Loading...
2003 10-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 2, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 2, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Michael Rohm, and Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___O__ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, October 2nd and begin with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. I think staff has brought to our attention it may be advantageous to perhaps adjust the agenda on one item. Any comment from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move Item 12, Public Hearing PP 03-026, after Number 7. Borup: Okay. Motion to move 12 up to between seven and eight. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 2 of 71 Borup: Okay. The next item would be approval of minutes from the September 18th meeting. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the September 18th meeting. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes of September 18th . All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 03-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects – southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-022, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Chairman, members of the Commission. This item is only an annexation and zoning request. There is no development application that's associated with it. To orient you, there are two properties currently in Ada County, both have RUT zoning, one with the frontage on Ustick Road is about 1.1 acres and, then, the second parcel is about 3.8 acres, a total of about five acres. As noted in our staff report that was dated October 2nd and transmitted on September 25th , the property is adjacent to the Kissler annexation that you reviewed a few weeks ago. That annexation request the P and Z Commission did approve it. The City Council will be acting on that in about two weeks. Centers: And, Brad, that would be right there? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. Then, the second application that is also in the pipeline right now is this parcel here that's kind of triangular shaped that there is, as you can see, some adjacency there as well. This parcel is, I think, about 23 acres in size and was part of the Red Feather Estates No. 2 project, which is going to be before you in two weeks. The zoning that was requested on the Kissler property, on the Bryson parcel, and on this, is all C-G. The Comp Plan designates it as mixed use regional and we have -- staff has -- considers the C-G to be a zone that fits within the mixed use designation on the Comp Plan and does conform to that. I did want to point out as well that the -- if the City Council does not approve the 18 acre Kissler annexation, which is also combined with the six parcels over here, then, this parcel tonight would not have adjacency and it would just have to be withdrawn. I did note that in the staff report. I analyzed -- provided some analysis of the findings for you in the staff report. Generally, we do find that the annexation request meets the required findings there. We have -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 3 of 71 since the intent here is for the development to be done together with the Kissler. As you might have noticed, we basically requested similar conditions, almost verbatim, on this Dealy parcel as we requested and as you approved on the Kissler annexation. Seeing if I can -- here is an aerial. As you can see, there is one existing residence that has the Ustick frontage and, then, the 3.8 parcel is mainly just pasture land on the south end. It's not shown on this aerial very well, but there is a -- about a 400 square foot parcel that Intermountain Gas Company owns, that is here on the northwest corner and we did ask the applicant to try and contact Intermountain Gas and see if they could be incorporated into this annexation, so we could avoid that out parcel. The last I heard that there had not been a return phone call from Intermountain Gas, so I don't know if we are going to hear about that tonight, but I would ask the applicant to address that. Other than that, I think we have the four recommended conditions on the annexation that they enter into a Development Agreement, that all future uses have a Conditional Use Permit. Then, the final thing I'd point out is I think the tie to the development agreements. Obviously, we have eliminated any recommendation that there be some kind of frontage road on this annexation, since it doesn't have adjacency to Eagle Road. Other than that, I think probably the main points that might be up for discussion tonight is the -- whether a conceptual plan should or should not be required with this property and the Kissler property before they can come in with a Conditional Use Permit. Obviously, the impact on that is if you do choose to approval and the City Council annexes the property, they could straight in with a Conditional Use Permit to the city without showing how this five acres would work as a whole with the other 18 acres. We think there is some value in -- at such a critical corner of the city, to see a master plan and how they are going to get connections in there, since it's a fairly narrow parcel. I think that's all staff has to offer at this point. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the Kissler Dealy application obviously, in support. I think I'll make it very short. I think the staff has done an excellent job. I think it's, quite frankly, exactly what you saw -- I believe it was three weeks ago and without any adieu, I guess it was Yogi Bear who said it's deja vu all over again. I will suggest that I think that a conceptual plan at this particular point in time is a little premature. That I strongly believe that the DA could be containing solely the fact that Conditional Use will be imposed on any and all uses, as well as perhaps even defining the particular uses in a C-G zone, which can or cannot -- which would or would not be available and certainly compatible with the neighborhood. Borup: Mr. Strite, let me ask you a question while you're on that, then. Is it intended that these five acres would be developed with the other parcel, the other Kissler parcel? Strite: Mr. Chairman, most definitely this ground has been purchase by Mr. Kissler. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 4 of 71 Borup: So, whatever development is done there, it's going to be a total development with this parcel included with the other? Strite: That is correct. I think it's obvious to see and I think the staff would agree that the configuration of this site would make it extremely difficult to develop on itself, so having said all that, I would be happy to entertain any questions and I'm sure Commissioner Centers will have one, so I'm ready. Borup: Any comment on that out parcel? Strite: Yes, sir. Oh, I do have a comment. I spoke to Brent Wilde today, Intermountain Gas, and they believe that that's there on an easement, that it is, in fact -- that it is not, in fact, a legal lot of record. Unfortunately, I was unable to get back to Brad and I do not have the documentation that would show that, but I certainly agree with staff that that will have to take place and we are prepared to do that prior to City Council. Borup: Questions from Commissioners? Centers: No. I tend to agree with you, Mr. Strite, that that parcel would be very difficult to develop on its own. I think staff probably recognizes that and, then, conceptuals are nice. However, they seem to change a lot by the time they get to this point, so that's my feeling. Strite: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Okay. Strite: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval for item four on our agenda, AZ 03-022. It's a request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects at the southeast corner of Ustick Road and North Eagle Road, including all staff comments Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 5 of 71 and most specifically the special note regarding the applicant's continuing -- continuance of trying to nail down the Intermountain Gas out parcel. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Are we assuming that we are in favor of tying the Development Agreement together with the -- Centers: Yes. That was included in staff comment. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: Next is item five, Public Hearing CUP 03-044, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investment. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, this item is a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. The property was formally annexed, I believe, just last week. It's located here on the south side of Overland Road about a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. There are three parcels involved and the Preliminary Plat that this body approved and the City Council approved last week does propose to create 49 new lots that would have a C-G zone. The red that is in Silverstone Corporate Center currently is also C-G. They have a split zone in Silverstone Corporate Center. They are not proposing a split zone here. They were annexed with the full 80 acres being C-G. Just to remind you that the parcel does have the Eight Mile Lateral that is here on the northern quarter of the parcel. The Preliminary Plat was approved with -- on the south side about a 3,500 foot long, 10-foot wide, multi- use public pathway and they have plans and are moving ahead with that, as well as the plat. My understanding is they have had -- continue to have negotiations with the Corps of Engineers and the Highway District on the parcel that's shown here in red, which the Highway District owns, being shifted to the west to be located more centrally here. What they are proposing tonight with this Planned Developmental, the Development Agreement that was required with the annexation basically put all of the uses in terms of what uses will be permitted in this project, basically deferred any discussion of those uses until this application. The development agreement required that they come in with a Planned Development. There was several discussions between staff and the applicant and, clearly, they did submit that. So, the main reason for this application to be before you, I think, is really to talk about the uses and as you may have seen in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 6 of 71 staff report, there was some discussion -- one of the conditions dealt with that in particular. They have -- they are proposing two special use areas. I'm just going to skip ahead here to a slide to show you what they are showing in their application. Again, here is Overland Road on the north proposing to extend two public streets to the south in the project and continue Copperpoint Drive here from Silverstone Corporate Center. The Eight Mile Lateral drain is shown here and they are proposing basically standard C- G zone uses here on the north, some retail along Overland Road, and, then, the special use area A is adjacent to what is shown as future residential on our comp plan to the east and that, really, encompasses all of -- all of special use area A, with the exception of these northerly two lots. Then, special use area B is basically from the Eight Mile Drain all the way south to their south boundary with Sutherland Farms Subdivision. And as they showed in Exhibit C of their application there, they have different uses for these different special use areas and staff did review those, compared them to the Silverstone Corporate Center Development Agreement that already exists, basically just bearing in mind the residential to the east and we recommended four changes to that exhibit and I will just touch on those in just a minute. Two other highlights, though. They are proposing two amenities for the project, since it is a Planned Development, they need to provide two amenities. One of those, of course, is the public pathway. The second one, the ten percent of the project they are proposing in open space and I pointed out that they are just about 8,000 square feet below what would be ten percent. They would need to have a little over eight acres of open space to have ten percent and they have 7.88, so they are just a little shy on that and we have asked for them to submit a revised concept plan that shows where they are going pick up that additional 8,000 