Loading...
2007 02-01 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina February 1 ~ 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 1, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Members Absent: Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters, Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, Sheree Finch and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X David Mae - Vice Chairman 0 X Michael Rohm - Chairman Keith Borup Steve Siddoway Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. lid like at this time to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The first item is the adoption of the agenda and there are a number of changes tonight, as is typical for these type of meetings, and I will just read them off one by one and act accordingly. Item No. 4 on the agenda, Cold Creek Subdivision, will be continued until March 1st, 2007, due to improper posting. Item 5 on the agenda, St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building will be continued to February 15th, 2007, for the same reason. Item 6, Waltman Property, the applicant has asked to continue this item to March 15th, 2007, to clear up some lose ends with staff, basically. And Item No. 13, Ahlquist Annexation, has requested a letter requesting -- has submitted a letter requesting continuation to March 15th, 2007. All of those items will be changed to the agenda and the balance will remain as written. So, with those changes could we get a motion to adopt the agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 2 of 41 Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC - NEe of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Rohm: Okay. The next item on the agenda is a Consent Agenda and there are four items on this agenda and the first one, A, is approve the minutes of the December 21st, 2006, Commission meeting. Item B is approve the minutes of the January 4th, 2007, P&Z Commission meeting. Item C is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-040. And Item D is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-032. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Mae: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Public Hearing: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by SSC, LLC - north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. As previously mentioned, Item 4 on the agenda will be continued, but we first have to open it. So, at this time lid like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-064 for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1st, 2007. Moe: So moved. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 3 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Ifs been moved and seconded to continue Item PP 06-064 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1 st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? A lot of work there to continue these things isnlt it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the 0- T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building by S1. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street: Rohm: Okay. Item 5. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-041 related to St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 06-041 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 18, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Rohm: Item 6 on the agenda is a continued Public Hearing from January 18th, 2007, of AZ 06-063 and lid like to open this for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. Mae: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item AZ 06-063 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 4 of 41 Rohm: Okay. Good. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I just have a question regarding -- we seem like we have been having a lot of continued hearings. Do we have a bottleneck coming up in the next couple months that -- Rohm: I believe we will address that to staff. Caleb. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, other Commissioners, the next hearing -- your next hearing, February 15th, is quite full. March is looking really good, though. So, I'm optimistic that we can make it through all the agenda. I think there is eight or nine agenda items on the February 15th agenda. It seems like we have one or two or four in this case that fall off, so if things go how they have been going in the past several months and we have one or two of those drop for -- to be continued -- I imagine maybe six or seven hearings -- and there is one or two of them that probably will have some testimony, I imagine. The other ones are CUs and should be pretty quick items. So, other than the 15th, the next couple of months are looking pretty good. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Before we open the next item I'd like to just talk to you a little bit about the procedure we go through when we have a Public Hearing on a proposed application. Basically, what we do is we will open the Public Hearing and we will ask staff to give their comments and, basically, the staff takes a look at the application and they compare it to the Comprehensive Plan and to the UDC, the Unified Development Code, and they give their recommendations to the Commission based upon the adherence to those two documents and there is a dialogue that has been established along the way between the applicant and staff and, basically, for the most part, most of the items should have been addressed prior to this hearing. Once the staff has given their presentation, the applicant, then, has their opportunity to come before the Commission. That's really their sales pitch. That's where they are trying to sell the project to the Commission based upon what they feel are its strengths and attributes. Once those two portions of the hearing have been completed, the hearing is, then, open to the public. The public has an opportunity to come forward and speak to each individual application based upon their perspective. Once that's done, then, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to any comments from the public. Once that's completed, then, we will close the Public Hearing and we will either act on the application, either via a motion to approve and deny or if there is not enough information to make a valid decision, then, we have the option of continuing it to a later date for additional information. But, generally speaking, we try to finish with a project after it's been heard by the public in the same night that ies been heard. So, with that in mind -- and, then, as each of you come forward, please, state your name and address for the record before testimony begins. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 5 of 41 Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06- 062, item for Hoyd Annexation and begin with the staff report. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and Carmel Drive, approximately a quarter mile north of Fairview Avenue. Fairview is right here. The subject property is right here. Carmel Drive runs right to the south of it. The site is currently vacant with residential property to the north, zoned R-1 and commercial property further to the north, Hartz Music Shop, zoned L-O. Just a little bit of information here. The property to the north, both parcels there, are currently in process requesting a rezone and annexation for commercial designation into the city. To the east is residential property zoned R-8. To the south is vacant land zoned R-1. And commercial property further to the south that contains a child care facility zoned C-C. Rural residential property to the west. It has a single family house and pasture ground. Here is an aerial view of the property. The property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and the applicant is requesting to annex and zone the 1.12 acre parcel with a C-C, community business zoning district, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial. No new development is proposed at this time. However, the applicant is intending to construct to two story 14,000 square foot office building on the site in the future. The applicant has submitted conceptual site plan and elevations with construction materials, showing how the property may develop in the future. The site plan right here. The conceptual site plan submitted with this applicant shows access to the site being provided from Carmel Drive with no direct access to Meridian Road. A driveway is shown at the north boundary for future cross- access with the parcel to the north. Off-street parking is shown on the plan as you can see there. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but will be required on development of the property. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure that future cross-access is provided to the property to the north, to limit the hours of operation for future businesses between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., since the property is adjacent to residential uses, and to insure that the development or the property substantially complies with the conceptual site plan and elevation submitted with this application and to require an elevation certification be submitted for the future building. And other just standard development agreement provisions. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the applicant and stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 6 of 41 Mae: Sonya, I just want to -- the site plan that you had up there, that is the current site plan, not the one that's in this packet right here? Watters: It is. There was a revised -- there was a revised one submitted. The correct one is in the staff report. Mae: Okay. Thank you. Watters: This is a copy of the elevation submitted here for the proposed building down the road. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Borup: Just one. Do we have any drawings on the rear elevation or whichever elevation is going to be against Meridian Road? Watters: All I have is -- excuse me, Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission, the only elevations I have are those submitted by the applicant. It looks like they show the front elevation and kind of a front side view of it. I do not have -- Borup: Okay. We have got that. So, anything else? Watters: Yeah. I'm not sure of how the building is going to be -- Borup: The same -- this is still a corridor, so some of the corridor design standards apply as far as the -- Watters: This is not in the entryway corridor. Borup: It's not considered that. Watters: No. Borup: Okay. Maybe we will get some information from the applicant. Thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hoyd: I'm Kendall Hoyd. My address 10835 West Treeline Court, Boise, Idaho, and I'm the applicant on the piece of property. And so is there a particular question I can answer before -- Rohm: Yeah. I think, basically, you would speak to the staff presentation or have you had an opportunity to read the staff report -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 7 of 41 Hoyd: I have. Rohm: -- to validate whether or not you concur with it or -- Hoyd: There is nothing in there that presents a problem for me. Rohm: Okay. And, typically, on a single dwelling that would be the case like this. would ask you is your rear elevation, is it going to be similar to the frontal elevation? Hoyd: The elevations are actually -- yeah, it's going to be -- the front and the back of this building are going to be actually a little dressier than what you see right here. We have just had an architect start to work on this -- on the esthetics of this building in the last couple of days and it's going to house an engineering firm and a design firm. From our perspective that needs to reflect a certain professionalism with respect to design and so it -- you know, there will probably be much more texture to the ~uilding vertically with respect to there will probably be a little bit more -- Rohm: Relief? Hoyd: There will be relief. That's a good word. Yeah. There will be much more relief and I think that the -- the zone accents that we end up using will -- there will be much more that runs the height of the building. Borup: And that was my question. I was a little concerned with the way you have presented it now. Hoyd: Yeah. Borup: Are you familiar with some of the design guidelines that they have on the entranceway corridor -- Hoyd: 11m not. Borup: -- buildings? It's basically -- I think it's some of what you have described, but it talks about having some projections and maybe some facades and stuff like that, but -- Hoyd: These are the things that are currently underway. Unfortunately, the box that's drawn there looks a little bit like a barracks and I donlt think that would reflect well on either one of our firms that we intend to house there. Borup: So, are you comfortable with going by the other guidelines, do you feel? guess that's hard to say without -- Hoyd: Not knowing specifically what they are, I -- Borup: But it sounds like you're in line with what those would be. