: Something bigger than what we have, I guess. I guess it's in the minds of the -- I would think they should be -- I would like to see one acre lots, personally. Borup: But where is that definition? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 34 of 89 Shoemaker: The definition of estate size lot? Borup: Yeah. It says -- that's what I was just trying to -- you're stating that it's in the mind of the beholder. Shoemaker: Yeah. Right. That was the Mayor's statement, you know, estate size lots. I'm assuming it would be something close to a one-acre parcel size and not something that's a high density. Borup: So, is the consensus that Meridian does not now have any subdivisions of estate size lots? Shoemaker: That is exactly right. Everything is over in Eagle. That's where the estates -- that's one acre and the estate size homes are over there. Meridian, we have the high density in-fill projects and -- Borup: So, Meridian Greens and some of those fine subdivisions like that would not be considered -- Shoemaker: There is some portions of Meridian Greens that are very nice and they have almost one acre lots I think on the south end of that project, but on the interior of that project, when it first started, those were the small lots also. Borup: South end are 15, 16, I believe -- Shoemaker: They are large enough to have detached shops approved on them, so -- but -- any other questions? Borup: Okay. I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I just have the same question that Mr. -- or Commissioner Moe had for Mr. Becker. If you had a one-acre lot, would you want a one-story house? Shoemaker: I guess there is give and take every place, but I'm going to hold tight with the one level homes, because I don't -- I think the - depending upon the setback,. the way it is right now, those lots on the south end of the project, you know, they butt right up to that buffer zone and landscaping in a two level house. Driving down Zaldia Lane or the view from my front yard, two story -- big two story homes would have to be built there. If it's on acre lots -- I would prefer to have one acre. I would prefer to have one level homes, as to the two story, period. I think the reason we have two story homes in the majority of our subdivisions is because the lot sizes are so small that it dictates in a certain price category that you have to have that two-story configuration. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So-- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 35 of 89 Shoemaker: I prefer one level. No. Zaremba: Thank you. Jeff McKee. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Zaremba: I'm sorry. Hang on, Jeff. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have so much paperwork in front of me on this project, so you will have to forgive me. Was there not -- was it along Zaldia Lane that there was going to end up being approximately 11 feet height -- Borup: Yes. Five foot berm with a six-foot fence. Newton-Huckabay: Five foot berm and a six fence along all of Zaldia Lane --- or the property -- is that -- yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We can continue. I was done. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Jeff McKee. All right. Thank you very much. Marked in the column for against. Sharon McKee. Thank you. Okay, Also marked in the column against. Jean Marie Patteson. All right. Thank you. Catch up on my paperwork here. Michael -- and it looks like it starts with an R. It might be Reef. All right. Thank you. Also marked as against. Tim Rule. R-u-I-e. Also Renee Rule. Neither appear to be here at the moment, but they are both marked as against. They are also Dartmoor residents I'm told. David Lavene or Lavigne. I'll let you pronounce it when you get here, sir. Lavigne: Commissioner and Commission, thanks for your time. My name is David Lavigne. It is pronounced Lavigne. 'live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is located right there. And I have to say I concur with everything that Mr. -- Brady said and went through in his presentation. He did a great job. And there is a couple points that I wanted to go over. One of them was -- and still seems to be the major consensus is the density surrounding the RUT zoning of Ada County, the transition -- the lack of transition lots and one of the points I wanted to bring up about it was Mr. Elliott kind of brought up in his proposal is we are now at 1.6 homes per acre, which has come quite a ways from what he was originally -- the original proposal was and I appreciate that and -- but if you look at -- I have looked at all the surrounding properties and you look at all these exterior properties, they are all five, ten acres, and ten acres and one acres, if you total all those properties up, you got about 115 acres. There is actually 31 homes on those acres. That means there is -- the density for that surrounding area is .27 homes per acre. Okay. We got 1.6 compared to .27. That's six times the density of what's there. So, that's pretty extreme. And you talk about there is 50 percent transitions between Dartmoor and proposed half acres -- there is ten percent of transitions, but that's six times the density of what is currently right there right now. Sure, there may be some future changes down the road, somebody might redevelop something or somebody sell their parcel off, but this is what's here now, this is what we are looking at. So, that's kind of what I wanted to bring up. And I'm sure everybody's seen some of the articles in Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 38 of B9 the Statesman just recently in last Sunday's paper, some of the issues and whatnot, and I can't believe that annexing this property is something that's actually going to be good for the City of Meridian right now. As Mayor de Weerd had said in our December 14th meeting, she said I think this is a great development, but I think you need to find someplace else in Meridian to put it. So, I agree with those comments and that's all I have to say. Thanks. Zaremba: Thank you. Tammy Cook. Okay. Was already spoke for. And that would be probably R. M. Cook as well. Okay. I believe it's Tim Petsch -- possibly. P-e-t-s-c- h. Okay. The last three are -- I mentioned are all marked as against. Lisa Petsch also marked against. Thank you. Bradford Deadman. Close? Deadman: My name is Bradford Deadman. My wife and I live on 3644 Zaldia Lane. Right here. I'll never be able to hold this steady. Right at a pinpoint. Right at the back of this five acre plat. As usual, I regularly print up my remarks, but as you have seen twice now, I -- the recent comments I hear are driving me in a more urgent direction. The first one is I was quite uncomfortable with comments Ken Elliott made regarding the silent majority, in the hopes that one third to one half of Dartmoor would be in support of this project. Also the attack on Brady Turner. He tried to -- he tried to debase Brady Turner's credibility as a proper representative of his neighborhood and I feel that's unjust. One thing that I'm quite curious about is on page four of the packet that Ken Elliott provided you, he cites that there is an example here of where there is several other subdivisions that were built along this model where there weren't opposing neighbors. I'm quite curious if -- and although I'm not asking you to refer to it, unless you wish, but I'm quite curious if, indeed, all the perimeter property owners showed up in opposition to those other projects that were cited. On the slide referred to regarding David Lavigne's property on Selatir, there was a remark made that his home is two football fields away from the closest comparable lot. And, of course, as David indicated earlier, his property is right here. Well, I pretty clearly see on the same map -- or the same slide that there is a home right here, another one right here, with adjacent properties right here. So, I almost feel that it's a bit unfair to compare -- in an effort to devalue David Lavigne's argument that his home is in too close proximity -- approximately two football fields, when, indeed, there are several homes closer. Moving onto what I really came here to talk about. My efforts along Zaldia have been to talk to several of my neighbors. Along the Zaldia property here, of course, I have talked to Phillip Shoemaker and Frank right along here -- or, excuse me, Phillip and, forgive me, gentlemen. I have spoken with my other neighbors here, here -- or, excuse me, the owner of both of these properties is here this evening. I have spoken to a gentleman that owns property along here, Bott Lane, it's been very interesting -- in fact, that we are working way, as you know for the night here, we have worked our way slowly around Dartmoor, around Selatir -- we haven't spoken to Terri yet, but that's coming up. All the way around to Zaldia and the same argument continues, that we are all in support of good subdivision development. We are all in favor of a one acre plat. We are all in favor of one level homes as a perimeter. The one thing that if -- I guess I'm done. But I just want to let you know that we are all still in that same position again. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 37 of 89 Zaremba: Thank you. Deadman: Any questions for me? Zaremba: Donna Rich. Okay. I can't make out the next one, but it might be Kelly something or other. Somebody who marked neutral. Okay. Do you care to speak? Rich: I do. Thank you. Kava Rich and I live at I live at 663 East Lake Creek in Observation Point, which is fairly close to the proposed neighborhood. I speak to you tonight as a proposed buyer in this area. We have had many homes south of the interstate and we are very interested in staying in south Meridian, mainly because of the traffic that is found on the other side of the interstate. I am looking forward to purchasing an estate size property. Commissioner Borup, I do not know what the criteria for an estate size property is, however, in this section of Meridian I would think that the neighboring comments of the one acre lots would be appropriate for an estate size. That happens to be the size that I would like to build on also. We have done some extensive looking out -- we have been trying. to find some lots to build on and there is just not much to be found in south Meridian. To find any estate size property you have to go to Kuna and I'm not interested in living in Kuna. I love Meridian, I love to live in Meridian, I do not want to move to Eagle or Kuna to find a lot size that I need to build an estate where I can raise my three boys, which need at least an acre to run on. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Tim O'Brien. All right. Thank you. Marked as against. Must be Theresa Turner. I assume Mr. Turner spoke for you. Okay. Also marked as against. T. Wallace. Thank you. Marked as against. And Lori Wallace. Same. Okay. Rich Schuttsman. Is that close? It begins S-c-h-u-t-t-s-m -- I'm not sure what follows that. Thank you. Rich and Brenda both. Rich. I'm sorry. Okay. Phil Allen. Okay. Lori Allen, then. Allen: Well, I gave you a plat -- my name is Lori Allen and I live on Terri Drive. Right there. And my neighbor is sitting behind me and he will probably speak, too. He's right there. Kingsbridge has made some progress, some superficial effort to appease us so we would go away and quit arguing, perhaps, but the bottom line is it is still way too dense and an unsolicited speaker came from some other neighborhood and came to tell you that she would buy the property and I'm a realtor and I know there are many other people who would be more than interested in acre properties. So, I hope that you will try to make that work and put acres on at least the perimeter and maybe the half acres on the inside and we could serve a lot of people that don't have that kind of property right now. Thank you. Oh, one more thing. That map does show you how dense it is when you superimpose his project on top of that. Like that it doesn't show you. And, then, he goes back to the plan that just shows his plan without this landing area. So, I put them together and hope that you can see how busy it gets, Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I believe we are looking for Lee Moncarr. Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 38 of 89 Moncarr: My name is Lee Moncarr. (live at 3415 South Terri Drive, about right there. And, actually, with all the properties around, my house is probably the closest to anybody and I'm thinking probably out my back door to their back door in this area is probably less a hundred feet. It's just sad that my house was configured that way, but my house was probably one of the first ones in the whole area in '74 when it was built. And spent a year and a half remodeling and adding on. This is way too dense around here for our area, you know, and that's the same complaint everybody has. If this does go through, I would surely hope there is a stop sign right here within the next year, because that's a mess. And I know -- I watch people -- and I have done it myself -- right here at the bottom of the canal, anytime between like 4:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock you go through Thousand Springs to get over to Victory to get through, because you will sit there for 20 minutes easy and I have seen people come through Victory and go through Tuscany to pop out over here on Rome to get out, to get south, because you can't get through in that area for a good two hours and if this is going through, this should be kicked open four lanes clear down passed all this, because this is a nightmare for traffic. I sat last night and watched eight people turn and go through Thousand Springs to get to Slate Creek to come through on Simms and out Brady's Jewel right there to get through. And it's just -- it's the same going this way on this, you know, you dump all these people out here, the traffic is going to be even more horrendous, but the whole situation just doesn't quit fit. One acre lots would be nice. They are proposing four -- two single level homes right here between us and Aliens, which is neat, but, you know, I guess I can't help it. If they are going to put a perimeter fence here, a six foot fence, and, then, have a 25 foot buffer zone to their backyard for another fence, from what I understand they are having a pathway or walkway along back here, they are going to pipe that ditch in and that's going to be nice, because we get rid of the weeds factor, but, still it -- I don't know. I think it all comes down to -- I'm not even going to say. That's all. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Sandy Moncarr. Anything to add? In support of your husband. Also marked against. Okay. One name that was only on one of these lists and that is David Seegmiller. Seegmiller: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, my name is David Seegmiller, I live at 4880 Bott Lane. I own a property right here off of Zaldia Lane and Coons Hollow. I wish to speak to two points. The first is that Mr. and Mrs. Beckhurst spoke well of the transition and the larger lots. I ask that you consider that along the southern end of Kingsbridge to the five-acre lots in Coons Hollow Subdivision. The second point is regarding the 1,200 -- estimated 1,235 vehicle trips per day through the subdivision. And all of those trips will be directed along Eagle Road. And as was stated previously, the traffic situation there is not good. At the Silverstone business development on Eagle Road south, Eagle Road turns into a two-lane road. The intersection of Eagle and Victory is a four way stop with a flashing red light. There is a fire station -- rural fire station, which is to be built on Eagle Road, but it's not built yet. Eagle Road has not been widened yet and an intersection, which is -- well, it will be widened, has not been improved yet, as well as the remaining two-lane stretch down to Kingsbridge Subdivision. So, I think as far as the issues relating to emergency Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 39 of 89 response and vehicle trips and congestion need to be addressed. Now whether this subdivision is worthy of approval or not, these are separate issues which regard timing and infrastructure, which also need to be addressed. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that project-- that road-widening project getting underway in 2005? 2006? Zaremba: It sounds like there is a consensus for 2007 on that project. Okay. That was the end of the list of those that had signed up. If anybody who didn't sign up cares to speak and nobody spoke for you, this would be the time to come forward. Kell: My name is Bob Kell, K-e-I-I. I live at 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho. I am a real estate agent for Sell-Equity Real Estate and also a partner Kell-Shaller Land Development. I am representing the two sellers of the two properties here. What we looked for when we brought this property to the buyer is the larger piece on the north, in the future Comprehensive Plan was 2.7 houses per acre. The lower part in the future Comprehensive Plan was eight houses per acre. Right now with their proposal at 1.63 houses per acre is drastically lower than your recommended -- or your future Comprehensive Plan recommendation. The other thing we look for in land is the proximity to the freeway. We knew that the Eagle Road and the stop light at Eagle and Victory would be coming soon and the industrial park there at Silverstone. And we also looked at other developments in north and west Meridian. We looked at the four and five and six houses per acre. I think I saw another housing project tonight either earlier or coming later, 450 houses on 155 acres. This is drastically lower than that. I'd just like to ask you to approve it. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Anyone else? Krasinski: Good evening. I'm Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East Falcon Drive. We are the neighbors to the Moncarrs right here. This is oUr property right here. A five- acre property. And we agree that the developer has come a long way. He met with us after he submitted his new proposal and we had talked to him about one acre properties around the perimeter -- around the entire perimeter, and he indicated he did not think that he would be able to sell those and with all the building on the one acre properties in Eagle and the huge demand for those nice houses and those nice properties, I disagree that he couldn't sell those. I think he could and it would be a nice transition from the five acre properties and the ten acre properties and, then, you know, maybe half acre on the interior or at least an R-2 throughout, like the Councilmember suggested. I think Meridian is a great place to live, but I know that Eagle is looked at differently I think because they have the larger property lots and some people do want that. I think the smaller properties on the interior surrounding the city with public transit might be able to help those people out and, then, I think as you go out further from the center of the city, having some bigger properties just gives people more choices and Eagle Road right now, at the intersection with the four way stop, just isn't set up to handle high density Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 40 of 89 and I don't think it has to be high density. I think we can have the high density closer in and, then, as we go out we can have lower density and, then, everybody gets a choice of what they would like for their property. And that's just my opinion. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? Sir, come ahead. Hill: My name is Julian Hill. I live at 12543 West Highland. I'm, actually, in Boise right now, but I'm only about a mile and a half, maybe, away in the subdivision just south of where we are talking about. I work as a loan officer for a local mortgage company and I have probably three or four different families who are expressing interest in that area as far as wanting to buy properties there and they are under the assumption -- they are more interested in the one acre parcels, as opposed to the smaller ones. So, that's alii have to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Mr. Elliott, you have ten minutes. I assume you have been making notes. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure I have ten minutes of notes, but I will try to wrap up quickly. Again, for the record, myna me is Ken Elliott, appearing on behalf of the applicant Vision First, LLC. This is not a high-density project. We, effectively, are building at an R-2 low rural density density, which is the lowest called for in the entire City of Meridian zoning code. Our average density 1.63 units per acre, average lot size 17,200 square feet, that nearly reaches the threshold of the minimum size for the R-2. The reason we have asked for some flexibility is to allow a broader range of lot sizes. Our lots now will be a minimum of 12,000, which, as I said, meets the R-3, also a rural density in the city's code. The executive projects that some of the folks testified and I commented on, Island Woods, The Island, Two Rivers up in Eagle, they have 8,000 square foot lots. Our minimum lot size will be 50 percent larger than the smallest lots in those executive projects in Eagle. They also go up to a half acre. We have about 33 lots, about one quarter of our total, will be half acre lots, we think that's a good proportion to target the executive estate lots. In my view a half acre lot is an estate lot. I believe that the city zoning code and comp plan support that as a low density, rural designation within the city. About half of our lots are between 14,000 and 21,000 square feet and, then, only a quarter of them are in the lower range of between 12 and 15 thousand square feet. We think it's important for a vibrant community to offer this range. We don't want to build an executive enclave for Kingsbridge, we want to have a variety of family sizes, of incomes, of age groups, we think that's essential to building a good community that will have that staying power. The prior filing before meeting with the neighborhood group, we did -- after the City Council hearing we were on a very short fuse to ask for reconsideration, so we went ahead and redrew the plan drastically in response to the City Council's comments and, then, sought reconsideration at the January 4th hearing when recommended, then, that there not be reconsideration, but that we re-file the application. We had the work done, we went ahead and re-filed it. We fully intended and, in fact, did meet with the neighbors two times after that, we felt that we had responded to all the neighbors' and the City Council's concerns in drastically redrawing the plan and that's why we presented it to the neighbors after filing. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 41 of 89 All the surrounding lots are in the county. They are on septic tanks, they are on wells, they were all built before the tremendous growth occurred that has happened south of 1- 84 in the past ten years. The city's plan and the city's area of impact agreement with Ada County contemplates that there will be a large amount of urban development south of the freeway and we think that with the reduced density to 125 lots we have created a harmonious transition from the existing rural lots to the more urban densities, both south and west of our project. The comment that the Mayor made in December that this was a great development that should be put elsewhere referred to our 200 lot -- 219 lot project. Rather than moving to another location, some property that we didn't own, we opted, instead, to cut 95 lots from the project. Lori Allen referred to that as superficial progress. We have gone from 237 lots, the project that the Commission saw last September, down to 125 lots, 112 of the original lots are gone, only 125 are left. That's just about 50 percent of the project that's gone. Our average lot size, again, was at 8,400, now it's 17,200 square feet. The traffic arguments, we think that, in fact, our project is in the right place at the right time. 'f we develop one acre lots all the way to Kuna, the traffic on South Eagle will just get worse and there won't be enough houses in close proximity to the job centers to house all the people who are going to be moving to the city. ACHD has the canal crossing north of Victory Road on Eagle in its immediate construction program, I believe it still is 2005. Once that's completed they have funding for the improvements of the Victory and Eagle intersection. We will be building frontage improvements all along our Eagle Road frontage. We are creating additional width of Eagle Road for a left turn pocket southbound and for decel and accellanes northbound at our main Kingsbridge entry. In response to the concerns about water quality and quantity, the ground water issue, we have a letter in that packet that I presented to the Commission from our project engineer Gordon Bates of the Land Group that addresses those concerns. We think that it's a lot more responsible and compatible now that urban services are adjacent to our property, to extend public water and sewer through our site and develop an urban project, rather than one-acre rural lots with another 57 or 75 wells and septic tanks put in the ground. We think it will be much better long term for all of the rural residences in the surrounding area if this project is put on public utilities, which is what we propose. If there are any specific questions from the Commission to our engineer, Mr. Bates is here and available to answer those questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions you would direct to the engineer? Questions for Mr. Elliott. Moe: Yes. I do have one. Based on your -- the hearing with City Council, was there any discussion with your group whatsoever about doing any perimeter one acre lots and whatnot to try and do some transition? You know, going from the five down to a half- acre, you know, that's quite drastic as well. I mean I was just curious, was there any discussion at all with your developers? Elliott: We discussed going up to one half acre around the entire perimeter, which when we met with the Dartmoor neighbors a year ago they were more than happy to accept. We -- the project that the Council objected to had 8,000 square foot lots on the east and north and south boundaries. All of those have now tripled. So, we haven't gone up to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 42 of ag one acre. We don't think that's an affordable or responsible way to develop land that's served by public water and sewer, but we think that half acre lots are great executive home sites and will meet the portion of the market that will be able to afford those. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, do we need discussion before we close the Public Hearing or are we ready for that? Borup: I'd like some discussion, but it can be after the hearing is closed. Zaremba: Does staff have anything to add? Canning: Yes. I did want to say one thing. I was out of the room at the time, but I believe a statement was made about not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. It is consistent with the low-density designation. I poured through the Comprehensive Plan for some idea of the estate residential. There is no definition of estate residential. There is a discussion of ranchettes, which would be one acre or larger, but there is nothing in the land use policy that refers to ranchette housing within the city limits. Now, there is other discussions about the community as a whole. So, I'm not sure where to guide you on that issue. My recollection of the City Council hearing is that there weren't any specific sizes mentioned. I believe the range was -- that was generally discussed was a half acre to an acre and that's just my -- my recollection of it. I didn't go back and research the minutes. I have to tell you that I think requiring one acre of this entire area would not be consistent with the -- with what a city is and what the City of Meridian is. I know that Eagle has a different view, but I think it's important to state that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: I think, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on all three items, nine, ten, and eleven. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Discussion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 43 of 89 Rohm: Looking at this map, which was entered into testimony, I see that there are some stub streets to the adjacent properties. Well, stub streets are placed in a proposed development with anticipation that as the adjacent properties are next to properties that have been brought into the city, they, too, then, have an opportunity to develop themselves. I'm not saying anyone individual or any of you will be developing, bot these stub streets are placed within a subdivision, so that those options are made available and I think that it is unlikely that this will be the end of development in that part of the city and I support you folks in trying to maintain a rural feel to your properties, but I also believe that transition can't be -- remain everything as it is, because -- otherwise, you would end up with five acre parcels throughout this property, just as the parcels that are divided that each of you live on currently and -- Zaremba: I'm sorry, we can't -- the Public Hearing is closed. Rohm: In any case, I wanted to make these comments, because transition is a difficult thing in many areas and I think that by taking a look at this proposal versus what had been brought before this Commission before, has significantly altered the proposed development, from my perspective, and in my view does address transition. So, that's my comments on this at this time. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. I would have to say that I perhaps take a slightly opposing view to that. And, again, based on the same demonstration that we have been given and I think the reason I feel differently about this one, the majority of subdivisions that we get are around the edge of the city, as is this one, but their perimeters are current -- currently farmed farmland. The difference that I see in this project is it's really an in-fill. It already has developed land around it. It's no longer in the middle of farmland that may eventually develop exactly the same way as the proposal is. The majority of people that have spoken have indicated that they have no intention of breaking up their house and I realize we hear that even from large parcels of farmland, people will come and say, you know, my 100 acres is next door to this and I'm never going to sell it and, then, two months later we get a proposal for them. But I think the difference on this one is that it actually is in the middle of developed land. Yes, five acres and one an acre and, you know, five and a half acres, are large developments, but this is an in-fill to that and I see some room for treating this subdivision differently than we would one that's surrounded by currently farmed farmland. Rohm: Then I would say, then, why have stub streets. I'm-- Zaremba: I would question that as well. They don't go anywhere. Rohm: If, in fact, they are never going to go anywhere, why would you put a stub street in that -- I'm -- it appears to me that a stub street is put in with the intent that it affords the possibility of future development down the road and so if, in fact, you're putting the stub street in, then, that -- with the assumption that there is still that potential and -- anyway, that's as I view it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 44 of ag Zaremba: I certainly see your point. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, you made a comment earlier about you don't think that's what the city is about. Could you expound -- I didn't really follow the vein of your statement there. Canning: This is -- cities are about being urban and one-acre lots are not urban. There are issues associated with providing services, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's expensive for the city to maintain, especially for ACHD to maintain roads at those kinds of densities. In my professional planning -- planner role I don't think that one acre lots are suitable for a city. Now, I understand that the city wants a variety of the housing product type and when this application first came in I suggested that they go with half acre to three-quarter acre lots in recognition -- and that was going against my grain in all cases. If you usually hear me in a pre-app I don't say that kind of stuff. But I recognized in this case that it was important. But in my estimate that -- this is your decision to make, but I just want to caution you against going for a full one-acre subdivision. It's not something that's really contemplated in our -- I don't believe it's contemplated in our Comprehensive Plan. I have looked through it and -- Zaremba: Would we be able to guess if this were not annexed and it remained in the county, what density would the county approve? Canning: The county will not allow this property to develop unless it's denied annexation by us, because it is next to the city limits of Meridian, They will not allow development, unless it is provided urban services. So, they would be allowed one unit per five acres. That plan to develop at one unit per five acres would have to include a redevelopment plan at urban densities of three units to the acre. Zaremba: I didn't understand that last sentence. Borup: Yeah. They have done that in the past where they wanted it to be able to redevelop at three acres, so -- I mean three per acre. Normally they'd require the house put to one side, so in future redevelopment you could have the additional lots. Zaremba: They would allow currently only a density of one house on five acres, but you would have to so position that house that it -- Borup: And, then, the design of the subdivision. Canning: Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And regarding stub streets, since you asked me a question. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 45 of 89 Canning: Remember, that this is forever. These lot patterns are forever. These aren't - - you know, now even though that the folks living in these five acre lots may want to stay there for five, ten, 15, 20 years, 30 years from now we are going to be wishing we had stub streets and I can tell you that much. I mean it's -- these decisions you make last a very very very long time, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear -- Borup: I do have some thoughts and I don't -- some of them are questions. I -- you know, the large lots in Eagle, I know a good number of those are not on sewer. Some of them may be and some that are and I think that's already been discussed, that the city ordinances don't really even discuss one acre lots and I think because of that it's just -- it's not something that's practical for city water and sewer. Comments on effect of surrounding developments -- this is from looking at other projects that we have had come before us and seeing the experiences over the years, but there is a big difference between impact on a development that has access through an existing development and another one that abuts the backyards, much lessor impact, if any, when it's the back of the properties that are adjoining them. I don't know if this was -- I guess this has been alluded to, but I think that a land owner or applicant should have some expectation that the Comprehensive Plan will be followed on property that they purchase or look at purchasing. It's been stated the north property is low density, which is up to three units per acre. The other is medium density, three to eight. We are not even discussing anything of that density now. And I guess -- and I need to just mention some of my personal experience. I live in a one-acre subdivision, surrounded by five acre subdivisions, so -- not surrounded, but on -- across the street are five acre lots. Over the years that has changed and -- you know, I now -- I landscaped the whole acre and it's a job to mow and garden and that whole thing. A lot of the people in our subdivision half of theirs is weeds, some of them have pastures, a couple of them have horses that's got nothing but dirt. The same thing in the subdivisions across from us, five acres, were all just pastures with the -- and that's it. But what's happened now is most of those five acres have now become very high density subdivisions, 45 foot lots, with office buildings near our subdivision. That's how -- that's how the five acres have developed. You know, when we -- in our neighborhood we were expecting to be -- we thought we were in a rural neighborhood. I'd love to see a subdivision gone in there of a third to half acre lots, rather than -- rather than 4,000 foot lots. And, then, finally, just -- I hear a lot of interest from people calling me, asking about lots, and the biggest interest I hear is in the third to half acre. They want a large size lot where they have got room to play, room for a yard, they don't want their neighbors right up close, but they are not really looking to maintain an acre lot and all that that entails. Twelve to eighteen thousand foot lots I think there is going to be a lot of demand for and a lot of -- and it's going to be upper end homes that are going to have an interest in that type of thing. That's alii have got to say. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 46 of eg Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: A couple of comments as well. Based upon what this subdivision was originally to what it is now, you know, doing my review of this project, you know, they have done a very credible job of reducing the size of this project down, based on some of the Council comments and whatnot. I do believe they have done a good job, but bringing it down into -- into a size that, quite frankly, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements, if, in fact, we do annex this into the city and based also on the applicant's letter of additional items that they have agreed to take care of in regards to single story at the perimeters and whatnot, I think they have gone a long way to try and please the neighborhood. I realize that some of you aren't going to be happy, but I do believe that they have done a credible job with the plan, so I will be recommending an approval. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I -- I don't think any of the people who live around this development are being unreasonable in wanting one acre development around the perimeter. I think this is probably - though I have to say it, probably one of the nicest developments that's come before us in the year that I have been on this Commission, with these elevations that they are showing, the type of development they want to create, and the lot sizes, but I always have to fall back on would I want to live on my five acres next to a half acre lot. Probably no. I would be in favor of recommending looking at the feasibility of putting a three-quarter to a one acre lot on the perimeter of the development and I would say on the south -- the southern most portion and along the lane, that one you're already getting over eleven feet of height, in essence, that natural and final barrier. I'm not so sure that one acre lots going into -- and given the Comprehensive Plan density in that area, but I do think -- I would agree with the neighbors on the one acre on the rest of the perimeter. So, I will be voting recommending denial on this project, based on those statements. End of comments. Zaremba: Well, I would comment that I'm not sure that we necessarily need the City of Meridian to cross Eagle Road south of Victory yet. Even if it were a county in-fill project, I think it would develop to the densities that are compatible with the property around it. I agree with those that have said there is a place for large lots in a neighborhood like this and I believe they would sell handsomely. I'm not into the economics of real estate, but there is a place for them and, to me, the solution to that is to leave it in the county. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of the city to be jumping Eagle Road at this point. It may happen some day, but we have plenty of other places to develop and I think my opinion on this is that we shouldn't even annex it. I'm not convinced it's in the best interest of the city. Borup: I guess that would depend on what type of development we want to attract to the city and we have had a lot of comments that, you know, a lot of the upper end Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 47 of 89 homes are going to Eagle. To me it looks like this is an opportunity to bring some of that here. Rohm: I agree with that a hundred percent. Borup: I mean -- yeah. Newton-Huckabay: As the project stands? Borup: Yeah. Yeah. These -- you know, four or five thousand square foot homes are a decent price tag. You know, the lot sizes are probably comparable to a good part of Meridian Greens, which is usually the only subdivision that we seem to have to hold up as an example of what we'd like to see. Observation Point, I guess, is close to that, but the lots in Observation Point are a lot smaller than these. The same thing with Bear Creek. It's got a section that's got, you know, half a million dollar -- six hundred thousand dollar homes, smaller lots than these. Newton-Huckabay: What are the -- what's the lot size of Bear Creek? Borup: Well, they have got different sections, but in the teens. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, this discussion seems to be going toward house price. You're making me nervous. Borup: Okay. I understand. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I -- Zaremba: Have we had sufficient discussion to be ready for a motion? Rohm: I had another question. When making motions, do you have to make the motions in the order that they are listed as in the zoning first, the preliminary plat second, and the CUP third? You have to make them in that order? Zaremba: Yes, I would, and particularly the zoning one needs to be first, because the other two are not relevant if we deny the zoning. There is no jurisdiction. Rohm: Well -- all right. But until the City Council acts on it, we -- even at that there is -- Zaremba: That's true. Ours is a recommendation. Rohm: Ours is a recommendation and my only point was is if there was no consensus on the preliminary plat, there would be no need to make a motion for the zoning and I believe that there is not a consensus -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 48 of 89 Borup: Well, we don't have to have a unanimous consensus to make a motion and a vote. Rohm: Well, I was just thinking in terms of the preliminary plat, if we have got it passed, then, I would go onto the zoning, but -- it's just a question. It doesn't have to go that way. Zaremba: I believe I would do them in the order. Rohm: All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready for a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-003, including all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, including the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005. And I don't believe there is any changes for the zoning. Zaremba: This would be where you would ask for a development agreement that we mentioned -- Rohm: Okay. Okay. In addition to the staff comments, there is a letter received from Vision First, received March 2nd, 2005, dated March 1st, 2005, and signed by Kenneth Elliott. I'd like to have this entered in as recommendations for the development agreement associated with this development. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. All opposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: We have three in favor and two against. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 49 of 89 2005, with the transmittal date February 25th, 2005. Do we need to address this again or is that -- Zaremba: I don't believe so. Rohm: Okay. Canning: I think because it has specific things directed at the preliminary plat, it would be safest to mention it again with the preliminary plat. Rohm: Okay. In addition to the staff comments, the letter from Vision First, dated March 1 st, and stamped as received on March 2nd and signed by the developer Kenneth M. Elliott, would be included as input for this motion as well. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed, Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-004, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and the transmittal date of February 25th, 2005, including all staff comments. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? No. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We, again, have three in favor and two opposed. That motion also carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, before you leave the issue, I'm sorry, there was a new preliminary plat dated March 2nd. The staff report was based on a different preliminary plat. Can you just give me a moment to verify with the applicant? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 50 of 89 Zaremba: Yes. Borup: I think the difference between the two is there were lots eliminated and some of those other concessions. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, yeah, the pictures I have shown you tonight are of the one that was sent to the neighbors and the one that the letter is based on. But the staff report had a different preliminary plat date. So, the correct date would be the March 2nd date. Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to amend the motion to reference that plat? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if -- that was the basis of all the testimony that you have received, so to make it clear from the record that that's what you have based your decision on, then, that should be part of your motion. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, would you care to amend -- Newton-Huckabay: So, everything that we had -- all the copies that we had in front of us tonight and on the board were the amended one? Rohm: Right. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I would like to amend all three motions to include the plat dated March 2nd, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion to amend carries five to nothing. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: All right. Thank you all very much for your input. There will be another Public Hearing in front of the City Council on the same subject. And we traditionally take a break about 9:00 o'clock, which we have passed. We will take about a ten minute break and reconvene. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-005 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-007) to add seven additional building lots for Heritage Commons by Brighton Investments, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 51 of 89 Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene and let the record show that all the Commissioners are present again and we will proceed onto Item 12. This is -- we will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-005, request to amend the preliminary plat to add seven additional building lots for Heritage Commons and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The request is for actually 27 -- did this get turned on? Okay. The request is for 27 residential lots. The original proposal had -- okay. The original proposal is in this location here for 21 lots. The applicant has come back and made a request for 27 lots. There was an amendment made to the preliminary plat and that was dated -- it just says January 25. They reduced their lots by one in the original proposal. This is the original layout for the preliminary plat. This is the new layout. They did reduce this side by one. There was originally I believe seven lots in -- or eight lots in here and now it's going to be seven lots in there. Like I said, there is 27 lots in this configuration, although they would be reduced by one. We have discussed this with the fire department and SSC and they brought back comments on the alley- loaded product and we had, actually, asked them to give us comment on that, based on how -- their serviceability has been traditionally and they are satisfied with the 16 foot alleys, based on our conversation last week. At this time I have nothing further to add, other than staff is recommending approval of this redesign. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, would the applicant care to comment? Turnbull: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba. David Turnbull, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise. It seems like I was here some time earlier today. Zaremba: Well, you look familiar. Turnbull: Just very simply -- could you go back to the original layout that -- in the original layout I have always been a little bit troubled with this. This is going to be our last phase and, you know, I think what I consider a better design dawned on me and so we brought that forward. Originally we had some alley loaded products here and in between just five kind of standard front-on garage homes sandwiched in between them. That part always bothered me. Also, this is a residential collector road here and I don't think we really want to have parking -- these would be the front of these houses here. So, we thought it was appropriate to get those aligned more to these local streets, so that people could park in front of their homes and collector street, really, that's simply the reason for this adjustment. Plus the fact that the first phase of our -- what we call Carriage Lane homes proved to be very popular and we'd like to add some more. So, that's the reason for this request. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Zaremba: Makes sense to me. If something sells, you might as well do more of them. Turnbull: And we are in concurrence with the staff conditions. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 52 of 89 Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Way too easy. Zaremba: Yes. We do have some people signed up. I will begin with Rebecca Klaus Young. Young: And I'm, actually, going to go ahead and speak for the others that are signed up on there. Zaremba: Okay. Let me mention who those are. They are Dan Young and Vanessa Klaus. Young: Right. We are the ten acres that's right on the north -- Zaremba: We need your name and address. Young: I'm Rebecca Klaus Young, 4053 North Locust Grove Road. Zaremba: Thank you. Young: Okay. And I'm -- they have it listed as East Lake Street, it is actually Herons Lane. I don't know how that got on there, but it is supposed to be Herons Lane. I talked to David a little bit this evening and the only thing that I had a concern about -- and he's given me the names of who I should actually talk to, but I thought I could address it to Bruce a little bit -- is that if you guys have any notes that there is a problem with that sewer line that's going down that road right now. Do you have any of that -- would you have any of that in your notes or your records? Zaremba: We have not heard of there being a problem. Young: Have you, Bruce? Zaremba: I will address that to Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we did have some odor complaints. We have -- to our knowledge we have corrected those. We had some issues with -- Young: Okay. Go ahead. Freckleton: We had some issues with some timing of the cycling of the lift station pumps over at Vienna Woods. We have made corrections to that. Part of the problem Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 53 of 89 was the size of the lift station wet well was sized to handle a very large area and with Vienna Woods and Edinburgh being the only two developments, basically, that were flowing to that lift station, it wasn't turning over often enough and so the sewage sat there longer what we wanted it to and you start developing odors when it sits too long and so we increased the -- Zaremba: Are you saying the problem was not having enough sewage? Freckleton: Basically, yes. Yeah. That's exactly it. So, we have made some changes to that. It sounds like maybe we have still got some problems, so we -- Young: It's worse. Freckleton: -- definitely need to hear from you. Young: It's worse on our street. The problem being is that the manhole -- the one that is right in front of our driveway and, then, the next one is up by our mail boxes, which are up on North Locust Grove -- we are kind of a ways down that, that's a dirt road right now -- and that's going to be my next