square feet of open space. Then on page six of our staff report that was transmitted on September 26, I did mention the open space, that was one of our special considerations and, then, the second one is a plat modification and in their letter basically the applicant, as with many commercial industry developers, is wanting as much flexibility as possible to market the property and they are asking, as I understood it, for some options with lots and just to point out, we don't have in code the ability at staff level to change the number of lots, that would have to be done through another platting process. As they have done with Silverstone, they can do lot line adjustments and maintain the same number of lots, but just to clarify -- to clarify that. There are some photos that they have submitted with their application that show the types of buildings that would be typical. These are office buildings on the left and retail buildings on the right. The flex and office buildings, which would be primarily in that special use area B, are shown here, a warehouse building there on the right-hand side. Then, some smaller user buildings, some typical elevations are shown there. These smaller buildings -- and I will just go back to the site plan again, would -- what they are proposing is primarily to be along the future residential here on this east side. Then, on page seven, just to highlight, again, on item number two of our conditions, we are recommending that the utility facility major be deleted as a permitted use and that this be only allowed through Conditional Use. The special use area A, we recommended in the staff report a contractor's yard also be deleted. These lots along this eastern boundary are all less than 300 foot as the Preliminary Plat was approved and the ordinance says if you do a contractor's yard it needs to be at least 300 feet away from residential. So, clearly, a standard contractor's yard would not normally be allowed at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 7 of 71 all on that east boundary, because they don't meet the 300 foot separation. I did talk with Mr. Larson today and they have, I think, given some thought to how they would like to maybe amend this. They disagree with the complete deletion. They want the ability to market those eastern lots for contractor's yards. So, I think that's probably one of the main points for the Commission tonight to discuss. I think the other changes that we recommended that all the manufacturing in that special use area A be indoor -- be restricted to indoor and any outdoor manufacturing would need to be pushed on the other side of Topaz, the north-south street there, and, then, D, item 2-D, is limiting the public utility yards to minor public utilities, instead of allowing both major and minor, just restrict that to minor. Then, on the supplemental uses we are recommending that that paragraph be deleted and that basically was requesting some flexibility with their current Silverstone project. There is the Michael's building that some of you may have seen back there that they were looking for some flexibility and this development agreement is a different development agreement than Silverstone Corporate Center, so at least from staff's perspective we didn't see how those two development agreements could really be merged. I think other than that, we have some standard CUP conditions that are in there. The Overland Road -- they are still talking with the Highway District about access points onto Overland Road. Mr. Larson did confirm today that they have not -- that they don't have a date with the Highway District on that reconsideration to possibly add another access point to Overland Road. So, I think that's also up for the Commission, whether you're comfortable with just leaving that as it currently stands and they would have to come back to you if there were any significant changes to the plan. On item number four, the last thing I wanted to point out on page seven of the report, the way it words now, the way we worded was the Planning and Zoning Department staff is hereby granted authority to approve modifications to the master site plan that conform to either of the concepts submitted with the application and I will just show you briefly they have submitted three different site plans with the application. This one, as you can see, the main difference is the large lot on the south end and a relocation of the street. This revised plan has the lot on the south broken up and, then, the Copperpoint is more or less extended in a straight line to the east. Then, this one, which is fairly close, I think as you can see, the main difference is some of this area in the center of special use area B, they have kind of changed the orientation of some of the buildings. They would allow, if the uses as they propose them, it would allow some heavier uses, like light industrial and warehousing in here that normally would not be allowed in the commercial in the C-G zone, but since it's a Planned Development, that's what they are requesting is to be able to increase some of the intensity of the uses in the project. I think those are the main things to point out right now. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Larson: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larson, I'm here tonight representing Sundance on the Silverstone Business Campus. I would be happy to go through and address some of the issues that were brought up by staff. In general, we are in concurrence with all the issues, but two of them, so I wanted to kind of go through and talk about that, as well as when we went through the approval Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 8 of 71 process -- and it's not necessarily reflected on the plan that's on the wall, but there was another street added here to serve the Sutherland Farms development to the south. That was a requirement. So, that street will be added as part of the platting process. This piece of ground that exists right here is, actually, a C-G zone and so these lots wouldn't really be butting up to Sutherland Farms Subdivision directly, so that's why we -- I want to just make sure I was a little bit