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 8 of 41 Hoyd: Yeah. Our intent is for this to be an attractive building, because, you know, that's necessary to its purpose. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. We do not have anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but now is that time. So, if there is someone that would like to come forward, please, do so. And seeing none -- Mae: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public 'Hearing on AZ 06-062. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I think before I make another motion, I guess I would anticipate that after hearing the applicant, I would anticipate that when they do come forward, you know, the designs will I think be looking what we are looking for as far as esthetics and whatnot. Or the elevations. Borup: Come forward of where? Moe: Well, when they come back through the process for the building itself. Not through us, I'm just saying that -- Borup: Through staff. Moe: Right. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Staffs been real good and careful on the other ones and I think have watched some of the other buildings going up and I think ifs accomplished what we'd like to. Moe: I guess the whole point is I don't have a problem per the staff report. So, in that case, then, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 9 of 41 Mae: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 06-062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1 st, 2007. Borup: Second. Rohm: Ifs been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time lid like to open two hearings related to the same project. Continued Public Hearing AZ 06-057 and continued Public Hearing PP 06-056 and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Jericho Subdivision. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 7th, 2006. At that time the applicant proposed annexation of 9.52 acres from RUT to solely R-15, medium high density residential and preliminary plat approval of 73 single family lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots. The applicant also originally submitted a variance application for reduced rear yard setbacks for the proposed townhouse units. Staff had recommended denial of the project. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is more compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. The application proposes annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval for 68 single family residential lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots on 9.52 acres within the R-4, medium low density residential, and R-15, medium high density residential, zoning designations. The subject site, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation, is generally located on the west side of Jericho Road, approximately a fifth of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. And that is right here. Eight detached single family homes will take direct lot access from Jericho Road and that is these eight right here. Two streets will connect with the adjacent residential subdivision, Hightower Subdivision, over here, one at the west property line, this here, and one at the north property line. And these two Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 10 of 41 accesses will serve the remaining portion of the development. Two 24 foot wide private streets are proposed within Block 2 to access the rear loaded town homes. And that is this and this. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 68 residential lots, between 2,300 and 8,725 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 6,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing to set aside approximately 6.15 percent of the property for landscaping open space, including, but not limited to, a micro pathway in a centralized common area. And you can see on the landscape plan this is a MEW design. So, the centralized common area will be here between the townhouses units. There are three issues to mention here. Per the Unified Development Code any tree over four inches in caliper that is removed from the property should be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of those removed. There are an exceptionally large number of caliper inches of existing trees on site, which the applicant is proposing to remove or relocate. Elroy Huff of the Meridian parks department is working out the details with the applicant, but no final decision has been made between parks and the applicant regarding mitigation. However, parks has stated that more trees should be installed within the subdivision than are currently proposed and 50 or more trees should be donated to a local park. Staff is supportive of this plan and staff would encourage the Commission to provide comment on this and suggest any changes the Commission would deem appropriate. Second, staff has not received comments on this project from ACHD. However, ACHD has advised city staff that Jericho Road is considered a residential collector. ACHD policy currently prohibits direct lot access to collector roads. This revised layout of Jericho Subdivision will depend on whether ACHD approves the development with front-on housing to Jericho Road. However, due to the small relative feel of this development, staff does recommend that the Commission hear and act on the subject application. Third, perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or preliminary plat. There is currently existing fencing running the length of the western property boundary. Additionally, fences are required adjacent to all common areas. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter or the type of fencing to be installed around the common lots and micro pathway. The applicant will need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Borup: Just one. You had mentioned on -- the redesign took care of the rear setback. Is this the same one that originally you asked for a four foot? Is that correct? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, yes, the original application originally proposed a four foot rear setback to the townhouse units. They submitted a variance for that. This is no longer needed with this application. They are able to meet all of the setbacks. Borup: So, get the -- and the 20 foot parking now. Hess: Are required. The parking pad as well. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 11 of 41 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? McKay: Good evening, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular application that's before you this evening. As Amanda indicated, this particular site is right there on the edge of that neighborhood center. We worked with the staff -- I think I have had more pre-application conferences on this nine acre site than I have had on any large project to try to come up with something. that would work for the neighborhood and work for the staff and still meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Obviously, with the neighborhood center it has that requirement that you have at least eight dwelling units per acre, promotes diverse residential type product and some creativity. The staff recommended -- on our south boundary we have Arcadia Subdivision. We have Hightower to the west and Hightower to the north. So, the staff had us look at those projects and kind of get an idea of what was done there and try and incorporate some of those ideas into our project. We submitted the project and the staff was still not satisfied. We have a unique situation on Jericho Street where we have five one acre lots that are directly across the street from us. We have met with those neighbors multiple times and they were still not satisfied, so we thought let's defer this application, meet with the neighbors, all of them, and do a roundtable discussion and see what we can come up with. This is what we came up with. The Jericho residents said we feel that our street's unfinished with this -- Jericho being single loaded, we were originally proposing that we would have some lots fronting here, but they were alley load and they said, you know, what we'd like to see are lots at least 8,000 square feet, no more than eight to complete or finish out Jericho Street and make a neighborhood, because we kind of feel like we are the odd man out here just with the - - our neighborhood on one side. So, we met with ACHD. The staff indicated that Jericho was designated a collector, however, there is application into ACHD at this time to vacate Jericho from about this point here up to Chinden and, therefo're, the traffic will come and funnel through Hightower and go out to a possible signal location at the half mile. So, ACHD indicated that they could live with that. they recognize the desire of the Jericho residents to complete their neighborhood and they said we think we can live with that. They just have not had an opportunity to put their staff report together, but they did feel comfortable that we come here this evening, obviously, asking the staff to make sure that whatever report that they do come up with is tied to this application. But they were comfortable with us proceeding forward. So, it's almost like we have two different developments and thatls what the neighbors had asked to us to do. They said, you know, if you want to go with some attached product, alley load, we don't have a problem with that, as long as you try to keep it in the center of this -- of the project and, then, transition to some smaller detached lots and, then, obviously, have the 8,000 square foot and up lots adjoining them. So, that's what we have done. We have connected both stub streets into Hightower. We do have a pedestrian pathway that will lead to Jericho Street, so we do have some pedestrian interconnectivity. We have got Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 12 of 41 these lots here. These are both private roads, because ACHD does not allow it to be called an alley if that is your primary access. So, with the common open space, the MEW here in the middle, we had to come up with this idea, that these would be private roads. This has kind of been an evolution. We think we are there. The staff was happy. The neighbors were happy. We hope the Commission is happy with what they see. If Amanda could put up on the screen the elevations. These are the type of homes that they are proposing. These are the detached ones. The attached ones would look like that. So, we did submit elevations to kind of give you an idea of the feel and architecture that they are proposing in here. We do meet that overall density requirement of your Comprehensive Plan with our net density. I believe Amanda asked about the fencing. We did not describe the type of fencing we are going to have on the periphery, because we are going to have to coordinate with Hightower. They are on two sides of us. And, then, with our lots fronting on Jericho, obviously, we would have fencing on -- if Amanda could go back to the site plan. We haven't discussed what type of fencing this would be. But this is the Hightower boundary and, then, the west boundary and, then, along the south is Arcadia, an existing subdivision. So, I'd like to kind of coordinate with the adjoining developer on that fencing type. Obviously, if they can split the cost, it works out great. We reviewed the staff report. We are in agreement. The only item that I had a concern about was on condition number 1.2.8. We believe that with our new design that we can potentially save additional trees that are existing on the site. So, therefore, it's very specific saying 50 trees must be donated to the Meridian Parks Department. If we can save more trees with this new design, then, obviously, that number would go down. So, we'd like some type of language put in there, you know, to the satisfaction of the parks department and our landscape architect will be working with Elroy. The problem we had in our original design is we had a street going through the two areas where the largest number of existing trees were located. Now, by eliminating that vehicular connection to Jericho, we think we can save more trees. Other than that, we are in agreement with the staff. We ask the Commission to, please, consider this and recommend it for approval to the Council. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Questions of the applicant? Mae: Well, number one, Becky, what was that condition number again? McKay: Oh, I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.8. McKay: Correct. 1.2.8. Fourth bullet. I think it just -- it would just eliminate the last sentence. Or eliminate the reference to 50. Dedicate a required number of trees based upon the number -- you know, that are required to be mitigated. Something along that line would be great. Rohm: I think I'd like to ask staff if they could respond to that a little bit from their perspective. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 13 of 41 Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, 11m currently looking for the -- a letter -- correspondence between the applicant and from the parks department regarding this. Rohm: Okay. We have got a few minutes. We are all right. Hood: While she is looking that up, I just may -- I mean if the applicanfs able to save some trees -- I mean ultimately the goal is to mitigate for whatever trees are removed from the site. So, if they are able -- if that number changes and based on a new design they can save 24 caliper inches or whatever it turns out to be, then, thafs -- you know, obviously, they wouldn't have to mitigate for those. So, if 50 is no longer the number that the parks department deems appropriate, then -- not to speak for Amanda, she will come up with some more detailed numbers, but I think to work with the parks department in general sounds like a pretty fair condition anyways and whatever -- as long as the applicant is willing to let the parks department deem what fair is and how many trees they are responsible to mitigate for or donate to the parks department, I donlt know that we would have any heartburn over that. Rohm: And that seems appropriate. So, Amanda, I'm not so sure that ifs necessary to get the exact verbiage, as long as the applicant and the Commission can come to agreement on that. I guess the applicant hasn't any additional input, so at this time I would like to open it to the public for testimony and here has -- Jerry Olson. Would you like to come forward or were you just -- just an observer from the audience and didn't have any testimony to offer. Thank you, sir. There is nobody else that has signed up for this, but at this time it's certainly open to the public, so anyone that would like to come forward you certainly may. It doesn't appear as if we have anybody that feels necessary to testify. So, is there discussion amongst the Commission? Commissioner Borup, do you have any thoughts on this before we move forward? Borup: No. I think -- there has been plenty of time that things have been worked out, so if the neighbors are happy and staff's happy, 11m happy. Rohm: Good. All right. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any closing comments? Newton-Huckabay: No. I just have a question about outstanding issues related to public works and utilities and -- is that all resolved, though? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. The one concern that Public Works staff had with utilities when they were requesting the limited setback in the rear wouldn't leave enough room for the joint trench utilities. Since that variance has been withdrawn, Public Works didn't have time to take that out, so we don't have that concern anymore, because the setback is larg"e enough to install those facilities. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 14 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Good. Newton-Huckabay: I have no concern with this. I'm happy to see that it's able to have those homes on Jericho look like a neighborhood, because I have always -- I have always hated the way that whole thing has developed out there and so I'm pleased. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Mae? Moe: Quite frankly, I think it's a much nicer development now than the first time through. I was very glad to see that. But I'm going to be very honest with you, I am very confused right now in regards to moving this forward as far as staff recommendation in regards to approvals and whatnot. I can't seem to find that. Borup: There is two reports. I had the same problem. Moe: Oh. Borup: So, the one at the bottom where we normally are, that's not the one. That's the old one. Mae: So, I was looking at the wrong one, then. Borup: So, was I. You're not alone. Moe: Thank you. That's why I couldn't find it. Newton-Huckabay: I'll make a motion. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will make a recommendation, I just need some clarification. I have that item 1.2.8 on the fourth bullet that we will strike the dedicate at minimum 50 trees to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department and replace that with dedicate a -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 15 of 41 Borup: Can you just keep the first sentence that says work with the Parks Department? Newton-Huckabay: Coordinate definitive tree mitigation with the Meridian Parks Department prior to application for final plat. Borup: Just leave that is what you're saying. Newton-Huckabay: Should we have that they are based on the final mitigation of trees or is that statement alone appropriate? . Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think that that sentence could stand by itself. It is repeated in the general requirement as well, item -- or condition number 1.3.7. So, just coordinate definitive mitigation plan with the Meridian Parks Department. Yau may even decide to strike the whole bullet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. How about I do that. Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. It's -- it's a little bit difficult -- for the maker of the motion, for staff, when we are looking at final plat for these, the site specific ones are usually the ones that we spend a little more attention on and making sure that compliance has been had. Quite honestly, the general conditions get glossed over and so if you want to just repeat it in there, that's fine, but to make sure that it stands out that there is a -- there were trees on here that need to be mitigated for. I think it is appropriate in this case. Just because I know when final plats come in, again, we spend more time looking at the site specific to make sure those are complied with specifically. Newton-Huckabay: So, you want me to modify statement 1.3. 7? Hood: No. I would -- after you modify the fourth bullet of 1.2.8 -- Newton-Huckabay: 1 .2.8. Hood: -- and if you want it to have -- to say the same thing, that's fine, but at least ies in the site specific conditions. Sorry, we just went in a big circle, but I think that's going to be easier for us to make sure we get a letter from the parks department when they do come in for a final plat and that condition does apply to them, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, leave it in and just drop the second sentence? Borup: Makes sense to me. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, I had a question of how I need to word the fence -- you were looking for a fence plan. The applicant wants to coordinate fences with the neighboring development. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 16 of 41 Hess: I'm sorry. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Could you repeat the question? Newton-Huckabay: The fencing. You made comment that we needed to address the coordination of -- that there was no fencing plan. Applicant stated she wanted to coordinate fencing with the other development. Where do you want that stated? How-- Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that could even be added as an additional bullet under the landscape plan under condition 1.2.8. The other thing that the applicant did not mention was the type of fencing along the micro pathway that is required per UDC -- and I apologize for not bringing it to the Commission's attention while the hearing is still open. Newton-Huckabay: Micropath -- standard micropath fencing. Hess: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Not a problem. We have resolved that? Moe: The ACHD report. Newton-Huckabay: What about them? What do you want me to -- Moe: Well, ACHD still has not approved the roadway through. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to take a run at this. If I say anything, Amanda, that's going to confuse you when you're rereading this, just jump in. Oh, we didn't make comment to the private roadway. Do you still want that? It says on here: Commission make a formal recommendation to Council on annexation and preliminary plat. Plus, also review and make recommendations regarding the private street application. Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commission Newton-Huckabay, the private street application is an administrative type application,. so if you have concerns about that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Understand that. You have on this staff report that you want the Commission to make recommendation regarding the private street application and we have not done that. Hess: I'm sorry, which page is -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 1 7 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: It would be page one. Hess: Commission Members -- Borup: It says they may. Hess: That, actually -- yes. That, actually, says the Commission may, if they so choose, make comment on -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hess: -- the private street. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Bullet 1.2.8 -- or excuse me. Condition number 1.2.8, bullet number four, we will drop the last sentence, dedicate at minimum 53 to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department. We will add a bullet to 1.2.8 regarding the applicant coordinating like fencing with development to the north, west, and south. And that the micropath fencing will be in line with the current UDC micropath fencing guideline. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and second to forward onto City Council with a recommendation for approval of AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. . Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen on the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, Item No. PP 06-058 related to Jayker Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant has applied for preliminary plat approval of 277 single family residential building lots, 27 common lots, and one what we are calling a commercial slash common lot, which will contain -- that lot will contain the proposed community center. The site is located on the Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 18 of 41 north side of Chinden Boulevard. It's located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard approximately a half mile east of Black Cat Road, extending east to approximately Ten Mile Road. And Ten Mile Road does not extend north of Chinden, but it's where that eastern point would be if Ten Mile were to extend north of Chinden, that's about where this site terminates. Thank you. This area is -- basically, what we are talking about is this area right in here, not including this area down here in the southeast corner. This area was previously annexed and zoned as part of the Tree Farm annexation. As part of that annexation the property owner was required to enter into a development agreement in which it was agreed that this land would develop in general compliance with the conceptual plan that was submitted at that time. The proposed preliminary plat is located within various zoning designations, which include R-2, R-8, R-15, and a very small portion of C-N. Unfortunately, the map before you doesnlt show these zoning designations. The way our maps are updated is through the county and, unfortunately, this -- this area has not been updated yet by the county. So, ifs shown here as RUT. Thafs incorrect. What I will do is I'm going to move to the applicanfs concept plan, which will allow us to kind of get a feel for what those zoning designations are. This is the area we are talking about. This would be R-2 up here, which th~ applicant calls estate housing. Much of this area in here is R-8 and, then, this area down here is the R-15, with one band of R-8 adjacent to this parcel to the east. So, I hope that helps the Commission know what the zoning looks like out there. It's -- unfortunately, we don't have a proper map yet, but that's, basically, what the applicant is proposing. The subject preliminary plat is the first phase of the Tree Farm and it's, basically, the first phase of this entire development, which is going to encompass all of that area described earlier. Let me go back now to our -- we could probably do it through the aerial photograph also. To the north of this site is the Phyllis Canal, as you can see here, which runs across the northern -- much of the northern property boundary. To the east is one acre lots in the Spurwing Subdivision, which can be seen here. And, also, to the south and east is the Westwing Subdivision, which has a line of one acre lots and, then, a large parcel that's currently used for agriculture. To the south there are several rural properties zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is agricultural and rural residential, zoned R-R in Ada County. Much of the area to the west of this -- of the subject subdivision is currently being operated as a nursery, the Jayker Tree Farm, and that nursery will continue to operate until this subdivision and all the subsequent plats that will be put forward on this property kind of move to the west. Let's move on to the plat now. This is an overview of the plat and we have various detail sheets, if the Commission has specific questions on specific areas. As mentioned earlier, it's a little bit easier to see now that this is the R-2 area, the estate lot area, th'e R-8 area, and down here the R-15 area and that small portion of C-N is kind of located on what we are calling that community -- or that commercial slash common lot right here. There is a small portion of C-N, which is located there. But as stated it will be -- that lot will be used for the community center. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 277 single family build-able lots. 11m going to break those down a little bit, so we have an idea. It's a lot of lots and a lot of different types, so we will kind of break it down. All the homes within the development are proposed to be single family and can be broken down to the following categories: 28.2 percent or 78 building lots in the R-2 zone up here. These are designed as estate lots and will contain Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 19 of 41 large -- large homes. 33.6 percent or 93 building lots in the R-8 area, designed as single detached housing. The majority of that is located right there. And 38.2 percent or 106 building lots in the R-15 zone designed as lifestyle house, from which what I understand will include some attached units. But all of the lots are single family. There is a great range of lot sizes being proposed, with lots as large as 29,000 square feet located in the estate area, and as small as 4,000 square feet located down in the lifestyle housing area. The total acreage of the plat is 142.97 acres and the total gross density of the project is 1.93 dwelling units per acre. And approximately 39.1 acres or 27 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. And those open spaces can be seen as these large swaths of open space that run throughout the development. This is also a good exhibit to discuss the street system. Along with the building lots the applicant is proposing to construct various public streets as part of this project. Two collector streets are planned. The first would be Tree Farm Boulevard, which is this street right here, which will be the street that connects with Chinden. The other collector style street is going to be called Jayker Way and it's this street that runs up and around the subdivision there. And each of these streets, as mentioned, are designed as collectors and will not have front-on housing. A number of stub streets are also proposed for this subdivision. You can see numerous stub streets here. There is one there, which is Jayker Way, which stubs into a future subdivision connected to this development. Jayker Way also has a stub street to the north to the TICO One property. There are a couple of stub streets located to the -- that connect to the West Wing Estates Subdivision, one located here and one located here. As the staff report stated, staff is recommending that these two stub streets be shifted a little bit to better accommodate the development of this -- of this property. This one we are recommending be shifted down approximately 200 feet to somewhere in there and this stub street we are recommending be shifted over, so it does not align with an existing private lane that serves these one acre lots here. We are recommending that be shifted over to allow for this -- that undeveloped area to develop a little bit -- a little bit easier. I think we can move through these detail sheets. If there is any questions, we can always go back to these. This is the landscape plan as proposed by the applicant. In general the landscape plan provided appears to meet the minimum standards for a development of this size. The applicant is providing a large amount of open space and various ponds and pathways throughout the development. Furthermore, a community center complex with multiple facilities is included with this proposal. All of these elements combined meet the open space and amenity requirements for a subdivision of this size as described in the UDC. I'm sure the applicant may have more details than I do about that community center, which will be located on this site. Currently it's shown as just kind of an open field, but I know there are plans for this area to be developed into a community center with multiple facilities. Other than that, let's move on to the Comprehensive Plan. This whole area is designated medium density residential and low density residential and a small portion is designated mixed use community, which would be right down here, that small C-N area on the Comprehensive Plan. And along with the Comprehensive Plan, staff, when considering this application, also must look to the development agreement on the property and, in general, this is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan, especially when you consider that both the Comprehensive Plan and development agreement, especially when you look at the concept plan as Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 20 of 41 provided by the applicant. As you can see, it's very similar to what is shown. The plat matches the concept plan pretty well. Other than that, there were no other major issues when it came to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the UDC. Staff did just want to bring up a couple issues that came up as we -- that are outstanding for the Commission. As currently depicted on the preliminary plat, there are several lots within the proposed subdivision that are split between two zoning districts. As mentioned, the zoning for this property was done at the time of annexation. It was very conceptual. They weren't exactly sure where the streets would go and where those lot lines would be and because of that when they drew the zoning lines, they did them the best they could, but when they came in with a preliminary plat and were able to do some engineering work, it turned out that those zoning boundaries didn't exactly match the center lines of streets and along lot lines as you would usually see. So, what staff is recommending is that through a development agreement modification that the applicant be able to submit a revised zoning legal description that would allow them to correct or clean up those zoning boundaries without going through the entire rezoning process. Ifs kind of a unique solution to this problem and staff worked with the applicant and with the legal department to try to come up with a way to move these zoning boundaries without going through that full rezone, because it's technically not a rezone, it's just a shift of those boundaries to try and match the proposed preliminary plat. That's one thing I just wanted to point out that was a unique thing in the staff report that if the Commission had questions on that I was willing to answer. And the other thing is that condition 1.1.11, staff is recommending that condition be amended to allow the ten foot wide pathway along -- proposed along Chinden Boulevard to be located within the preserved right of way area, which is that 100 foot of right of way required on Chinden. We'd like to see that pathway located instead of within the 35 foot buffer, as it says in the condition, to be located within that 90 to 100 feet or the first ten feet outside of the subdivision. This came about -- at first staff -- usually we have these pathways within the subdivision, outside of -- exclusive of any right-of-way areas, but after speaking with ITD, Sue Sullivan, and talking to the applicant, it became clear that, really, the intent of that first ten to 20 feet of the right of way is for pedestrian movement and so it seems to make sense to place the pathway in that area and ITD verbally confirmed that that would be okay and through that -- through their permit process the applicant will work with ITD to get the exact location on that. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Jayker Subdivision, with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Good job. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Justin, I just want to get my bearings right a little bit here. Where, in fact, is Basco Lane within this? Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 21 of41 Lucas: Let's go back to the aerial photograph. Basco, as you can see, is about -- well, actually, I'm -- this gets me -- here we go. This shows Basco Road really well right here. The subdivision -- it kind of cuts down and swings across Basco a little bit -- just over a little bit on the other side of Basco Lane and so if we go to this area here -- this -- Basco would be somewhere around right here. That's not exact, but it's to that area. Moe: And, then, so it goes away? Lucas: Yeah. There is a condition in the staff report requiring that any easement or public -- any type of movement across Basco Lane be vacated through -- prior to final plat of this property. Moe: How do they, then, get to the north? Lucas: The northern property owners would use the circulation system provided by this subdivision to access their property. Thafs what I understand. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And that was an ACHD requirement also. Lucas: Absolutely. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? . O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick O'Neill, 2242 East River Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. Thank you very much for allowing us time to speak with you tonight. I'm going to give you a little history and go through a couple of things and, then, ask your thoughts. We have been working on this project for over a year and a half and you guys remember we were in front of you a year ago with the annexation and the concept plan development agreement. Since that time we have worked very closely with neighbors, with the highway district, with staff, including police department, fire department, parks department, et cetera, in the start of our preliminary plat. Our concept plan and development agreement was improved in September of '06, as Justin said, and our preliminary plat is consistent with our concept plan and development agreement. We made very sure that it was. We have had a ton of meetings with staff and lid like to acknowledge them. They have worked through a really complicated application and done a very good job. In fact, to the point where we are in agreement with it, which is very good. That's not normal for us. But I'd like to compliment them for that. So, that's been very good. The other thing I'd like to mention is that we delayed this hearing with you guys a month or so ago, because we didnlt want to come to you without the highway district having recommendations, because we know the stub street issue and the connection was a very important issue and still is an important issue, but we wanted them to weigh in and have closure to that issue. They have done that. They had their hearing last Wednesday night. They unanimously voted to approve the project Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 22 of 41 as we have shown with conditions that you have in your staff report, I believe. And we think that deals with those issues. In respect of time -- I have got over 40 pages of slides that I could put in front of you, but instead of doing that, I think what I would rather do is if you have questions I can respond to them, let the public testify, and, then, I can come back and rebut. I have a ton of detail, but I think the staff report covered it. We are in support of the staff report as suggested, with the modification that he suggested at the end regarding the pathway being outside of the buffer strip that's consistent with the Department of Transportation's comments as well. We have come a long ways. There is some neighbors here that you will be familiar with that have some testimony. We have met numerous times with them and I think we are at the point where we have respectfully -- and I mean that -- agreed to disagree on a couple of issues. And they will bring those up and I will be able to respond to those, but compared to where we were and where we are today, I feel very good about this. I think itls going to be a great addition to the city, so I'm done. 1111 answer questions and, then, I'll come back, but I do have a ton of information if you have specific questions. Rohm: Boy, that sounds good to me. Any questions of this applicant before we take public testimony? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mos. Moe: I'm just going back on what I remember when we went through this thing and I know that there was concern on -- I guess there was one lot that the ownership was still unclear as to who owned it. Just kind of looking at your project, do you go around that lot or just what happened? O'Neill: No, we donlt. You might -- try the first slide and see what comes up. Maybe I can put it in perspective. Do you have a -- so, the lot in question was this strip that we call the gulch strip and it was not clear as to who had ownership and as you recall -- or I think it may have been at Council, one of the items was is that we figure out who owns it. We went through a quiet title process, which took quite some time ~nd that's part of the reason we have taken longer to assure that we could find out who owned that. We went through the quiet title process, we have title to it now, we did that, because no one wanted to take title to it, but we said someone's got to do it, so we went ahead and did that. So, this area -- we did bring clarity to that. As it relates to that, the next question was, well, is there surety that there can be a stub and connection down to the Aldape property. That was the issue at hand. And what we have done is everything we can to assure that. One is we got control of the property, so we could have it and make sure we give it to the highway district. Two is we have agreed -- and this is coming a long ways from where we were -- we have agreed with the highway district that we will be willing to put in a road trust and it's a condition in there, the allocation or amount that would be responsible for us to build a road on that property and we have done that. Unfortunately, the highway district wants to collect -- not unfortunately, it's a smart thing, they want a collector road and a collector road will not fit on our property, it's going to Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 23 of 41 take more property than that. So, it will require the TICO One folks, who have agreed to add the additional property, and we have agreed to pay for the road that can be set on our property. I donlt know if that brings clarity to that issue but -- Moe: Yes, it did. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. I like your idea of -- we will take our public testimony and, then, invite you back up to respond. Thank you. Gary Hinkle. Hinkle: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, there are only a couple of items that -- Rohm: Could you give you name and address. Hinkle: Oh. I'm Gary Hinkle. 9109 West Burnett Drive, Boise, Idaho. With regard to our adjoining property that is to the east and south of the proposed development, which is identified as Lot 10, Block 1, of West Wing Estates, you will see that as the open space area to be this area right in here. Our main concern is to make sure that the alignment of the stub streets worked with regards to future development for our property. The current alignment of this street here we would like it to be far enough to the west of the east boundary, so it does not line up with -- with that private lane, which would be Double Eagle Lane, to allow us adequate access onto our property. You will see that we have a -- I had it there. You will see that we had -- we would like to see it no less than 430 feet from this property line over, just to get it passed this -- what is now the Double Eagle private lane. Those people are not wanting us to be a part of that subdivision right there. I even know that that open space was there to acquire their development at the time. So, anyway, we have had a chance to talk with those folks and they are not real comfortable with any changes out in that area right now. The other one would be the Silverlace and this is just something new that we learned from Justin. The proposed alignment of that street, apparently, Derick is considering shifting that further to the south, which was fine -- that's fine with us -- further to the south closer to Chinden would accommodate our needs better than what we originally were looking at there, so -- the other item that we are kind of concerned about here -- in the development agreement it states -- let me get it out here. The original development agreement. It states that the adjacent following parcels, which include ours, the Hinkle parcel -- let's see. Let me read it here for a second. Required are part of the preliminary plat approval. Basically, what we are looking at here is making sure that there is some verbiage in that to -- to regards to our current status on that property. We have a -- we have a farmer that's operating that property right now and he's going to need some access on that piece of property throughout this development process and we have talked to ACHD, they, basically, have given us instructions to apply for a driveway approach request. I'm not sure how that all is going to evolve, but if there was -- just for the record, I would like to have something possibly in writing 'there that would give us -- give us the ability to get that gentleman that currently operates on that property from an agricultural standpoint access in and out on that stub street, which would be Silverlace. That would be the most appropriate stub street to come in off of. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 24 of 41 And to make sure that we have the means to get passed the -- as far as the -- the development agreement states where they put a -- basically a sign at the end of the road, we need to make sure that that sign can be breached or we can get through that area. Okay. As far as anything else, I think we are in good shape, so I appreciate your time. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions? Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yes, Mr. Hinkle, I just wanted to make sure I understood -- you're talking about moving the stub street at least 430 feet? The north stub at least 430. And, then, the west one, the ACHD report talked about moving it to the east to connect to your property I think. Is that what they were saying, ACHD? Have you read their report? Hinkle: Well, there is -- Borup: I mean they said they did that at your request, I believe. Hinkle: Yeah. Well, that's what I'm saying, that the east -- I think the verbiage in that staff report, the directions may have been got a little bit confused. We don't want that street to be -- Borup: I'm talking about the second one. Hinkle: The second one. Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: Well, we are looking at -- we are looking at north to south here on the west side. Borup: Silver -- whatever it was. Silver whatever it was. Hinkle: Yeah. Silverlace, which -- Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: -- is this one right over here -- Borup: That's the one that ACHD had talked about really. To the east, I believe, wasn't it? Hinkle: Well, it's extending from the development, which, eventually, would go to the east, but it's my understanding, from what Justin mentioned, that they are considering at least -- Borup: Well, that's what I was g~tting to. That's a staff recommendation that that stub shift to the south. < Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 25 of 41 Hinkle: Yes. And that's fine with us. Borup: Which would make a preference either way. Does this way work just as well for you or -- Hinkle: Shifting it to the south would work better for us. If this stub would come down further to the south it would make us a lot happier. Borup: Okay. And, then, how does the individual farming the property now, how does he gain access to it at this time? Hinkle: Well, we currently have worked out a verbal agreement with Derick. There is -- before -- before this property down on this corner was purchased, the gentleman down there was -- basically it was the Eggers property and there is a gated entrance right here off of Chinden and -- Borup: So, it's going through this property presently? Hinkle: Yes. Right. And Derick O'Neill has agreed to give us the means to access through that gate down here until we get some kind access from a permanent stub street there, so -- does that make sense? Borup: Yeah. So, that's the way it was originally platted, it was a land locked piece of property that had no access? Hinkle: Well, my father, he owned all of this property at one time and he sold that off to that West Wing Estates and for some reason it evolved. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hinkle: So, we are kind of stuck. Rohm: Thank you very much. Jerry Olson. Okay. From the audience hels just an interested observer. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Commissioners, I am Sherry Aldape Ewing and I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and, first of all, I would like to say that the O'Neill -- Derick OINeill and the TICO One group have really worked very very hard to get access down to us and we are very very happy with that and so our -- my concern is, though, that it goes to the river bank on the south side of the Phyllis Canal and not across the river, and so, actually, right now it's my belief that the Phyllis Canal actually owns' the land in the Phyllis Canal, so their land comes to it, the Phyllis Canal company, the irrigation company, and, then, my father's land. So, what I would like to see is that they help us build half of the bridge to the -- to meet with our bridge and the reason that I think that you should help with that is because if -- on the river bottom the land will probably turn Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 26 of 41 into parks, green belts, wildlife preserves, sporting complexes, et cetera, et cetera, and the people in the Tree Farm will definitely be coming down into that area to get to the river. I mean everybody loves the river. So, that's one thing that we would like. And beings we are not pushing for two access points, which they definitely have enough frontage that they -- if it was on a flat piece of ground that they would have to give us two access points -- we feel like half of the bridge would be there. The other thing that I need to make sure that is in all of the verbiage here is that power, gas, and phone utilities are brought down to meet our -- my parents property and I don't know if that's in the verbiage or not. Right now we -- we, the property owners down below, are starting to work to get into Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and so at that pint we would also need water and sewer, but we aren't that far yet. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this -- Mae: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Where do you gain utilities now as far as -- Ewing: Well, they are coming down that way now, but I want to make sure that they continue on after this whole subdivision goes in. I mean right now they are going straight down Basco Lane is how we get our water -- or not water, our phone and utilities and power. And with Basco Lane, you know, not going to be there anymore, I want to make sure that those utilities are still brought down to my parent's property. Mae: Okay. Rohm: I think just in short response, the utility companies have a requirement to serve all properties within their area of influence. Ewing: Okay. Rohm: So, Idaho Power and Qwest both -- they have to be able to figure a way to get into your property. Thafs just the utility agreement with the Public UtiHty Commission, so -- Ewing: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. John Ewing. From the audience John Ewing said he had nothing to add at this time. Tuck Ewing. T. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 7200 Basco Lane, Meridian. lid just like to start off by saying I commend the applicant. It has been a long road and I will agree with Derick that we have agreed cordially to disagree and I guess lid just like to make the point that at this time 11m not totally happy with the agreement we have come up with. I hope that they are not either, so it's probably an okay agreement. So, we are good -- at least from my perspective good with it, me and TICO One. The only thing that I wanted to clarify -- and it kind has to do with -- and I think ACHD did a fairly good job of stating it in their report, was I believe that area between this development and TleO One's Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 27 of 41 property, ACHD did take into their area of impact -- or their -- whatever they call that. What do they call that? Right of way. There you go. Because we do have a little bit of unknown at this time where the access points to the TICO One's parcels will be. I think ACHD has accommodated us there, but just for the public record, I do not anticipate the existing Basco Lane or whatever it will be called in the future going down the gulch being the main access to the TICO One property. I anticipate it being the access to the properties to the north, but potentially not being the access point to the TICO One, depending on, number one, what the applicant does with their adjacent property to the east and I think it creates a good separation and so I would nit want the separation limited to an access, if that makes sense. I can see some different types of zonings, I guess, from the west to the east, with the Basco being the separator and so I think the access points that you use to get to those should be separate. So, like I said, I think ACHD did a good job at trying to take that in for us, but just as a matter of record I just wanted to point it out and I know Derick thought I was probably going to have something different to say, but that's it. Rohm: Thank you. T. Ewing: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but at this time the floor is still open, so if someone else would like to testify in this application, please, come forward. Lazaris: Commissioners, Linda Lazaris. I reside at 9948 West Targee Lane in Boise. And I am the sister to Gary Hinkle and I just -- 11m a little -- on this West Wing Estates, with the staff's recommendation, I didn't quite get that, how many feet down you're proposing for that westerly -- for the east stub street to go in, Caleb. What would -- what was the dimension on that; do you remember? Rohm: Go ahead. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I believe the recommendation in the staff report was to shift that stub street Silverlace Drive down approximately 200 feet where it would align with kind of the peak of this curve here. Lazaris: Okay. Is that 200 feet from the northerly boundary? Lucas: No. No. Two hundred feet from its current location. Lazaris: Okay. Lucas: Two hundred feet from its current location. There is also a discussion of moving this stub street over approximately -- a minimum of 100 feet, kind of leaving -- just as ACHD said in their staff report, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 28 of 41 Lazaris: Okay. Yeah. I remember that that was what they said, but I didn't remember the Silverlace one coming down. Lucas: Correct. This was -- the movement of this stub street was not discussed by ACHD and ifs not in their staff report, that's a staff recommendation from city staff. Just looking at the future redevelopment of that, we saw that as a more -- a better spot. The idea is creating more of an offset between the two stub streets and allowing for a little bit more of a clear circulation pattern through that site and avoiding, as the staff report says, any long blocks that would have to be required to get down to this area of that property. Lazaris: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I guess my other question, beings I'm not one hundred percent familiar with this process, is when you approve the preliminary plat, are those recommendations that staff makes, then, put into place in the development agreement at that point? Is that how that works? That's my question to you guys. Rohm: Our motion that we forward on to City Council for approval will include the staff report and any adjustments to the development agreement or any others in the aspect of the staff report. So, you will know what is going forward onto City Council. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. That's great. That was my main concern is I wanted to make sure that it -- it was somewhere in writing and it was going to be something that would be followed through in that regard. Rohm: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, in previous hearings that we have had tonight the staff has even asked that we clarify our changes, so that it could be tracked into the future and that's just as we will -- or would with this staff report as well. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. The development agreement is currently in place and is not before you for modification tonight. Your recommendations are purely related to the preliminary plat. But what you just said does apply; however, they are enforced through the preliminary plaUfinal plat process. Lazaris: Okay. And so where does the verbage, then, go as far as -- is it on the actual plat map? Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Go ahead. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 29 of 41 Baird: Perhaps the planning department would be the better one to respond to this, but, basically, it's a checklist that they go through to make sure all the requirements have been met before they approve the final plat. Lazaris: Okay. So, the preliminary plat requirements are there and, then, when they go to do final plat those things have to be -- have met -- have been met before they can stamp it and say this is your final plat approval, basically the process? Borup: And, Linda, are you concerned -- are you speaking specifically to the location of those stub streets? Lazaris: I am. Borup: Okay. They will be drawn on the plat at that location. So, how they are drawn is what will have to be built. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. Borup: So, they will be redrawn from this configuration to that new loca~ion. Lazaris: And, then, these minutes are all -- Borup: And what's drawn and whatls submitted at that point is what will apply. Lazaris: Okay. Borup: When the plat is redrawn or redesigned. Lazaris: So, where they say they are going to move it down 200 feet or whatever, then, that's documented and then -- Borup: Well, it will be redrawn and that will be the plat. Lazaris: -- their engineers redraw it -- Borup: Yes. And, then, that's the document there. Lazaris: -- and, then, take it in for a final approval? Borup: Those drawings will be the document, yeah. Lazaris: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that, because I think I would have been disappointed had I not seen that and the development agreement changed. I would have been confused. So, thank you. That's alii have. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come back up. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 30 of 41 Moe: Mr. Chairman, before the applicant, I do have a question of staff. Without folding out this set of plans and scaling down, can you give me an idea where 430 feet from the east property over on that north stub street would be? Is it where you want it or -- Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Mae, I think it's these -- these lots, it's almost hard to tell on this scale. These are huge lots. They are almost 20,000 square feet, a lot of them. This distance from there to there -- I don't have it exactly, but it's significant, and so I don't know what the exact distance is. The ACHD staff report comments callout a specific distance and I believe it is over 430 feet from the eastern property boundary. So, I donlt think we are too concerned about that being located. I think it's going to be more than 430 feet is what I'm trying to say. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, I just wanted to make sure that everybody who wants to testify has had a chance before we get the rebuttal. I may have missed your call for that, but -- Rohm: All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. I believe that now we are now clear. O'Neill: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick OINeill, 2242 East River Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. I will try to respond to the questions that were raised. As it relates to the Hinkles and the stub streets, it is very clear in the staff report and the highway district staff report where those stubs should be relocated to. In fact, we have already started the design process of changing those. So, we are completely comfortable with those conditions as written in the highway district and the staff report. And, for clarification, that is a condition on the plat and will have to be done before we can move our plat forward. So, that's going to happen and we are very comfortable with that. As it relates -- Rohm: Before we leave that subject. OINeill: Yes. Rohm: Once you get that map redrawn, could I get you to -- OINeill: Be more than happy to share it with the Hinkles. Rohm: -- share a copy with these folks here? O'Neill: Absolutely. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 3 1 of 41 Rohm: Thank you. O'Neill: As it relates to the current access, Gary was right, they currently don't have access and we have agreed that in the interim or temporary period of time, until we have this stub street, we have agreed to work out an agreement where we will give them temporary access over our property down here. They are in the process and weill work that out. As it relates to permanent access to the property, when we stub that in there that will be a public street and clearly they will have access to that. So, I think that issue is taken care of. As it relates to the comments on the bridge and the Phyllis Canal and whatnot, I have a few comments, but I will try to keep them short. One is we are putting in a traffic signal and well over two million dollars of infrastructure to gain -- to stub into these properties to allow them the ability to develop and we think that's a -- and, then, they are not contributing to that or participating in that. As it relates to the cost of the bridge, the highway district report is really clear that that is not a responsibility of ours. In fact, I have had to build several bridges across canals that the canal company owned. If I wanted to develop my property I needed to do that. So, 11m not sure that that's an issue. As it relates to the utilities, I think your comment was right and we are in agreement with that. As it -- I think that's really it. I think ,Tuck said it best is that if neither of us are happy with the solution, it probably means it's a good solution. And I think he's joking, I think we are ready to move on and beyond and get moving forward. I think it allows them the opportunity to further develop their property, it allows us to do it , and we are comfortable with it. So, I think there is a lot of work thafs been done here and I'll leave it at that to answer questions if you have them. Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup, do you have questions? Borup: Not real specific, but just to comment. Both of you agreeing to disagree, I didnlt really hear a lot of disagreement, other than the bridge. Is that pretty much it? O'Neill: I think so. And who is to build the gulch road and we have worked through that. Borup: Okay. O'Neill: So, maybe we were a little strongly saying disagreement, but -- Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I don't have anything further. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have questions? Newton-Huckabay: None. Thank you. Moe: I have none. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 32 of 41 O'Neill: I guess I would be remiss to say that one condition at the end and Justin can move the pathway out if you can make sure that's covered in your motion. Rohm: Absolutely. I think we are all in agreement on that. Thank you. I think at this time we are ready to accept a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. Moe: Second. Rohm: Ifs been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: This project has been before us a number of times and I would have to say that I commend everybody that has participated for doing a great job of meeting in the middle. It's been a -- it's been a long road and lid like to thank you for the Commission for all of your cooperation. And with that being said, I'd like to poll the Commission for final comments. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I don't really have anything to add, in addition to the staff report. So, 11m in agreement with ACHD and Meridian staff on the report and how they word things, other than the comment on the pathway. I think, you know, that's -- staff's in agreement with that and it sounds like ITD is also, that that pathway can be within -- within their right of way. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I just wa.nt to inventory the outstanding questions. Half the bridge for the canal. Is that the only -- the stub street alignment is already resolved, they are going to move them. And the right of way with the TICO One property, there wasn't an issue -- an outstanding issue to resolve there tonight. And Hinkles were satisfied. I guess I would -- I donlt think that the bridge -- they would need to pay for half a bridge. Borup: Will, ACHD -- yeah. When I said I meant I agreed with ACHD report, that's part of it. Newton-Huckabay: Thafs pretty clear and I have to agree with that. So, I guess I have nothing of value to add. Moe: Not to belabor this. I would submit that I am very much in agreement with everyone that, number one, you guys have worked real hard to get a lot of this resolved and I do appreciate that as well. And, again, I also do agree with ACHDls report and whatnot on this project, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 33 of 41 Rohm: I think if it wasn't for the fact that we have a canal to cross it would be typical to any other project and the development takes their roadway right up to egress to the adjacent property and the fact that there is a canal at that location doesnlt change the fact that they have taken their roadway up to the property line and albeit that I can certainly see the testimony from the public as in -- the canal is not theirs either and ifs -- a hundred percent of the cost to cross the canal is being put on their shoulders when they are not the owner of record of the canal, it doesn't really seem appropriate, but I can bet you that the canal company is not going to participate in the cost of a bridge across it. So, all that being said, I donlt have any substantial reason to disagree with Ada County Highway Districfs report either and so that kind of concludes my comments. And, again, I want to reiterate that I commend all of you for working together and this has been a long process and I think the product that's before us tonight is a vast improvement over where we were a year ago. So, thank you. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make a motion? Borup: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 06-058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1 st, with the following modifications: On 1.1.11 change that, essentially, to say construct a ten foot wide pathway along Chinden Boulevard and maybe without getting too specific, that this pathway may be within the ITD right of way. End of motion. Does that cover that? I don't know that -- I mean the applicant may necessarily not want to put it in the right of way, but they have the option to do it is what I was thinking. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, maker of the motion, absolutely, I think it's appropriate to leave it open to allow them to do that, rather than requiring them to put it in the right of way, it's wise to just say that that's available as an option. Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Thafs what I was thinking. Okay. End of motion. Mae: I will second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-058, to include all staff report, with the aforementiol)ed modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time I think it would be appropriate to take a ten minute recess and we will reconvene at ten minutes until. (Recess. ) Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 34 of 41 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 0 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time weld like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, both items related to the Normandy Subdivision, and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Normandy Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, as well as preliminary plat approval of 11 0 single family residential lots and seven common lots. Normandy is generally located on the west side of Locust Grove, less than a half a mile north of Amity Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation. To the north there is the existing Chatsworth Subdivision and Pisa Place Subdivision. And south of the Ridenbaugh Canal, the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision. And that is right here. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 110 residential lots between 5,200 square feet and 12,000 square feet. The primary access to the development will be from a proposed public street intersecting Locust Grove Road. Right there. . The secondary accesses to the development will be via Picasso Avenue, a public stub constructed with the Chatsworth Subdivision. That's at the north here. And via Reflection Ridge Drive at the southwest property line here, proposed with the Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The applicant has provided 15.5 percent of the property as open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the property is -- the majority of the open space is provided in the form of a central club area. Sorry, I got that one a little turned there. Sorry about that. On Lot 5, Block 4. And that is with a tot lot and a basketball court. There are two issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission. The first is that the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which designates the area as low density residential. However, per the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, the Commission and Council can consider a step up in residential density on a case-by-case basis without the requirement of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To approve this development a step up in density from low to medium is required. Now, to clarify a little bit more here. As stated above, the subject site is bounded by Chatsworth and Pisa Place at the north, which are zoned R-8. Right here. And Reflection Ridge to the south and west, which is zoned R-4. Staff believes that the Ridenbaugh Canal, which runs between the subject property, and Reflection Ridge -- and that is along here. It may be easier to tell on the aerial photo. Staff believes this serves as a suitable dividing line between the low density residential uses and the medium density residential uses and this is why staff is supportive of the step up in Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 35 of41 residential density for Normandy. Second, the applicant has requested a variance from the UDC standard to allow a residential block length within Normandy to exceed the maximum 750 foot block length. The proposed subdivision has two blocks that exceed 750 block lengths and that is Slack 1, which is 900 feet and Block 2, which 875 feet. And these are located at the north property boundary here and this long one at the south property line. The location of the approved stub streets and the lack of provision of pedestrian walkways in the surrounding subdivisions do not allow these blocks to be broken up by street connections or pathways. So, staff is supportive of the applicant's variance request. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz. My address is 2127 South Alaska Way. 11m with RMR Consulting, representing this application tonight. Our site -- if you could back up to the zoning map, please, Amanda. Thank you. Our site is surrounded by Chatsworth on the north, which is an R-8 subdivision, Pisa Place, Seychelles, and, then, Reflection Ridge to the south, not an in- full, but it is surrounded by the City of Meridian. Important to note, too, that this is an R- 4, but it has R-8 side lots and it was, actually, an R-4 PUD. So, as you can see in here -- I mean if you look at these lots here it kind of jumps out at you that they had something -- those aren't R-4 lots, which is another good reason to justify that in combination with the Ridenbaugh that this was a blended R-8, R-4, if you will. They chose a PUD route. But it is compatible with neighborhood at R-8. What we are requesting matches what's out there on both sides, really, even though they do have some bigger lots spread over here, the overall density went down. They do have R-8 lots. So, we felt like we fit with our requested zoning and the bump up was something that was pretty justifiable. We are limited by our connections to what is already out there. Reflection Ridge is under construction and they have a stub street here. Our entrance on Locust -- we made sure we didn't come out here in front of the existing residences and they were the only people that showed up at our neighborhood meeting and they were very happy to see that that was moved to the south and after that they said great, you know, it looks good. They just wanted to make sure we weren't driving out and our headlights would be shining on them. So, what we have is.some extra long block lengths that are -- I believe this is the one that's 900, this is 850. We have broken -- if you were going to drive this, it wouldn't feel like an extra long block the way we have -- the way we have broken that