question -- and it is -- what I'm fearful of is with the density of those homes this last -- this last development area here is going to bring them closer to my house, of course, and I have animals, horses, barns -- I don't want to be at -- being faulted for that. I want it to be understood that that's where that's coming from. I don't want to be here trying to get my issues put across at a later time -- Freckleton: Sure. Young: -- because somebody is thinking it's coming from my property. Freckleton: Right. Young: And it's uncomfortable for us, too, so -- Freckleton: Sure. One other thing that we do have in the works is we are building a sewer trunk that's going to go up there and take that lift station off line and that lift station is going to go away and everything will flow to the trunk and so the issues that we have been experiencing with that lack of turnover are going to go away. So, hopefully, in the very short -- in a very short time frame we will totally eliminate that problem. Young: Okay. Well -- and the most important thing was I just wanted it to get on the record. Freckleton: Sure. Young: For that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 54 of 89 Freckleton: I appreciate that. Young: I think it might be an issue later with these homes next to us, because we are in a very different lifestyle to theirs, so -- and, then, my next question tonight was just simply there is going to be a change -- thanks -- where the roads now come out into our road, that Herons Lane there, instead of two turnouts there is going to be four now, which I have already worked with Dave on, we are going to get some cluster trees and some stuff like that, so I think that we can work that out okay, The only thing is is I don't know what the plans for stop signs or what the speed is going to be in there or -- is there any of that stuff being addressed tonight? That is going to be a fairly heavy volume -- what's that? Zaremba: The roadways are normally ACHD's responsibility, Young: That's what I'm always told, but -- you know, Zaremba: Well, give me a little background. Is Herons Lane a private road or is it a public road or-- Young: Well, it's private now. It's a dirt road right now, but we are working with David and that is getting put through, it's going to be developed as those homes are developed and he's been very very good about accommodating us, about trying to give us a barrier there, but I'm worried about -- I want some kind of restrictions put out there about the speed, because it's a straight shot from all the back subdivisions to go to the school across North Locust Grove and we are almost looking at another Eagle Road out there. I mean the school goes in so many cycles, they have like a morning shift and, then, the afternoon shift, so you have got four different shifts of parents bringing kids in and out right there on that corner. Zaremba: Okay, We will ask for comment on those subjects. Young: Okay. And so that's all -- I just wanted to know how can I get information on what are going to be the speed limits set on that road, where are there going to be stop signs, and such. Zaremba: That will eventually be ACHD's decision, but -- Young: Okay. Do you how I can get that information, though? Zaremba: Mr. Turnbull may have some input into what he's suggesting to them. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 55 of 89 Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if that's going to eventually be a public roadway, the city has a traffic safety commission that makes recommendation to the highway district about speed limits based on those types of comments. If she wants to contact Captain Overton with the Meridian Police Department, he's a member of that commission, and make those concerns known, so that that can get passed on through our process with our commission to the highway district. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. That constitutes the list of people that signed up. Anybody else care to comment on this subject? Mr. Turnbull. Turnbull: As far as the street here, I believe generally speed limits on local streets are 25 miles per hour and there will be a stop sign here at Locust Grove Road initially. I am -- if the time comes when a traffic signal is warranted, that was placed at the half mile section, so that -- and lined up with the school property across the road, so that it could be signalized in the future if ACHD finds that there is traffic warrants for it. And I just don't have any response for this sewer issue. I think that's in Bruce's court. I might point out that the sewage is coming from his project, but -- Zaremba: The problem is not enough of it, you know, can you get people to flush more or something? Turnbull: Other than that, I think I'm done, unless you have questions for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-005, to include all staff comments of the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, received from the city clerk's office February 25th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 56 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: PFP 05-001 Request for a Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 5 building lots on 5.28 acres in a C-C zone for Bonito Subdivision No.2 by Kimball Properties - SWC of South Eagle Road and West Overland Road: Zaremba: Thank you. We will move on now to Item 13. This is PFP 05-001, request for a preliminary and final plat approval of five building lots on 5.28 acres in a C-C zone for Bonito Subdivision No.2 by Temple Properties, southwest corner of South Eagle Road and West Overland Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a re-subdivision of Lots 4 and 5 of Bonito Subdivision. This was originally platted on a preliminary plat for EI Dorado Subdivision and was under the final plat of Bonito One Subdivision. This is for two lots. The two lots are the lot to the south off of Goldstone and, then, the portion of this one that is off of Tarpin. Actually, I think I might have just transposed those two streets. The configuration is as shown and this four or five new lots on these two lots. With this there is an existing approved access to Eagle Road, as well as for Tarpin and Goldstone. In discussions with the applicant's representative, there is one condition that we had discussed that would be preliminary plat general requirement number -- I'm sorry. I thought it was number three, but I'm not -- number six under preliminary/final plat site-specific comments. The perimeter landscaping, as well as the landscaping along the -- it will be the western border of this subdivision, was already completed during the final platting phase for Bonito and so this is redundant. It has already been completed. And the -- that was the only comment that was made and staff would support the removal of condition number six. And at that staff is recommending approval of this preliminary and final plat. Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. There is a condition six that relates to fencing and landscape on page four and on page five there is a condition six. So, that's waterways. Okay. So, you're referring to the one on page four? Guenther: On page four, the one that reads a detailed fencing and landscape plan of MCC 12-13 shall be submitted with the following final plat application. This is the final plat application as well. Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: And the final plat for Bonito No.1 was approved and has been installed already. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. We are ready for the applicant, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 57 of ag Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, 1940 Bonito, Meridian, representing Winston Moore. And we have read the staff report and with the exception of deleting Item No. 6, we are in agreement. Unless you have any questions, I'll sit down. Go home. Zaremba: That's way too easy. Can't we ask some questions? Moe: I have no questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have no questions. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you look like a question is forming. Borup: No. I'm clear now. It was the exception deleting number six, but you're in agreement with deleting it? Seal: Yes. I was going to actually request that. We have done everything within the project already, so it's really not necessary, It's just a -- basically creating addition lots. Everything else is in place, so -- okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. We have no one signed up to speak on this issue. However, this is your opportunity if there is somebody who came later. I see no one moving in the direction of speaking. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on -- let's see -- PP 05- 001. Zaremba: PFP, actually. More: Excuse me. PFP 05-001. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PFP 05-001, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of March 2nd -- or, excuse me, March 3rd, 2005, with a transmittal date of January the 28th, 2005. End of motion. Excuse Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 58 of 89 me. I am not done. With the following change: Under -- on page four, under the preliminary and final plat site specific comments, item number six, can be deleted in its entirety. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Recommendation: VAC 05-001 Request to Vacate East Manderly Lane and a 30-foot wide agricultural easement, both being one and the same as shown on the plat of Larkwood Subdivision, at the north boundary line of Lot 13, Block 2 for Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: AZ 05-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 45.88 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest comer of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 26 common lots on 44.39 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tustin Subdivision by SCS Investments, LLC - northwest comer of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: All right. Again, we have multiple items that relate to each other, Items 14, 15, 16. I'll open Public Hearing for V AC -- well, I'm sorry. Let me ask staff here. Since this is just a recommendation, do we want to deal with 14 individually? It's not a Public Hearing, according to the -- Canning: The discussion of the item won't make much sense without all the others. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I will proceed as I was. We will open the recommendation for V AC 05-001, Public Hearing for AZ 05-002, and the Public Hearing for PP 05-003. These all relate to Tustin Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is a preliminary plat and an annexation and zoning and a vacation, as mentioned, for Tustin Subdivision. It's 45.8 acres, currently zoned RUT, and they are requesting R-4. Saguaro Subdivision is to the west. The name of this one just escaped me. It's not Dartmoor. Larkwood. Thank You. It's far too late. There is a church just north of the property. And, then, this was the site of Leeshire Subdivision proposal that was before you earlier this year, but subsequently denied. The proposed layout brings a road -- two access roads into the project. There is a lateral across -- or a slough across the project dividing it. There is Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 59 of 89 just one road crossing that. There are a number of stubs -- actually, there is just one stub street into one of the five-acre Larkwood properties. Then, otherwise, that's the only stub street to the surrounding properties. They did not stub to the church, which is already developed. These are out parcels. I did want to point out there is a shop here that the applicant is proposing to stay and I'll get to that in a bit. There are 115 single family residential building lots and 26 other common lots and the gross density of the project is 2.6 dwelling units per acre. They have requested -- this is a straight subdivision. They have not requested a planned development for reduction in any standards, so they do meet the R-4 minimum lot standards of 8,000 square feet and 80 feet of frontage. And they have not asked for reduced setbacks either. The property is currently designated as low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed density is 2.6 dwelling units per acre, does fit within that Comprehensive Plan designation. As part of the plat -- and the applicant may have to help me on this, because I didn't notice the vacation application, but as part of the plat, the applicant is requesting to vacate East Manderly Lane, which is a private road and a 30 foot agricultural easement and they are one and the same. And then -- so the -- so that the owners and the proposed subdivision may not be encumbered by easements that aren't going to be used. And the easement is on the north boundary line of Lot 13, Block 2, of Larkwood Subdivision. And I apologize; I did not look this up, so I'm not sure where it is. I believe it's right here on the north property line, because I think they called me about that before. So, the only way to -- as you know, the only way to get rid of an easement that's been shown on a plat is to vacate it through the plat process. Going through some of the special considerations that were pointed out by -- which of my staff members having babies -- or second, I guess, babies. Josh. Sorry. If you look on page ten -- I'm just going to highlight some of them. I think some of them make sense. Like Locust Grove right of way, you have seen those kind of conditions before and those kinds of issues, as well as you have the street buffers. The micropaths -- the applicant has proposed two common lots which connect to the North Slough pathway, yet they haven't shown sidewalk in those common lots, those connections, so Josh has asked that they provide those sidewalks to micropath. Block length variance. The proposed preliminary plat has three blocks which exceed the allowable block length of 1,000 feet. Those are Blocks 1, 8 and 9, and they have submitted a separate variance application, which will go up with the preliminary plat to the City Council. I mentioned the existing shop. The applicant wants to keep the shop. Now, accessory buildings need to be accessory to a main building, so we just kind of added some conditions in there, making sure that they understand that there needs to be a house on that property to have the shop on that property and, then, that accessory structure needs to meet the standards for accessory structure in our zoning ordinance. We can't tell if it does yet, because there is no principal permitted structure. So, it's all -- quite literally it's all relative. So, we just wanted them to be aware of that. I think that was the last item I wanted to point out. I'm making the applicant's work more tonight to describe their projects, so I will let the applicant describe some of the other features of the project. With that I'll answer any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? I have one. And that is a letter from Idaho Power asking that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 60 of ag Canning: Oh, that's right. Zaremba: -- that it be clearly stated someplace that their plan is to run power lines up the west side of Locust Grove and I guess my question is is that something that we would add to the face of the plat and should that become a note 19 on page 14. Rohm: Idaho Power is in road right of way, so -- Zaremba: They do, but they want people that are purchasing lots along here to be forewarned that some day they are going to have these 125-foot poles next to their property. It may be in the right of way, but that this is in their plan and they don't want future residents coming back to them and saying, wait, you can't put your poles up here. Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Zaremba: But their point was to forewarn people that this is in their plan. Canning: Generally when we are passing around that kind of warning information, it's more appropriate in their CC&Rs than on the plat. You should really try and reserve the plat for things that are related to the surveying and implementation of that plat, rather than -- in particular if the developer wants to put information on there, then, they have a little more discretion, but things that we require as the city should be fairly limited. But you can ask them to put that in their CC&Rs. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: That would be a better place. Zaremba: Good advice. Thank you. That was my only question. If there aren't others, then, we are ready for the applicant. Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kenny Christensen, 1951 South Southern Way, Boise, Idaho. And I am the developer representing the property owners. I'm not the property owner, but I do all the development for the owners. And we are just trying to develop this property and trying to make a nice development. You know, we are backing up to Larkwood and so you can see on the westerly side I have tried to make those lots a little larger, plus I also feel that there is a demand for that, as addressed earlier, there is a little bit of a -- you know, eight, nine thousand is kind of the standard going throughout most of north Meridian and I'm hoping there is a little bit more demand for that kind of lot. From a development standpoint it squeezes the economics, but, hopefully, it will payoff. We are -- you know, just -- it is a standard sub. We do not have any park per se, but we do have walkways and pathways that could be conformed to tot lots, et cetera, and part of the reason of expediting this -- there is no sewer to this site -- as you had discussed earlier, but part of that reason is we need this plat in place to get sewer through this stretch of land and eliminate the Vienna Woods Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 61 of 89 Edinburgh lift station. So, get rid of smelly problems and have gravity system all throughout there. But, you know, I don't have a whole lot more to say. We are trying to do a nice development there. I did go to the Larkwood homeowners association meeting. They do have some representatives here that they would like to, I'm sure, stand up and address some of their concerns and questions. But are there any questions that the Commission has for me at this time? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: On this recommendation for vacating the easement, do you have letters from the easement holders that say they have no objection to the vacation? Christensen: I do not. I believe the homeowner that that -- yeah, he can address that. I think he would be in support of vacating that. But it does go into a homeowners lot who is present and he is, I think, representing the homeowners association today and he could address that. Rohm: Okay. Well, I just have always felt it's important to give them that opportunity. Christensen: Correct. And, then, the other property owner that would potentially be a beneficiary would be where the stub road is going into, that property to the north, and so they do have access to their back pasture as it is currently, the six acre -- or five, six acre home right now and if they needed access they do have that road going into their back property. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: On that subject, to clarify, the kind of easement it is, there are no utilities in that easement or -- Christensen: There are not. It was an agricultural easement. I mean it's technically a county road, but it's -- you know, it's a dirt road that was used for tractors and farm equipment at one time. Zaremba: Would you address the -- Idaho Power's concern about eventually building big poles up -- Christensen: Yes. Actually, big poles would be welcome currently there. They are real scraggly old wooden with several layers and very low. The larger poles tend to actually disappear a little better, unless you're right behind one of the big ones, but there is fewer of them and they are typically a lot higher and so they, actually, are more desirable from a marketing standpoint and -- but we can place that in our CC&Rs as a forewarning that that right of way -- you know, the homeowners association cannot Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 62 of 89 impose right -- additional right of way or just larger poles being placed in the existing Idaho Power right of way, because there is an existing right of way. Zaremba: Great. That would be helpful. Christensen: Great. I will make a note of that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: If it's approved and this goes forward, when are you anticipating. completion of some of the home sites? Christensen: As soon as sewer is available. I believe we are scheduled in a second phase of the current construction project of that North Slough line, anticipated to be November beginning. So, I would expect construction -- you know, the site work, roads, a year from now. Or less if that could be moved up. And Bruce can address that. Moe: Well, then, that was my next question. I note here it says the phase two extension currently scheduled to commence in the fall of 2005. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that is correct. Phase one will begin -- it's -- very shortly, like within a month or so. Phase two -- phase two was held up a little bit because of easement acquisition, so we needed to get moving forward on the project and so we have been getting very close to this project with phase one and, then, phase two will take off as soon as we can get the easements and the developer was uncomfortable providing the easements to us without having a preliminary plat approved for the alignment of the sewer through the project. And so we are here tonight to try and get that process going. Christensen: Yeah. The proposed alignment is cutting through this pathway, then, this road up here and, then, through that pathway and access the Vienna Woods and Edinburgh, which is stinky. Get rid of that. I do live in Vienna Woods and I would volunteer to flush my toilet three times in the interim. Rohm: Get that down. Zaremba: Increase the flow. Christensen: That's right. Zaremba: Let's see. I had -- I had already -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 63 of 89 Moe: I had more than one question. Zaremba: Go ahead. Moe: Then, do you have any problem if, in fact, another condition was put on the -- in regard to the sanitary sewer that no lots -- and no buildings would be built until the sewer is connected? Christensen: Oh, yeah. Certainly. Yeah. They usually require me to do some kind of non-build agreement or something until that occurs. Zaremba: Yes, Bruce. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, without having public utilities there, they would not be able to -- they could record their plat, but sanitary restrictions would remain in force and until services are available, they wouldn't be able to build anyway, so -- Moe: I asked the question because of our earlier hearing, that there was a stipulation put on it. No different. I have no problem with it. I was just trying to make sure I understood what the difference between the two projects were. Freckleton: The difference in -- from my perspective is we have got plans that are drawn and the ones were -- they are out there. It's a timing issue and if you want to add the comment that it would be subject to sewer availability, that would be appropriate. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. My other question -- apparently, the ACHD Commission acted on this last night. Do you have news of what happened? Christensen: It was on their consent agenda, along with Bainbridge, and they did approve it as presented. Zaremba: Thank you. Christensen: And I may make a note, too. I know one of the concerns -- and this might be more ACHD -- that the Larkwood homeowners have is connectivity and I'm opposed to any connectivity to Larkwood as they are and I know it's more ACHD realm, but we are -- that stub up to the north is not going to a Larkwood lot. It's a six-acre un- subdivided lot. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, which stub -- that's the only stub street. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 84 of ag Christensen: That was the only stub street. Right. Newton-Huckabay: Are Larkwood the ones to the north? Christensen: No. That's a cul-de-sac and I, along with them, would really like to see that remain a cul-de-sac and I know that's maybe more ACHD's jurisdiction, but for public record I'm just stating that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Christensen: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: We do have a couple people signed up. Dan I believe it is. Battazzo. And you are representing Larkwood homeowners association; is that correct? Battazzo: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. I'm Dan Battazzo at 5306 North Larkwood Place and at the conclusion of my comments I'd like to deliver to you a letter from the Larkwood homeowners association signed by 13 of 19 homeowners in the subdivision, as well as a letter from the Settler's Irrigation District speaking to one of the issues that we would like to speak to. If I could open by just commenting on the issue of vacation of that road, that Manderly Lane, which is on the north side of the proposed development. My home is this one right here and that roadway used to go from Locust Grove into this farm area and when I built my home I asked them and did have that vacated across my property, so this dirt road terminates in a turnaround right here at this corner and serves no particular purpose, other than to access the former farmland and the six acre lot, which, technically, isn't a part of Larkwood homeowners -- excuse me -- Larkwood Subdivision, but it is considered an existing lot as a part of that property. So, I am, in fact, in support of vacating that easement. Borup: So, does that lot have its access through the Larkwood Street, then? Battazzo: Yes. Its driveway -- the driveway of the home on this lot is onto Larkwood Place. Borup. Okay. Battazzo: Let's see. The second issue, which is not addressed specifically in the letter that I'm going to give you, but has come up during the course tonight and I would like to address it. We did have an amicable meeting with Mr. Christensen about this subdivision and let me open by just saying that the Larkwood homeowners are generally in favor of the proposal as it's been laid out. We do have four concerns that we have outlined in this letter and one additional one that has not been outlined here that I would like to speak to. When we did talk with Mr. Christensen about the lots that border the subdivision, we mentioned the fact that we would appreciate a transition, which included keeping the height of the homes on those adjacent lots down, proposing, Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 65 of 89 in fact, that they be one story. Mr. Christensen let us you know that those would be his most expense lots in the subdivision and indicated there is no way that it was likely that they were going to hold to those restrictions. I would like to point out that the current owner of this property is Mr. Steve Smith, who also was the co-developer of the Larkwood Subdivision. All of these lots on the east side of the street facing the foothills were sold at a ten percent premium to the homeowners with the intent of them being, quote, view lots, end quote, and given that this subdivision is being developed by the same owner, we'd like them to hold to the commitments that they made to the homeowners in the -- when they sold those lots to us that, in fact, they would remain view lots. We are not opposing the development as a whole, but we would like to make sure that consideration is given to the height of those homes and the previous arrangements that were made with those homeowners. The second issue on that subject is the density of those lots and we have generally agreed to what's been proposed as well, with the exception that if you look here you will see that the second lot in the subdivision has three of these smaller lots abutting it and we have requested in our message to you that the developer remove one of the lots along this line in order to decrease the density in such a way that these two flatter lots, which, again, were sold with the same commitments from the original developer of Larkwood, Steve Smith, that these folks would have some ability to keep their rural setting and since lots are much shallower front to back, it's a bigger deal to the folks down here that the density remain lower than what has been proposed up here on the north side of the subdivision. So, generally, what we are saying is that we are okay with this and we'd like them to take another look at removing one lot here. We are requesting -- and I think this is in concert with the developer -- that a six-foot solid vinyl fence be placed between the two subdivisions. And finally -- and getting probably to the heart of the biggest issue on our plate and which requires you to keep your planning part of your planning and zoning hat on, if we could go back to that previous -- I think this works. I think this works. So, this is Larkwood Place. This is the proposed development. These two lots. I'd like to go on record as making sure that everybody here understands that although they are technically not part of the platted Larkwood Subdivision and, in fact, are listed on the platting maps as un-platted, those lots have attached to them the Larkwood homeowners CC&Rs and in those CC&Rs -- and I have checked this down at the county records and we have gotten a legal opinion that, in fact, there are requirements in those CC&Rs that any further development that takes place on those lots needs to be approved by the Larkwood homeowners association and, in fact, anything that does happen in there is, actually, a part of the Larkwood homeowners association's Interest. That makes it important to us that when Leeshire develops up here -- and we know that it will be -- and that when Tustin is developed down here -- currently the Leeshire proposals include going into this -- not Larkwood Subdivision lot, existing lot that is covered by the Larkwood Subdivision's CC&Rs, it shows a southbound stub. Here is a northbound stub. It's really important to us that there be no connection to Larkwood Place. An additional commitment when we purchased our lots on the part of the developers was that this was a dead end cul-de-sac, you can see that all these lots in Larkwood Subdivision are one and a half to three acres in general, with the exception of these two, which are six acre lots. And as you -- you asked about earlier, they have their homes and their driveways going into Larkwood Place and they use that as their Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 66 of 89 sole entrance. It seems that both Meridian -- or at least the Ada County Highway District and we think Meridian, based on my discussions with your planners, are somewhat insistent on having these stubs and this connectivity in here. We didn't like that one bit. That is out of character with the subdivision that we bought into, but it seems inevitable that the stubbing is going to take place. If it is going to take place, we strongly urge you to keep that stubbing in a north-south fashion, the people that move into this subdivision and move into this subdivision will know it advance that, in fact, there is connectivity in between and we assume that they will formulate the traffic under their plans for purchase of their properties. We, too, formulated traffic into our concept of what our properties would be and as you know, this is a curved street, it's not a very good thoroughfare, and, in fact, leaves nothing but room for acceleration for a half a mile before you get to a point where you would enter future -- any development that might show up back here on these lots or in this area in the future. That's just completely out of character with what we live on right now. And while this is an Ada County district -- Ada County Highway District issue, I don't think that you guys can absolve yourselves of the fact that you have been dealing with how this subdivision goes in and how this subdivision goes in and what kind of thinking you might have about what might go on on these six acres. While we are not particularly appreciative of the idea that higher density housing might, in fact, go on these six acres -- because when this was sold to us, these were sold to us with the idea that there were pieces of ground that had two big large pieces of ground, not two subdivisions, back in the back of this cul-de-sac, we want to make sure that the connectivity takes place in an area where people expect to have a certain level of density and not where we are expecting to have a certain lack of density. We can assure you, both from legal counsel that we have received so far, and from meetings of the members of this homeowners association, that if it looks like connectivity is going to take place here, the meaning of CC&R will chance to court court and return to court, because the only way our value of our property to us, in the end, has to do with living on this low density, low traffic type of roadway. Those are my comments. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Battazzo: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: A couple, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to a commitment when you bought your lot. Do you have a copy of that that would be available for -- of the view? You said there was a commitment that there would be a -- Battazzo: You know, it's not with me, but, in fact, I do have the brochure that was provided by Mr. Smith and Mr. Porter that explained the difference in price on those lots. And that was it. Borup: That there was a view? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 67 of 89 Battazzo: Yeah. Borup: Okay. That is consistent with other subdivisions, the east -- or the west facing lots always seem to be priced higher. Battazzo: You mean the east facing lots are priced higher? Borup: No. The west facing lots are always -- Battazzo: I see your point. Okay. Borup: That's -- every subdivision I have looked at, they have always been priced higher, just because of that orientation, not necessarily because of the view. And I realize it's a different subdivision and your comment on lot reductions and such, how does that compare to Saguaro Canyon as far as lot sizes bordering Larkwood? Battazzo: I can't speak to that with any degree of certainty. Borup: And you now have the concern with Saguaro Canyon's .Iot sizes abutting your property it sounds like. Battazzo: My understanding is that those were worked out with Saguaro Canyon and Saguaro Canyon worked out with -- in particular the folks on west side of our subdivision a concession from their original proposal on Saguaro Canyon. They reduced their lot density. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I have one question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I need to bring my own supplies. I'm using everyone else's. On these two lots right here, has -- it seems to me you could avoid all problems if -- these are not Larkwood, just -- I mean is there talk of just developing these into -- splitting them or something and avoid the problem altogether? Battazzo: Avoid the problem altogether? Newton-Huckabay: Any connect -- I would think by trying to develop those yourself, then, connectivity becomes -- between here and here become a moot point, does it not? Redeveloping -- to match the size of these lots. Canning: Commissioner Huckabay, there is no -- the minimum lot size in the county is five acres, so those properties are ineligible for a split. They would have to be ten acres. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 68 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: Well, where there is a will there is a way. Okay. Just wondering. I have not been down that far in Larkwood, to the end of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: All right. Battazzo: Thank you. Who would you like to receive this? Zaremba: The clerk will start with them. Thank you. Okay. Bart Naylor, who is the Vienna Woods homeowners association president. Bart Naylor escaped before speaking, apparently. Okay. He is marked as being for and I assume he was representing the entire Vienna Woods homeowners association as being for. In favor. Okay. In that case, Mr. Christensen, it's your tum again. Oh, I meant to say, there is nobody else signed up, but if anybody would care to speak, this is your time. The one time I forgot to say that and you caught me. Lee: I can answer some of your questions, but I don't want to take into my few minutes. Would you like me to answer some of your questions on how that subdivision is? Zaremba: Start with your name and address, please. Lee: My name is Grant Lee, I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road, the 30 acres immediately to the north of Mormon church. The Mormon church is what separates us from the Tustin Subdivision. We own the former Leeshire property, which somebody said is still going to be developed. Anyway, would you like me to answer some of questions on this? Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. I don't think my question was valid. Lee: Okay. Learn how to operate this thing. There you go. Okay. I have got the 30 acres right here. Some of my concerns. Number one, our subdivision, which you good people passed and was turned down at the next level, we had a park -- a good size park right here separating us from the Larkwood and that was shot down. I notice this subdivision doesn't really have a park. One of the reasons ours was turned down was they said the location was not in the right spot and if you stood at one end you couldn't see somebody standing two acres away in the other comer of the property. My concern here -- although I want to go on record as being in favor of this subdivision, my concerns are that the Dunwoody people that were so much against ours -- and I don't see any of them here tonight -- you know, if you stand here can you see who is right here and what's the difference between having a park over here as a buffer and having 18 of the people in Larkwood sign a petition to support that and over here you have no park, I just want to make sure that when our subdivision comes up again, if the park's an issue, that you remember that if you approve this without a park, what difference does it make where we put ours. The second thing on road access, you talk about at the end of Larkwood these two six-acre parcels, those were the first two parcels before there was a subdivision. Manderly is a street that fed those. At the time of this subdivision Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page Sg of 89 that street was vacated and those two -- the cul-de-sac was moved a little further down - - if you can show the map with the next -- other six acre parcels on there. The cul-de- sac was moved from this location to this location. If a stub street is put in here and they are allowed access, that would physically give them access off of Larkwood Place and access off of this street. My understanding is you can't have double access to a single parcel of property. If I'm wrong, please, clear that up now. The buffer in the front, they have a 25-foot buffer. We were required to have a 35-foot buffer. I question the consistency in the Council. My concern -- the commercial property that's in the front, the warehouses, that you have to have a house on, we also have similar concerns, so I will be watching very closely how you treat this property. If a stub street is required here and a stub street is required here -- in talking to Mr. Battazzo, before he was opposed to it, we were opposed to it, everybody's making us do it. If stub streets are required for both of us, there needs to be some kind of a plan as to what you intend to have done with the properties in the middle that we are stubbing to. I guess my time is up. Zaremba: If you're preparing to conclude, we will hear that. Lee: Okay. The Saguaro lots that abut the back of the property are 10,000 square foot lots. Back here from Saguaro Canyon. I did attend all those hearings. Also, I just want to make sure that you really understand, from prior testimony at my Leeshire hearings, that Larkwood, when it was originally developed kind of prostituted the ordinance at the time. They were the first subdivision, along with Dunwoody across the street, to be developed under the new cluster ordinance. The concept was for every five acres you take a one acre lot and you build on it, rather than have a bunch of 3,000 dollar land left over, they came up with a unique creative idea that sold and that was to take some other lots in the back and sell a build-able lot, coupled with an agricultural lot that could not be built on for 15 years and you get rid of twice as much land. When we went and offered the same thing with our land immediately after -- and attended all of those hearings -- we were told that, no, that's not the intent of the ordinance, they made a mistake, and they would not allow anyone else to develop under that ordinance. So, this is a really unique situation. This subdivision and the sister subdivision, both developed by Steve Smith, were not according -- did not fit the spirit of the cluster ordinance and they were the first two subdivisions to be developed under that ordinance. So, what you have here is an exception that has not been repeated in the county for these to subdivisions. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Lee: One last thing. You say that the ten acres was a county limit. That didn't stop Steve Smith across the street from developing his ten acre parcel and spitting it into two fives and the people next door to him taking their ten acre parcel and splitting it into two fives. So, when you say you have got six acres here that can't be split, there are ways around that if you're -- as you pointed -- creative. Borup: I think what she said you would have to have at least ten to make two fives. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 70 of 89 Lee: At the time that was not the ordinance that was in place and he kind of switched the names on some things for some property he didn't own and something was shuffled under the table. I checked that out thoroughly. Zaremba: Thank you, Anybody else care to testify on this matter? Please come forward. Wright: I'm Barbara Wright and my address is 5048 North Larkwood Place. Zaremba: Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you. Thank you. Wright: If you could show the map of -- that includes the walking path. Our property is this one right here where the walking path ends. My question, really, is not to -- about the subdivision. I was told by Mr. Christensen that there would -- the six foot high vinyl fence would close off the walking path at our property line. My concern is what's the future? If that walking path is there is it to be continued by the City of Meridian? If it is, it will cut a piece of our property from usefulness to us, because there is an irrigation ditch -- the North Slough goes through across that corner, as you can see, and our property line goes straight across. So,we have a triangle that's on .the other side of the ditch that goes for about 15 to 20 feet. Zaremba: We will ask that. Wright: Okay. Zaremba: I think our other question is whether that's intended to be part of the future regional pathway system or not, so -- Wright: Yes, it is. Zaremba: -- we will ask about that. Wright: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Do we know the answer to whether there is a regional pathway coming through there? Canning: Sure, This is one of those unusual instances where the pathway was just kind of guesstimated in this section, because it didn't -- it was trying to get up to the neighborhood center that's along Chinden, so it's a ways away, it's up above -- let's see if I can find it. This is Arcadia and this is Jericho Lane. So, the neighborhood center kind of arcs in this area here and so the pathway was kind of brought in like this and meant to get up to -- to that neighborhood center, When Saguaro came in they have got a very solid pathway going to about here, north-south, and, then, a very solid kind of east-west pathway across where their sewer easement is going. So, we spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and looking at it. The platting pattern in this area is so Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 71 of Sg broken up that when Leeshire went in we talked to them and -- and it was difficult to see the usefulness of trying to bring the north-south pathway through these many many properties over to this neighborhood center, because we just had so many to go through and since Saguaro was already in there with a fairly strong north-south one, we felt it would be better to try and go and connect into the systems that had been put in place with Saguaro. So, the intent, yes, is to have a multi-use pathway there and that -- of course, we would not go across that without either obtaining the property or, more than likely, waiting until somebody wanted to give an easement for that use. So, it's -- the six foot fence will be there until that issue is decided with the homeowner and we are not going to send people traipsing across your property without permission. That would be trespassing, so -- there is a couple other issues that were more directed to Planning and Zoning than they were to the applicant's proposal, so I will go ahead and answer those. Mr. Lee's property that -- there is an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan that ends just at his south boundary. So, you did have a 35-foot buffer, instead of a 25 foot buffer, as would be applicable in this -- in this development. Regarding the stub street, we do put a high emphasis on connectivity and interconnectivity in the Comprehensive Plan and we do require stub streets. We don't require that there be necessarily a plan in place. It's pretty obvious where they are going to connect, but, again, the decisions you're making are forever and it's -- to buy a house later on to put in a street just doesn't happen. So, we are leaving that opportunity available for sometime in the future. Maybe it's ten years from now, maybe it's 30 years from now, maybe it's six months from now. But that's -- that's good planning is to leave those stub streets in place, it just gives you more opportunity to provide that service. There is my preaching. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Christensen, please. Christensen: Any questions initially or should I go through and address some of the points? Zaremba: Please go ahead. Christensen: Okay. Thank you. We will start with the easy ones. I am in favor of putting up a six-foot vinyl fence as requested, buffering between Tustin and Larkwood. I am opposed to any, you know, connectivity to Larkwood's cul-de-sac, as previously addressed. The other issue brought up that we don't necessarily have a large park. We do have an area that could become a tot lot type park, but my intent is to provide something a little bit different where the parks are -- you know, as Commissioner Borup mentioned in an earlier issue or project, you know, some people want to have their own parks in the backyard and put up their own, you know, rainbow play set, et cetera. I'm trying to provide that on the, you know, westerly portion here. So, that kind of explains the lack thereof that was pointed out. We do meet the open space requirements, though, I do believe, as required by the city. One issue, I think, that Dan didn't bring up was water rights and we are working with Settlers on that. Larkwood has requested me considering stubbing our pressurized irrigation system to their lots. I know that's not this jurisdiction, but I just wanted to bring it up, since it was in the letter, I think, that was presented to you. I'm initially opposed to that, just because it increases my irrigation Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 72 of 89 from 44 acres to 60 acres and it causes me piping up sizes and pump up sizes and the main issue is -- you know, I have families and friends that live in my subdivision and I live nearby and I know people in Larkwood and I feel that if we have some kind of commingHng of homeowners associations and irrigation rights, we are going to get some taxation without representation and I can see a lot of cobwebs with that, but we will work through that. My ideal solution to that would be that Settlers, you know, allow them to build their own pump right there and extend accordingly. But I know it's not your jurisdiction, I just wanted to bring that up, since it was in the letter, and we will have a meeting with Larkwood and Settlers Irrigation. I know Settlers has some limitations on where they can pull water out and so we will work through that. On the issues that I'm opposed to that were asked for was, one, to move a lot in this location and I feel like, you know, I have tried to get to a good middle ground and there comes a point where, you know, if you -- a subdivision has a character and if you throw in a few lots that are out of character it just doesn't sell well and doesn't show well and if we get too wide in some of those lots you end up with big side yards that generally aren't desirable to some people because of mowing and maintenance, et cetera, and, obviously, I mean it's an economic sting to me also. I mean you lose one of those nice lots and it eats into the feasibility of this project. And the other one was along the same line and that was limiting the westerly portion to -- or at least on this portion, closer lots, to single story houses. Again, those are -- you know, those are going to be nice lots -- I'm trying to provide, you know, a lot of people sell this home and want to move into this home and I, actually, want to provide something for -- you know, you get single level and a lot of, you know, empty nesters go for those kind of things, but to get the economics to work for families and large families, I'm sensitive to that, because I am of that and, you know, I live on a third acre, but I could have never fit my home and my desired square footage on a single level. And so I'd just like to keep that open to the marketplace and let diversity and the market demand that and that's my personal request. I realize, you know, different opinions might exist amongst the Commissioners, but I oppose those two requests, but everything else I think we are in step. Any other questions? Did I address everything here? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: I don't think so, Moe: Yeah. Probably one. Christensen: Yes. Moe: In regards to the two story homes, are you saying that you're not going to put any single story in that area or -- Christensen: I will just let the market demand. I mean I'm sure single story will come about naturally as they do in any development, but I don't like to -- the more you restrict something, the less marketability and just -- you paint yourself in a corner and I just don't like to do that, especially at such early stages. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 73 of 89 Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would like to think it would be reasonable to lose a lot there on the bottom of the west and maybe put a little more green space in the south of your development. The developments that have, you know, park area are -- they are nicer and there is so little of that for people in this city. Christensen: And, again, you know, there is always a difference of subjectivity, of course, and opinion. You know, I have talked to some people in Vienna Woods who don't like that big park, because they can't keep it nice, it's a big -- you know, large park, you know, they have expressed interest in here and, you know, they are involved with the homeowners association, some of these people, and they see the expense that some of those parks incur and they -- and, again, it's difference of opinion. I like the big park in Vienna Woods, too, you know, so -- it's a good place to play football. So, you know, it's just difference of opinion. I'm just trying to provide something different. You know, we do provide interconnectivity with walking paths and, again, you know, I'm trying to do diversity out here, so that's -- yeah. I see your opinion also. Very valid. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: I think one of the -- we have been seeing a lot more parks lately, but the lots are a lot smaller. I mean if you have 5,000 square foot lots, you need to have a park. When you have large lots, my feeling is the park is in your -- around your house. You have got places for the kids to play. They don't need to go to -- down the street to a park to have more than 20 feet to do something in. Newton-Huckabay: It takes more than 20 feet to throw a baseball back and forth. Or a football. Borup: That's what I'm saying, we have got some 100 foot lots here. You have got more than the 20 feet. Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions, issues from the Commissioners? All right. Thank you, sir. Christensen: Thank you for staying up late for me. Borup: Are we ready to move on? Zaremba: I believe we are. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close V AC 05-001, AZ 05-002, and PP 05-003. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 74 0189 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My only comment would be when we get to Item 16, PP 05-003, to make sure that we reference the revised plat that was received by the City Clerk February 24th, 2005. Any discussion, Commissioners? Borup: My comment -- I'm liking the direction I'm seeing here. We have -- over the years we had it where every subdivision that came through was all R-4, 8,000 square foot, 80 by 100. You didn't have more than two lots that varied from that in the whole subdivision, you know, and, then, we started getting some variety, the next direction was all of the small townhouse lots and it looks like that's going to keep going. I find it rather refreshing to see somewhat of another direction. I mean maybe we are not going another direction, but we have had two before us tonight that have large lots and I welcome this kind of development. I think it's another direction for the city to go. Like I say, I'm -- not just on this -- not just on this application, but pretty much every one that has come up, I'm generally opposed to restricting two story homes. I don't think -- other than a very few situations that it is appropriate, especially in a situation where there is adequate distance. And the same thing on the lot restriction. We didn't -- we didn't do - - there was already -- these lots are already larger on this side than they were on the other side of Larkwood. I mean if it's appropriate for the west end, it should be appropriate from the east side. I guess that's alii have got to say right now. Zaremba: I would comment that we have had instances where a developer has volunteered to limit things to one story. The only times that I can think that we have actually made it a condition where the developer was not volunteering it were not view issues, they were more security issues for the existing neighbors, where it would be uncomfortable to have a second story house so close that they were looking in your backyard and I did not hear that issue raised this time, so we have not, in my recollection, ever taken the move that we would limit the height just to preserve a view. I think the basic principal is you have no right to a view through your neighbor's yard. Borup: Well, in this case there is a non-build-able agricultural lot separating the residential properties from this subdivision. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: I'm batting zero on this one. I have no comments. I'm not getting any support from any of you people. Zaremba: Well, what are we missing? You think there should be larger lots than are proposed or at least along that one side or-- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 75 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: I just think there should be a little more common park area in this development, but nobody agrees with me. Zaremba: Well, our leverage on that, usually, with a planned development is that they are asking for reduced lot sizes and other things, then, it's a trade-off. In this case they are not asking for anything where we could require such a trade. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I realize that, but we are certainly adverse to, you know, encouraging -- Moe: You know, I guess I would say that I -- that it's a welcome change to see that they are not asking for something. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's true. That's true. Moe: It's refreshing to finally see someone actually do it as per what the ordinance is requiring. That's -- you know. Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, was there an unresolved issue with the out building or garage or shop or whatever that -- Borup: I think that -- Newton-Huckabay: They had to build a home on it. Zaremba: And I think that was a requirement that was in the conditions. Moe: It's already in. Yes. Let's go for it. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion, beginning with the vacation. Rohm: Everything's closed? Zaremba: Yes, we did close the hearings. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on -- that we make an affirmative recommendation on VAC 05-001. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 76 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 002, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, to include all staff comments dated February 24th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, if I'm opposed to the development as it stands now, I can nay on 15; right? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I got affirmative -- Zaremba: Yes. That would be the correct place. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and dated February 24th, 2005, and received March 1 st, 2005, and the amended plat received February 24th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four affirmative and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use three story building consisting of retail, office and residential Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 77 of ag uses in the O-T zone for Dave Buich by Dave Buich - 641 North Main Street: Zaremba: We will now open the Public Hearing for Item 17 and this is CUP 05-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use three story building consisting of retail, office, and residential uses in the OT zone for Dave Buich, I believe it is, by Dave Buich, 401 North Main Street. And excuse me if I didn't pronounce that correctly. Hopefully that's close. We will begin with the staff report. Canning: I believe it's Buich. I wish I could say downtown, nice building, go home, but, unfortunately, I probably need to say more, so I will. Rohm: That sounds pretty good. Canning: There are a couple of issues we probably should talk about. This is the Shell station just behind us here as you walk out that back door. It's -- and they are proposing a three-story building. Come on, building, where did you go? There we go. This is Main Street. This is Broadway. This is the existing city parking lot right now. They are proposing a three-story building. They'd have retail on the first floor, office on the second floor, and residences on the third floor. It will be a total of 8,300 square feet of ground floor retail, then, 8,460 square feet of second floor office, and, then, on the third floor will be four residences. You can see the building. There we go. This would yield a requirement for 71 parking spaces under our current ordinance. The proposed site plan shows 22 parking spaces, 11 of which are compact stalls, which is a fairly high percentage for our area of Suburbans. The adjacent city-owned parking lot contains 32 parking spaces. The applicant has applied for a variance for the parking requirements and that will be heard with this -- or that decision will be made by City Council. I think on these past ones, though, in Old Town we have asked you if you want to comment on the variance for the parking, it's certainly something you can feel free to do, we can let the Council know how you feel about that and there is no standards for Old Town, so we are just a -- I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: We won't be able to see the creamery from Main Street anymore. Canning: Okay. Moving on. Newton-Huckabay: I sorry. I shouldn't have -- Borup: Good try. Newton-Huckabay: At some point I should probably stop commenting, somewhere around 11:15. Canning: The OT district does not have sign standards, so we have made the applicant detail out what their sign proposal was. That sign proposal is consistent -- basically, the only sign is in this feature here, I believe, And that was consistent with what the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 78 of 89 regulations are for the Light Office District, which is generally what we look for in the Old Town. So, it was consistent with that. The only-- Zaremba: I'm sorry. The individual retails that are going to on probably the ground floor don't want -- Canning: I presume there will be a little bit of wall signage that -- the wall sign, as they are right now, are only -- L-O allows for no more than 18 percent of the wall area, up to a maximum of 75 square feet. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Your earlier discussion was a freestanding sign; right? Okay. So; wall signs are permissible. Canning: The use proposed is 50 square feet in the form of a circle, which is eight feet in diameter. So, he's only proposing 50 square feet and 75 square feet are allowed. They have not told us what they plan to do as far as identifying individual retail businesses in this location. So, they will probably want to do that before they get up to City Council. And the applicant may have something to add to that later. Zaremba: We will ask when the applicant gets here. Canning: Okay. Regarding the architecture, the only comment that staff had is that the design guidelines that we have been developing for the downtown area, which this would be a part of, highly encourage parapet roofs, instead of sloped roofs, and that, really, was the only issue and this has a sloped peaked roof, rather than having a parapet roof. When the Farmers and Merchants building originally came in next door it had a -- it had a very suburban look to it with a peaked roof and things like that and Steve really worked very hard with them to get it, for one thing, to be two stories and, then, to have a parapet roof. Now, this one -- they called about the design guidelines before they even, I think, set pen to paper on it and, again, it's the only criticism we had. We are thrilled to see the three stories and the fenestration is wonderful. The only thing we were disappointed in, I suppose, was the roof not being a parapet roof. The streetscape -- when Farmers and Merchants came in next door, they kind of established a pattern for street lights and the planters and I think we have asked that this application also continue those standards. And finally -- I already mentioned the variance for the parking, so those were the only issues that I felt that we needed to bring up as staff. Got some more elevations, I think. See how much better this one looks without that peaked roof up here? See? That's all. That's the rear elevation of the building, which I think is quite nice for a rear elevation. That's what you will see from the city parking lot. Rohm: And from the creamery. Canning: And from the creamery. Yes, indeed. Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Do we know if the city parking lot is posted with any parking time limit? No overnight parking or four hour parking? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 79 of 89 Canning: We could have Bruce go right out there. Zaremba: Right across the street. Actually, I think I have parked there and I don't remember -- Borup: Ovemight is when no one is using it. That's the best time to be using it, isn't it? Zaremba: You know, the theory on the city parking lot would be that there is turnover of vehicles and my concern is that maybe some of the residents might have larger cars that don't fit into the compact spaces, might park a car there and just leave it for days. I'm .not sure that's the purpose of the city lot. So, I guess the defense to that would be to ask the city to put up a no overnight or-- Borup: Or no daytime parking. Zaremba: -- no more than 24 hours or something like that. Canning: The applicant may have designated spots for the residences. I'm not sure. You might want to ask him. Borup: There is only four. Canning: Right. Zaremba: That's true. All right. If there aren't other questions, we will go with the applicant. Marshall: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Scott Marshall, LKV Architects, appearing for Dave Buich, who wasn't able to be here tonight. Our firm's address is 1735 Federal Way, Boise, Idaho. 83705, We have no issues with the site-specific conditions or the standard conditions of approval and there is a couple things I'd like to address that I think that there is question on. The first being the signage, under special considerations. If you go to the sentence where it ends -- talking about the eight foot diameter sign on the north elevation, it says the applicant has also proposed tenant signs in the areas which are five by five on the east and west elevations. Zaremba: We are on page five. Marshall: Yes. So, directly above the doors on the front elevation would be signage for individual tenants or signage areas. Canning: Is that correct? Okay. I'm sorry I missed that. I see it in -- plain as day now. Zaremba: I skimmed over that when I was reading it, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 80 of ag Marshall: The second issue was the architecture of structure. Same page. Item number two. We are not opposed to changing the roof to be a parapet. Our design intention was that seeings how it is residential, we wanted to bring a little bit of a residential feel to it and our opinion was because of the height of it and the narrowness of Main Street, that we would still be sensitive to the streetscape by having the businesses on the main floor and, then, providing a little bit of privacy to the residents as they tuck back. But we can put a parapet on top if you want it. It's not really an issue as far as our design goes. Zaremba: Okay. Marshall: And I think that's it, if you guys have any questions? Zaremba: Am I interpreting correctly that the residential units actually are set back a little bit and there is somewhat of a patio -- exterior patio around them? Marshall: That's correct. Zaremba: I think that's a great idea. Rohm: Yeah. 'like that. They are not all sold, are they? Marshall: Not yet. I think they are still for purchase. Rohm: Interesting. Newton-Huckabay: You can still do that with the parapet roof? Marshall: Sure. Zaremba: This isn't necessarily a city issue, but I'm always concerned when a gas station is being removed, with old tanks and stuff. Are you prepared in case there is any cleanup necessary? Marshall: Our client is aware of the potential cost and abatement of that, contaminated soils. I guess he's weighed it out, crunching his numbers, to where it's going to pan out for him, so -- Zaremba: Good. Newton-Huckabay: Weren't those tanks just replaced almost a decade ago? Canning: I do know, Chairman Zaremba, that they did quite a bit of monitoring for the creamery. We tested that for -- to see if there was any contamination for that and this would be, I believe, kind of upstream from that and they didn't pick up anything, so the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 81 of Sg chances are if something were really bad on that site we would -- they would have picked it up when they were doing the creamery and -- Zaremba: We would already know about it. Yeah. Okay. Marshall: I want to add we have met with ACHD already and they have approved what our site -- our access to the site is on both Main and Broadway and as well as the alley. They are requesting us to improve the alley and have it be one way. And as far as the parking goes for the residences, it's our intention to provide designated parking in the supplied lot to the residences on the top of the building. Zaremba: Are you saying they will have specific reserved spaces? Marshall: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Marshall: To prevent that whole parking -- you know, leaving the camper out in that lot for four weeks or something, so -- Zaremba: Good. Any other questions? Canning: Old Town. Nice building. Go home. Zaremba: Frankly, I, one, appreciate your willingness to invest in our downtown, our Old Town, we are trying to revitalize it, and I have been very much in favor of seeing vertically integrated projects come. I think this is the first one that we have actually seen on paper. So, you already have my appreciation. Marshall: I'll convey that to our client. Borup: Yeah. I think it's exciting. I hope it's successful and that we see more of it. The only, I guess, question I have -- and I'm not sure which way I feel, and that's just on the exterior design and the parapet and such. I would -- Moe: Leave it alone. Borup: Leave it alone? Moe: Leave it alone. Borup: So, which -- I thought we was going to -- Moe: The way it is I like it. Borup: Oh, he's saying he likes it the way it is. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 82 of 89 Moe: The way it is. Borup: Well, the others -- I mean the bank building and the George's Bicycle building, I think both have it, but they are both two stories, and it looks real good on the two story. This one has some of that feel. Zaremba: Well, I think from the ground level the top of the second story is going to look like a parapet almost and I'm not sure you are even going to see the top of the third story. Marshall: That's kind of what our thought was. I mean if you look at how -- if you look at the front doors in relationship to how big a person would be, I mean -- Borup: And these -- now these things here gives it a little bit of that feel. You know, it's kind of -- it does get some of that design to it. Marshall: The other thing that we were considering, too, is the view from the front elevation, as well as the side, we were considering bringing up and leaving a space on the top of the roof for individual mechanical units that would serve the residences only. And, then, the two towers on the ends would serve as cooling tower for the office and the -- and the retail space. So, that's kind of -- I suppose you could do that with a parapet wall, too, but that was kind of our thinking. Newton-Huckabay: Are you using the same kind of brick as they did in the Farmers and Merchants? Marshall: That's undetermined. We will be using a brick and a stucco facade and possibly some ceramic tile to kind of bring that old Main Street look, you know, be sensitive to it. But as far as coloring and stuff goes, I don't know. Rohm: Where were the roof top units going to be? Marshall: Well, we -- the roof -- if you see the side view, it doesn't pitch up in a triangle, it kind of flattens out, so it would kind of be up at an angle and, then, the top would be hollowed out to where you could put units up there to hide them. Rohm: Got you. Hollowed out. That's good. Zaremba: All right. If there are no further questions, we do have one other person signed up to speak. Thank you. Jim Zamzow. Zamzow: Good evening. Zaremba: Good evening. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 83 of 89 Zamzow: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. I'm used to being last. I'm Zamzow. Zaremba: I have the same thing. Zaremba is always last also. Zamzow: I just have a couple of questions about this. Zaremba: Officially state your name and address, please. Zamzow: Jim Zamzow, 1727 Trout Road, Eagle, Idaho. A couple of questions. First of all, I have to make this comment, because I know you guys have gone through this before, but it's always amazed me how someone will build a subdivision next to a hog farm and, then, complain about the pigs stinking. Well, we have had a feed mill next to this location since 1953 and along with the feed mill goes heavy trucks, loud roller noises, dust with the grain being unloaded, and that type of thing and while I know that's not going to be a factor forever in the City of Meridian, it could be a factor for the residents at the top of this building and I just want to go down on record as saying that when people move into these very luxurious apartments that there may be some problems. So, I think -- just like the power lines in the other issue, I think that that should be addressed and be considered. I like the building. I, too, like to see the development down there. In fact, we, long term, have plans to do some good things there, too, if there is some way we could get together with those people that have the creamery. Is Jay Amyx still alive? Anyway, if they want to park their old vans and stuff, there is plenty of room back in the back there for that. My concern is the parking with the city lot. This still isn't an appropriate amount of parking, even with the city lot, as far as your code is concerned; is that correct? I thought I heard that. Secondly, is that city lot going to be available for parking for this building in the future, if the city has anything earmarked for that. That's a concern to me. We don't have enough parking along there as it is, so I can see some potential problems. Basically, that's alii really have to say. I just wanted to go down on record as -- I think they should go out and sit there on that location during our operation and kind of get a feel for it, if they haven't already, so that they know what's going on there. Plus, it's time you guys kick us out. Rohm: Good comments. Zaremba: Thank you. Zamzow: Thank you. Zaremba: Any questions for Mr. Zamzow? Newton-Huckabay: No. But I love the new store on Chinden. Zamzow: Thank you, Zaremba: I don't know whether there is a related issue, but in many subdivisions that are being put in next to something that continues to be farmed, we have a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 84 of 89 Right-To-Farm Act statement that's put on the plat. Is there any right-to-mill statement that we can put on this one or -- Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, there is no state law that maintains that particular use. They certainly are allowed to continue that use, but it probably would not be appropriate for a plat or a condition, because the use is -- obviously, it can change at any point. But I agree with the testimony, is that certainly is a potential issue, but I don't know that there is really a way to address that. Maybe Mrs. Canning has a different thought, but I don't know that there really is a way to address that. The current use is that. They can certainly see it when they go there to buy an apartment. The other thing that I was going to mention, Mr. Chairman, probably -- because I think, as Mrs. Canning stated, it has been fairly common for this Commission to comment on the application for a variance in relation to that, that might be the appropriate place, if the Commission has some recommendation or suggestions to the Council in regards to the variance, because, obviously, the parking is an issue that's been raised by both the Commissioners and at the testimony, so that might be the appropriate place to make that comment, if you wish. Zaremba: Thank you. As the first vertically integrated project that we have had, I know there was parking -- a discussion of the parking and I have forgotten now how -- how short are they of what we would expect to be in a building with these uses. Newton-Huckabay: Fifty. Fifty. Zaremba: Short 50? Newton-Huckabay: Didn't you say 70 parking spaces? Canning: Seventy-one would normally be required and they have 22 off-street parking stalls. And, then, the city lot has 32. So, we are up to 54 out of 71. Nary: Mr. Chairman, on that note, too, I'm not aware of any discussion at this juncture that this property has had as to the use of the city parking lot or any cross-use agreement of any sort or -- there isn't -- I'm not aware that there is any signage currently on that lot about the usage or the time or turnover or any of those things. Certainly, the city may need to consider those things, but I'm not aware, unless the planning department is aware of any discussions that this applicant has had with the city about counting those spaces or having some cross-use agreement to be able to count those spaces as usable on a regular basis by the tenants of this property. Canning: That's correct. You go ahead. Rohm: I was just going to say that the applicant has made provisions for their residents and that's -- I think that that's going to be the spaces that will be occupied on a -- on a continuing basis and the rest of the spaces will be occupied on a come-and-go -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 85 of 89 Zaremba: Well -- and I'm not sure I have a problem even with the city lot being used by transient vehicles that are accessing this property. My concern would be that there not be permanent vehicles taking up space that -- I mean it's a public parking lot and it should be used for all businesses around there or all uses around there. Rohm: Yeah. At some point in time it may be something that the city should consider putting time limitations on those -- that city lot. I mean because right now the people that work in the buildings could take every one of them and there would be no parking for customers. Anyway, that's for another day. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners -- Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Which it's almost another day, so - Canning: There is -- the city conducted a parking study of the downtown area. I don't know if you're aware of that. The gist of the results were that for the most part there is not a parking problem in downtown. There is a little bit of a shortage just around this area. The City Hall generates a fair amount of need and, then, the church across the street when they are having their meetings creates a fair demand. One of the issues is that -- for planning is, though, is how much parking do you really want to require or plan for in the downtown area. The idea is to get people on their feet walking, have it be a pedestrian atmosphere. It is not to be a suburban location that -- where you can get from your car to the retail store in a few steps. I mean there is just a difference between the downtown area and a suburban mall location as far as parking requirements. Now, we haven't gotten that far in our -- in our assessment of the downtown area yet to come up with different standards for parking, but that's one -- that will be the -- I believe the only issue, really, for the variance before the City Council and staff has not included that analysis here, but I just wanted to give you that other information. Zaremba: Have we gotten comment from Meridian Development Corp on -- Canning: You know, Clair came by and I was in a different meeting to -- the director came by and I was in a different meeting today and I tried to call him, but was not able to hook up with him. He said he had one quick question and that's alii know, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Let's see. Is the Public Hearing still open? I don't believe we gave the applicant the last word, which is typical procedure, Marshall: Just one more quick thing. We -- there was extensive conversation between us and the client on the parking issue as well, because, obviously, if there is no parking, no one is going to come to the building and it's not going to rent and we came to the same conclusion that they did, is that it's a different -- the nature of the building is somewhat different than usual, it's not like it's the mall where you -- you would want to walk to a mall, because the parking lot is, you know, three hundred yards long. So, it Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 86 of 89 was our feeling that it wouldn't be really an issue and that it would contribute more to the downtown fabric than to having not enough parking, so -- that's it. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Are there going to be -- Mr. Marshall? Are there going to be CC&Rs for the four residents, for instance, a homeowners association or anything? Marshall: We haven't gotten that far yet. I would imagine so. Zaremba: I'm just wondering if mentioning that it -- at the present time there is a mill next door might be useful there. Marshall: There was a little bit of discussion of that, too, and I think that, you know, it is an urban setting and so anticipation of noises during the night, sirens, that kind of thing, I can't speak for everybody, but I know that if I were to buy it I would be aware of potential noises. It's not going to be like you're out in a subdivision out in Eagle or something where it's dead quiet. So, that -- it's a good point and I will take it back to the client. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-005, to include all staff comments dated February 24th, 2005, for the hearing date March 3rd, 2005, and received on March 1 st, 2005, in their entirety. End of Motion. Moe: We were not going to make any -- Rohm: No. Newton-Huckabay: We didn't make a determination on the elevation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 87 of 89 Moe: -- in regards to the parking? Rohm: Right. No, I think we are just going to leave it just the way it is. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: I am so confused now. Moe: Well, she brought up another good point. Are we going with the elevation as shown or to staff's comment on wanting to go with a more parapet, because that would, then, require them to make a change. Rohm: And I -- I, actually, accepted the applicant's position that the top story is going to set back in and from the streetscape it looks like a parapet, so I don't think that that's a huge issue. Moe: On that note, second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Do we care to give a consensus on the parking variance? Moe: Well, I -- just a comment that I'm a little bit concerned with, number one, I love this project, I think this is a fabulous addition to downtown. My concern is -- is you build one and others will come. Canning: We are hoping. Moe: But having said that, I'm a little bit concerned as far as the variance on the parking -- and I realize we have to do something for parking for this facility, but we are, then, going to -- we are opening ourselves up to where you gave it to them, now we want it and we want it and, then, at some point, then, we may have ourselves a parking problem by doing such. Having said that, I don't really know what I'm trying to tell you, but I have got a little bit of a concern there, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, downtown parking, I would imagine everything would be driven by demand. Isn't it going to be driven by availability to some extent? There is only so much space downtown. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe to assist the Council, since it's ultimately their call, maybe to assist the Council, if the Commission has some thought in the fact that there are three different Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3. 2005 Page 88 of ag types of uses in this building and it appears from the testimony the discussion was providing specific designated space for their tenants of the residences in the building. Maybe if the Commission had some thought to provide the Council some insight as to your feeling in regards to the office space and the necessity of parking in relation to those versus the necessity of parking in relation to retail, I think some of the testimony revolved around the turnover of parking and the nature of trying to create a pedestrian atmosphere, but maybe by dividing it by the types of uses that might give the Council some guidance as to how to set some standard for those variances to look at that, because I think you're right, once you build one of these and it's successful you may see more of that and that might be of some help to the Council. Newton-Huckabay: Is that by percentage? Nary: No. I'm just saying in relation to whatever your feelings are, but I mean they talked about providing specific designated spaces for their residences and if you feel that's adequate, then, the Council maybe should know that that is your preference. If you think that there should be some -- there should be some relationship of the office uses, because, again, those don't turn over during the course of a day normally, the same way that retail does, maybe that's part of your part comment to the Council as well, to give us some guidance between the types of uses, because we don't have anything in our code currently to address these varieties of uses in one facility like this. So, that might be a way for the Council to sort of get their arms around your thoughts as to those uses in relation to the parking, if that makes sense. Rohm: And I think that all of that is unique to downtown itself, but not specifically to this project and any comments that I would make about that parking would be in a -- more of a global nature and maybe suggest to the city that they consider the available downtown parking that currently exists should have some -- maybe some limitations on length of parking in a percentage of those, so that there is that turnover availability for retail, whether it be for this project or any other. But I don't think that there is anything specific to this project that I would want to -- that I would want to tie the Council to. Borup: Okay. I would think the owners would -- if they perceive -- if they have a problem, that they would maybe want to restrict certain parking places to retail only -- to limit it to the office and let the office park a little farther away, but -- Zaremba: Well, they can do that by designating some spaces as half hour spaces. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Or something like that. Borup: And I had the same concern Commissioner Moe does, I think, you know, we may have some problems in the future, but that's probably the time to address it as when the next projects come up, it's -- you know, it's good to get one something going and it would be nice to have that problem later on. Meridian Planning & Zonin9 March 3, 2005 Page 89 of 89 Zaremba: Well, I think my only concern is the public parking lot becoming de facto this property's parking lot and my answers to that would be to say probably to the City Council, yes, I'm in favor of the variance, my suggesting would be the applicant has said they are going to specifically identify the resident spaces and I suggest that the city do some signage that requires turnover in the city's parking lot. Rohm: I think that's well said. Zaremba: That would be my opinion. Moe: I would agree as well. Newton-Huckabay: I agree, too. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I believe that was a consensus and we are ready for one more motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned at what looks like midnight 07. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:07 AM. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Q~~Ap- DAVIDZAREMB- HAIRMAN cI I-1Já DÞ1r-E APPROVED