clear on that. Centers: Let me interrupt. Is that a separate ownership, Mr. Larson, the C-G to your south? Larson: Yes. That is a -- it is not our ownership, it is Sutherland Farms ownership and it was rezoned, I believe, to a C-G or was brought through with that process. Hawkins-Clark: Right. That's correct. Larson: It would be a piece that sits right in here that's part of their -- actually, it's right along the canal that goes through sort of like that. So, it's right in that area. Centers: Everything north of the canal? Larson: Correct. Centers: Right. Larson: In addition to that, we wanted to talk -- there were a couple of comments in the staff report about ACHD's facilities that were going into the project. We were proposing to relocated, as you know from the previous presentation, this area that now is ACHD's property more over into the middle of the project, that kind of brings it away from this residential line. We were planning to take that property and landscape it, put grass in it and use as much of it as -- open space as we could. It's our intent to improve it. The Highway District was looking at potentially not improving it and using as typically one of their retention ponds. We -- the owner has a similar one at Black Eagle in Boise and they have gone in and improved that and they continue to do the maintenance on it, so I kind of wanted to let you know that it's the intent at this point in time and we are pretty close to an agreement with the Highway District that we can improve this grass and make it a fairly nice open facility there and have it look better than just the standard retention facility. As far as the street improvements on Overland Road, we have been working with the Highway District and last week we received four drawings from them that show some of the options that can be done on Overland Road. The developer has sent out a letter to the adjacent homeowners on the north and has scheduled a meeting early next week -- I can't remember if it's Monday or Tuesday, but the first part of next week to present those options to the homeowners, so we could get some input on what their feelings might be, so, then, when we go back to the Highway District we will have, hopefully, a little better direction on what the homeowners might like to see. So, that is in process and is moving along, but it's probably going to take a little while, as did Eagle Road when we went to get it improved, so -- I don't know if Bruce Mills is here or not, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 9 of 71 but he might be able to give you a little more information on that if he is here and is available. The idea of the concept plans or the different plans that we were asking for staff to have approval on, it does give us a little flexibility in selling the property. We have had a couple of large users looking at the facility and that was part of our reason for the request was to see if we could have your concurrence that we could work with staff to make those changes if we needed to or if we did get a large user. Then, in looking at the items that staff had requested on the -- I believe it was page seven. Yes, on page seven. We are okay with item 2-A. 2-B we wanted to talk a little bit about and 2-E we wanted to explain why we had asked for those supplemental uses under 2-E. I will go ahead and start with 2-B, the special use area for the contractor -- or the contractor yards. We were looking at these smaller buildings along this side as potentially contractor yard areas and we are pretty sympathetic to what the staff is saying about that being adjacent to residential and what the owner was willing to do was have a restriction of hours of use on those buildings along here, so that we could have some control on when they might be using those facilities. They were looking at like a 7:00 in the morning until 7:00 or 6:00 at night for hours of use to help control that. These are relatively small buildings, so we are not anticipating any large equipment in there or anything, but some of the small businesses that are contractor type businesses do like to have a little bit of space to store stuff in and vehicles and et cetera, so that was our request for that, so we would like to have you guys consider, if you would, the request to maybe limit the hours on those buildings along that side. I'm not sure whether you will remember, but on the supplemental uses, which are on five -- on page five of the listed uses in the proposal we had sent with the application, included apparel manufacturing, metal fabrication, assembling of leather products, some machining, some bottling of flammable liquids -- these were all items that we -- actually, there is one more. Interior and exterior storage. These were all items that we came back to the Commission when we did the Michael's of Oregon project, which sits about right here and they are looking at expanding over onto the sight here with another facility and so rather than go back through the same process again, we ask for those as they related to the Michael's of Oregon project, that was built in the corporate center, and so it was our intent to be able to bring some of these uses that existed with Michael's over here should they need to expand their business. So, in an effort to try to explain that a little better to you than maybe we did in the application, which was the intent for those items that were listed under supplemental uses. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larson, on page six of the staff report they mention the open space and where you're almost 7,500 square feet short. I don't think you really addressed that, unless you want the ACHD detention pond to cover that. Larson: No. We will make up the open space, but the detention pond is also included in our open space. Centers: Yes. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 10 of 71 Larson: But we will make up the addition seven or eight thousand square feet that we need to add to that in order to make sure we are in compliance with that. Centers: Okay. And was the detention pond passive or active? Larson: Meaning is it a detention or a retention? Centers: That was a question that the staff posed here. Is it passive or active? I can give my definition. I think you have one, too. Larson: The intent there is that the space would be available for use if someone wanted to walk across the space or do something like that, but as far as it being an activity area, like an outdoor soccer field or something like that, it would not be that. Centers: It's not going to be fenced or -- Larson: It will not be fenced. Centers: It would be -- you would require -- or you would have to mow. I think I have seen the one at Black Eagle. It's close to the highway, isn't it, to Overland Road? Larson: It's, actually, back along the residential area on the north side and they currently do mow and manicure that. There are riparian plant materials down in the bottom of it that acts as a -- if you will, a bio-filter. Centers: Right. Larson: But they did mow and maintain it and they would continue to mow and maintain this one as well. Centers: I would call that active, wouldn't you, Mr. Clark? Yes. Thank you. I guess in relationship to the contractor's yard and shop, I guess what I'm visualizing there -- we had one situation off Overland, west of Meridian Road, that didn't fly -- it flew here and it didn't fly at Council. I think I'm right on that. But I think that was a more active yard with a lot of heavy equipment coming and going and that type of thing. So, are you talking like an office warehouse situation where you might have -- and it comes to mind every quickly, an electrical contractor's shop in the back where he has his goods and his vans and he has it office up front, are you talking something like that? Larson: That would be more the intent of a small user. We wouldn't be looking for somebody who would have heavy equipment in there and that's kind of the reason those buildings are smaller, is so we could the size and those lots are smaller, so we could control the size, so we -- Centers: So, warehouse-office situation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 11 of 71 Larson: Is typically what it would be, yes. Centers: Okay. So, if we tagged a condition there with that verbiage, you wouldn't object to that? Larson: I don't think we would. Centers: What they are objecting to next to the residential is the chain link fence with the backhoes coming in and that type of thing and that's not your intent? Larson: And we actually -- no. We discussed with staff that we might even be willing to do some solid fencing in those areas or -- and I think some of those provisions are available in the code right now, too, in the discussion with Brad about the landscaping setback and screening and those kind of things. So, we were fairly comfortable with that, it was just more if we did find a small electrical firm or a plumbing firm or somebody like that that we could certainly utilize those lots for that type of use. Borup: I had the same thoughts as Commissioner Centers, you know, an excavation contractor with the trucks and equipment and backhoes coming and going, I -- that would not be appropriate there, but a small contractor's shop -- but -- and some of them may or may not have storage outside, so if there is a provision in there to have proper screening and a solid fence and stuff, are you comfortable with that if there was outside storage? Larson: Yes. I think we are. Centers: And limit the hours I think was a good suggestion. I don't think 7:00 to 7:00 would be enough. I think 6:00 to 7:00 would be more appropriate for -- Borup: And the time of year, too. Larson: One of the things we have seen is like, for example, contracting -- or a concrete contractor might be pouring concrete at 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning in hot weather conditions. So part of the reason for limiting the hours would be to have those guys get their equipment that they need out, loaded in the trucks, and sitting out front and not back by the neighbor's housing. Centers: Very good. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I think Commissioner Centers asked the couple I had. I don't know if you had any additional comment on the Overland access or not. It looks like you're talking just a couple of drive entrances, I guess working out with ACHD -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 12 of 71 Larson: That's part of the proposals that would be going to the neighbors the first part of next week and, hopefully, back to the Commission for reconsideration. Obviously, I'm sure the neighbors will need some time to, you know, get together and consider those options or what's being made available to us. The Highway District has completed the drawings and different options that they would like to see, so those will be available for the neighbors at that meeting. Centers: One more question, Mr. Chairman. Are you saying that Michael's of Oregon in Silverstone presently performs those six functions? Larson: Yes, they do. Centers: Really? Larson: Yes. Centers: Okay. They are diversified. Larson: Yes. Borup: Yes, I can see all that in just normal outdoor stuff, not on a -- because the definitions are pretty wide encompassing, so it covers all that real easy. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Larson? Larson: No. Borup: Thank you. Larson: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to come forward and testify on this? Okay. Seeing none. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. I guess we could leave the hearing open. I guess, you know, how do you feel about the contractor shop and yard as we would define it to be mini warehouse slash office space concept with no heavy equipment coming or going? That would be my definition that would be allowed for him. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers -- Centers: And fenced. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I mean that would be a change to the way that the zoning ordinance defined the contractor's yard. Centers: Yes. But could we tag that on tonight? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 13 of 71 Hawkins-Clark: Certainly. I mean, yes, as a Conditional Use Permit that's possible. Yes. You know, I think the zoning ordinance defines the contractor's yard processing storage, maintenance of -- that are incidental to operations like demolition and -- you know, so I -- just to point out when it comes three years down the road and, potentially, this property has -- along the eastern boundary has been replatted or maybe the lots change size, they get bigger, and, then, we are -- we are going to be enforcing the definition of a contractor's yard and there is -- as -- you know, as shown there would be nothing limiting that, you know, as it is. So, that was the reason we recommended the deletion. But I think if I hear you correctly, Commissioner, it's -- you're changing the definition, which is okay, we just need to be sure to get that into the plan. Centers: Or any contractor yard use shall come back for a CUP at that time. Hawkins-Clark: I think that's an option. I think we know enough about contractor's yards today that it may -- it may be a waste of time in the future -- Centers: Yes. I'd rather put the new definition on it and -- Borup: If we have a narrow definition. Centers: Yes. And, then, we don't see it again. Then, my next question is the original graph that you had up there showing A and B, A was adjacent to the Michael's of Oregon -- or, excuse me, B, and the parcel there that he's speaking of, could we limit that expansion and allow that? How do you feel about that? I guess if a company wants to expand and it's in the area of -- in the B area, it's not next to residential, I don't object to it. How do you feel? Hawkins-Clark: Right. No. I agree. Centers: Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all I had. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any comments from any of the other Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Then, I would make a stab at recommending approval on this item five, CUP 03-044, it's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments at the southeast corner of east Overland and South Eagle Road, including Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 14 of 71 all staff comments dated October 2nd. On the front page it states reference Silverstone Business Campus and we should insert request for a CUP -- request of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. That's just a little technical thing that I noted there. That was the agenda item. So, including all staff comments and, then, as amended referring to page six, the applicant has indicated that they will comply with the open space and storm water detention pond will be developed as active open space, subject to ACHD's approval. I can't imagine them denying that. Page seven of the comments, item 2-B, the term contractor's shop and yard definition would change to a contractor's warehouse slash office space with no heavy equipment coming or going. Rohm: And to strike the delete. Centers: Correct. Thank you. Borup: I assume that would also not allow demolition storage and that type of stuff, too. I don't know how exact we need to get in the definition, but -- Centers: Well, all uses shall be enclosed, other than parking of vehicles, with no heavy equipment coming or going. Borup: Okay. Centers: Yes. And, then, fenced per their landscape plan. Brad, jump in if you like. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I guess the one -- two clarifications. I mean -- so you are saying that no outdoor uses will be allowed -- Centers: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: -- at all? Centers: Other than parking and, you know, that type of thing. Borup: That's what I was wondering, because that didn't come up earlier. I mean I can see -- Centers: Other than parking of the company's vehicles -- Borup: -- a plumbing contractor might have some pipe lying out on a rack or something, so you're saying that wouldn't be allowed? Centers: Well, I guess, you know, you wouldn't be that technical if it's -- you have a fence that is site obscuring. I think the big thing is heavy equipment or contractor's equipment coming and going would not be allowed. Equipment of the backhoe and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 15 of 71 Borup: Well, the other one thing that would concern me is it talks about demolition -- a demolition as also a definition and, you know, demolition storage could be quite unsightly. Rohm: Possibly just have an exclusion of heavy equipment and that wouldn't preclude them from having a material yard. Borup: Maybe exclude heavy equipment and demolition storage? Centers: Yes. That's fine. You know, I don't think the applicant is -- and excluding demotion, then. Borup: Those are the things that are -- seem to be in the definition that would maybe be a concern. Centers: And -- are we okay there, Brad, do you think, then, with the definition? For you to enforce it later? Hawkins-Clark: I think what we would relay on is definition of heavy equipment that's in the zoning ordinance Title 11, which says establishments primarily engaged in the sale or rental of tools, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, ag implements and similar industrial equipment. Centers: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So, I mean it does cover a lot, but I think it's important to clarify whether the Commission does or does not want the materials storage outdoor to be a part of this -- Centers: Well, I think as Chairman Borup stated, you know, a plumber's pipe that he might store on racks, I wouldn't object to that, you know, if they are going to have a fence behind it and that type of thing. Borup: Maybe if it's storage of supplies incidental to their business. Centers: Related to their business. Borup: Something that would be inventory, not something that's going to be sitting out there for permanent. Centers: Right. Borup: I don't know how you get all that in a short definition, but -- Hawkins-Clark: It's your motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 16 of 71 Borup: Well, maybe just equipment incidental to their business use. Centers: Yes. So included. A contractor's shop and yard to be defined as their warehouse slash office and materials stored related to their business and excluding all heavy equipment or contractor's equipment, for example, backhoes, et cetera. Office hours shall be no less, no greater than 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I say 6:00 a.m., because people should get up at 6:00, especially if they work for me, so they can get to work on time. I had a problem with that lately. Strike item 2-E and in the applicant's submission they refer to an expansion, that item would only be applicable to Michael's of Oregon expansion, as requested. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Did we make -- did you make note that the applicant said they would comply with the open space? Centers: Yes. Borup: That was -- you mentioned that? Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 03-010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC – 1115 North Ten Mile Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 03-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5 other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC – 1115 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: The next application is items six and seven, Public Hearing RZ 03-010, request for rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Creek Properties, 1115 North Ten Mile Road. And PP 03-025, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and five other lots on the same 4.47 acres, both R-8 zone. Like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and it's a Preliminary Plat for 15 building lots. This is an in-fill development that will be north of the Berkeley Square Subdivision. It's located on Ten Mile Road approximately a half mile south of Cherry. There is currently one existing home on the property, which will remain on the property. Let's see. I will go to the site plan. That's the aerial. There is one existing home, which will remain on the property. They will be given up their access to Ten Mile Road and there will be no access points Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 17 of 71 off of Ten Mile Road. All access to the subdivision will be through Berkeley Square. The proposed rezone meets the Comprehensive Plan. It's designated medium density residential and they are asking for an R-8 zone, which is compatible. And the Preliminary Plat meets all code requirements for Preliminary Plat. Do you have any questions of staff? Mathes: I have a question. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Mathes: On the fire comment by Joe Silva, can you explain number three where it says minimum of two points of access with 50 homes? Are they including -- is that Baldwin or -- or whatever it is below it. Kirkpatrick: Oh, it's Berkeley Square to the south. Mathes: Berkeley Square. Is that -- are they including that? Because they are coming in off of Berkeley Square? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Let me get those comments. Let me see if I have another picture that shows Berkeley Square. No. Mathes: I believe it makes like 51 homes if they are including Berkeley Square. Kirkpatrick: Unfortunately, I didn't clarify this point with the Fire Department. This -- I mean this project is, technically, completely separate from Berkeley Square, but I don't know if the fire chief is looking at this as functionally being a part of Berkeley Square, because it shares that access point. Mathes: Right. Kirkpatrick: I think that if we can't come to a decision tonight, we definitely want to condition that before it goes to City Council, that needs to be clarified, and we need to either add an emergency access point or receive approval from the Fire Department on the proposed plan. Since I'm not Joe Silva, I don't want to interpret what he meant here. I don't know -- it possibly could be -- yes, I don't want to -- I'm afraid to interpret it for him. Borup: Where does that 50 homes come from? Is that -- that's not city ordinance. Kirkpatrick: It's part of the International Fire Code. Borup: It is part of the Fire Code? Kirkpatrick: You have to have two access points for every 50 homes. Oh. Correction. Oh, actually, it's our Fire Marshal's interpretation of that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 18 of 71 Borup: That's what I was wondering. I mean we have had some others where we said they had to have another point once we reached a hundred homes, I believe. That was a project that did have future access, so there may be a little bit of flexibility there and maybe one home is -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the -- I believe the International Fire Code states 30 before a secondary access has to be provided. Borup: Thirty. Freckleton: Joe Silva and our Planning Director and representatives from Public Works Department got together and looked at -- looked at the code, looked at requirements in other areas, and settled in on 50. The International Code, I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong, Brad, but I believe it gives the Fire Marshal some flexibility to set his number. So, that's how we arrived at the 50. Borup: Okay. And how was the decision not to have access to Ten Mile? Was that -- was that staff encouragement or is that the applicant's desire? Kirkpatrick: It was a recommendation of the Highway District. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from -- did you have some other, Commissioner Mathes? Questions from any Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Cook: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Richard Cook, I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, City of Boise, here tonight representing the applicant on this project. We, for the most part, are in favor of all the comments within the staff report. This is a subdivision that -- a rezone and a subdivision that consists of slightly over four acres and it is an in-fill project. We feel like we have come up with a very good design. We have a lot of open space. The five common lots that you see -- Lot 14 is frontage for future right of way by the Highway District and, then, we have our landscape buffer in through here with an easement going around the house right here, because the house does extend into the landscape buffer just a bit. Then, we have a large open space area here, nearly 15,000 square feet, which will serve as a mini park for the development. Then, we have a micropath