up. And, plus, we don't have any way of breaking that block up with -- we are kind of hemmed in by what's been approved already. So, that's why we think the variance should be granted for that. Our density is around four to the acre. We had a mix of 6,000 and 5,000 square foot lots, about half and half of each. We feel like it really blends in with the neighborhood. We are going to build a bridge over the Ridenbaugh. The Reflection Ridge people trust funded -- they put the money in account with ACHD for half. We build it, we get that back after it gets all -- after they sign off on the bridge after it gets built. So, we are participating half in that, that we will be the ones that build it and get reimbursed our other half. Other than that, we are matching what's been approved to the north on landscaping. We have pathways Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 36 of 41 leading to a centrally located open space area. We do have some tree mitigation that we worked with Elroy in the parks department. We have got some pretty big trees, they are on the existing homestead here, that he said you need to give up so many trees and I canlt remember what that number was. We said okay. You know, whatever Elroy says goes when it comes to trees. So, what -- we think we have a fairly straight forward application. We do appreciate staff's positive report. Actually, one of the easier ones I have had in awhile. But I think -- I wonlt count my chickens until they hatch, but there is one issue that lid like to point out that we are in a little bit of disagreement with staff and staff did not bring it up. Staff said in their report in this block right here that we should lose one lot to maybe match these 8,000 square foot lots here. When we laid this out I consciously lost one or two lots, depending on how tight you go. If I laid out the minimum R-8 allowed I could pick up two lots in this block. I decided to do little bigger lots and if you look here, they have 50 foot lots across from their own 80 foot lots across the street. We have a canal. And so we thought, you know, 60 foot lots across a canal from 80s, when they had 50s across the street from their own, maybe ifs okay. We feel like we have blended in and we have a respectful disagreement with staff. We think what we have works. But if you're going to say, Matt, you need to lose that lot or we are not going to approve you, obviously, I would not argue. But I am asking that you approve it as submitted, unless you have some heartburn over it. So, weld like to stick with what we have. We believe we have transitioned. It is blended. We have a mix. So, that was something thafs in the middle of the staff report that they would -- that they suggest that we do and I will let staff address that further. We did work with staff preliminarily to shorten up our cul-de-sac length from the pre-apps. Now, we feel like we have a refined site plan, we have worked with staff from the beginning to get what we think fits in the area and I notice elevations are something that's being kind of required lately. We donlt plan on building -- building this for probably a year, the way timing is working out on things and before the hearing I went up the road here to Tuscany Village, which is up here, and took some pictures that I could enter for the record or show on the overhead a few of them and -- this is, actually, a subdivision done by Eaglewood Homes. Show a few of those, please. That doesnlt show up very well. I think it's zoomed in a little too far. There you go. The color is not too great on here either. It looks better on the pictures. But, you know, they did a good job. There is a lot of architectural variation, they have got different materials, architectural projections, they have got porches. The city doesn't have a really -- you know, you must build this type of house, they have suggestions and guidelines, but we want to make sure we do a high quality architecture and enforce that to the builder teams that we will probably end up selling to. We don't know who is going to build in there yet. We haven't committed to any builders. But we would definitely enforce something that's very compatible, if not a step up from what's out there today. The market is always evolving. What we say we build now, we don't know whatls going to be built in two years, depending on the competition and how things are going, but from what I can tell in Meridian we donlt have a lot of problems with that architecture from what I can tell. Everything I drive around I see a lot of good things in all the neighborhoods from our builder teams that we have. That's my impression. Came from Las Vegas seven years ago and they didn't have a lot of variation. I think we have a lot of variation here and a lot of different individual builders that do a good job. So, I wanted to show an example of concepts of what we Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 37 of 41 might enforce, not knowing exactly what the market is going to b.ear, but it would definitely be compatible with the neighborhood and I guess with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: So, what you're saying is that you would be doing something like this or better or - Schultz: Yeah. Moe: -- when you speak of the market where it could actually be less? Schultz: You can't foresee the future and everything's been so good for so long, we hope everything is going to just be the way it is and builders are going to want to compete with the other builders and build something nicer and nicer and try to keep the prices somewhat reasonable and still do nice things and that's the balance that we are fighting in Meridian, that the jobs we are creating aren't supporting some of the house prices we have and III( stand up here and say we will build at least to what's as nice as, you know, all the neighborhoods around us. I mean we will do that. We will enforce that. I don't know how you enforce that. I don't know how you guys enforce that to other people. I know you are, so as of right now there is no mechanism. Mae: All right. Then, one other question. I guess since you really don't want to lose a lot, per the staff report here, I guess that doesn't mean you wouldn't lose anymore, then, on the south? Schultz: 11m just saying I would suggest that you -- that you approve it as submitted. lid prefer -- because we are talking every lot these days is 1 00,000 dollars and for something that we believe conforms, it would be a shame to lose it, but if you we are not going to approve it until you lose it, then, I would say okay. But I'd prefer not to. Rohm: Okay. That's fair enough. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Matt Schultz. Schultz: That's me. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 38 of 41 Rohm: Oh. And, then, Jerry Olson. I believe he left. There is nobody else that has signed up, but would anybody else like to testify? And seeing nobody Gaming forward, I guess we are done. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Borup: So moved. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. At this time final comment. Commissioner Mae. Moe: Well, as I reviewed this, quite frankly, I was a little bit concerned about transition and whatnot with south lots. Realizing the Ridenbaugh is there and staff is of the opinion that that gives enough transition I'm not going to fight that too much. I do appreciate the fact that they do want to lose one lot towards the western portion of that and I would agree with staff to lose that one lot. Again, I think there is quite a few lots down there on that south end, but the rest of the subdivision I have no problem with whatsoever. I think it was -- you guys did a good job transitioning through it, but right there on the south end I would have liked to have seen a few less lots. Newton-Huckabay: Where is -- Moe: Well, right in this area right here. We have got the R-4s here. I'm just speaking right in here. But having said that, if we are losing the one lot, per staff I'm fine. That would be my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't like -- myself, I don't see -- I have to agree with the applicant -- and I donlt think I usually do that, so it's your lucky day. Rohm: This is a first. Newton-Huckabay: I just did that on the record, too, didn't I? Rohm: You did and I supported your comment. Newton-Huckabay: I have to agree that your argument is compelling to' me. These are, you know, substantially smaller that are going to be right across from this. What's the difference of having this in your front yard versus this in your backyard? That is kind of how I feel about it. The Ridenbaugh Canal is a pretty good size piece of water there, so Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 39 of 41 I tend to agree with the applicant that I think it's -- I just don't know that I agree with the argument that there is no transition. I would say that they have transitioned just fine. If anything, to me, these lots are somewhat larger than I would have expected this development to flow, now that I think about looking at it, but -- so I would be in support of striking that condition. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I agree with that comment completely. I mean I think -- and that's the main difference here, that the canal is a large buffer. Besides, it's back yards. I don't see a lot of problem with back yards, but I do like to see some transition, but I'm not sure why this subdivision would have to have larger lots backing up with the canal separating it, than the ones across the street within the same subdivision. It's usually the ones that are on the same street that affect it more. So, I would also be in favor of eliminating that sentence. Rohm: Well -- and being the last one to speak, I agree with the two of you, I think that the lots across the street being smaller than the ones across the Ridenbaugh Canal, just speaks for itself, and so I would concur that that requirement be stricken in a motion forwarding this onto City Council for approval. End of comment. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to take a stab at a motion? Newton-Huckabay: I would. My only problem is is I am searching and I cannot find what condition number that is. Borup: 1.2.5. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm too far forward in my staff report. Borup: I believe. Newton-Huckabay: Eliminate one building lot from the group of lots, one through seven, Block 3, and increase the square footage of adjacent lots for a total minimum of 8,000 square feet. Maximum number of build-able lots shall be 109. So, we are going to recommend striking completely 1.2.5? Borup: I believe that's correct. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Any other changes? Rohm: I think thafs it. Newton-Huckabay: Have we closed the Public Hearing? Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 40 of 41 Rohm: The Public Hearing has been closed. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-064 and PP 06- 065 -- do I need to read this variance in parenthesis? Rohm: We don't do the variances. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending striking condition number 1.2.5. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, to include all staff report as modified. Those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Moe: Aye. Rohm: There are three in favor and one against. That motion carries. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: Three AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEe of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Rohm: We are to the last item on the agenda. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-065 for the Ahlquist Annexation for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of March 15th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: -- seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-065 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 41 of 41 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:08 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APP~~~EkkM! . lu ~ . \. }\. --. _ MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN 03,1 DATE l' cdw