right here, Lot 4, that goes up against the fence for the Chaparral Elementary School and in this particular area we will modify the fence to allow access for school children from this development, as well as Berkeley Square to give them safe, easy access into the elementary school. I do have an approval letter here from the -- from Wendell Bigham with the school district regarding that particular micropath. During the discussions that we had with the staff and Ada County Highway District on this particular development, we were allowed to eliminate a five foot sidewalk that went around this park area, because of the reduced street sections that we were proposing. We had proposed a 29 foot wide street section within a 42 foot right of way. A meeting I had with Deputy Chief Silva on this, he had Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 19 of 71 some concerns about that 29 foot wide street section and he wanted us to widen it out a bit and I said, well, seeing how we have been allowed to remove that sidewalk from around the park, that gives us five additional feet, how about three more feet for the street section, giving it a 31 foot wide street section. He was in total agreement with that. However, after that I learned that the Highway District likes their street sections either at 29, 33, or 36. So, I have gone back and we have widened that street section out to a full 33 foot wide street section within that 42 foot right of way. So, that gives the Fire Department much -- much better maneuvering room within this subdivision. When I sat down with Deputy Chief Silva and discussed this, the issue of secondary access was never brought up. He felt that what we had proposed here was more than adequate and I'm somewhat surprised by that condition three in that report that was submitted along with the staff report. I don't know how we could provide secondary access anywhere within this subdivision. We have a developed area to the north, developed area to the south, developed area to the -- what would that be -- Borup: West. Cook: West. Thank you. And, of course, trying to take access out onto Ten Mile is something that the Highway District is opposed to and it would also really interfere with the landscape along the Ten Mile frontage. We have a lot of mature trees that are existing along this frontage and that, of course, would require removal of some of those nice looking trees that are along there right now, without mentioning the fact that we would also lose a lot. That would have a significant impact on this development. And as staff pointed out, we are not a part of the Berkeley Square Subdivision, this is a totally separate project. So, I think that's something that we will have to work out with the Fire Department between now and Council. Condition one in the staff report, it requires -- or says that we should have 20 foot wide common lot at this location for sewer. In earlier discussions with Public Works staff, we talked about being able to provide a 15 foot wide easement or common lot through here if our sewer depth was no more than six or seven feet. Lot 12 right now is at 6,510 square feet. If we have to encroach any further into this lot with a common lot, it's going to drop us below our 6,500 square foot minimum and -- Centers: Could you go the other way? Cook: -- that, of course, could cause problems. I beg our pardon? Centers: Can't you go the other way? Cook: We had taken the major slice of it out of this lot up here and I suppose if we -- if push comes to shove, we might be able to do more. I am concerned about maintaining the correct amount of frontage. Although I think in this particular case, because it is on a curve, we can go down to as little as 40 feet on our frontage. So, that may be a doable situation. But I would like to point out that this particular proposal that we have right here for tapping into the sewer at this point off of Ten Mile and coming through this way is not carved in stone yet. There is a sewer stub right down here on North Cliff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 20 of 71 Creek Avenue and that's at that location and the -- when they developed Berkeley Square, I guess the individual involved in Berkeley Square had at one time designs to take over this particular piece of property and develop it as well and as a result of that, the sewer was designed to accommodate being able to sewer this particular piece through the sewer in Berkeley Square. When we surveyed this, though, it looked like it was a little bit shallow and it wouldn't -- and perhaps not be doable and in speaking with my engineers today, they thought, well, perhaps we can do it after all and it may require a little bit of fill on that site, but it's something that may be doable. We would have to use a heavier gauge sewer pipe because of the shallow depth of the sewer, but it is something that we can work out. So, if that happens, if we can do this, that is something that we would prefer to do, we would prefer to connect to the sewer stub that's in this North Cliff Creek Avenue street right here and that would, of course, eliminate all the concern over here with the sewer going out to Ten Mile. And I think that pretty well covers our concerns. I understand there may be some drain -- drain pipes that run diagonally across this site and we will have to address that problem to make sure that we continue those drain fields. Does Public Works staff have a plan that shows where those are? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mr. Cook, we do have the as- built drawings for Berkeley Square that show their alignments of those tiles that they put in to accommodate the drain coming across this parcel here. So, we can provide those to you. That's not a problem. Cook: Very good. With that I will include my remarks and request your approval of our rezone application and our Preliminary Plat and stand for any questions that you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I would assume someone thanked the Planning and Zoning for requiring a stub street there on Berkeley Square. Cook: Oh, absolutely. Centers: Okay. Are there any other reasons to require stub streets? Otherwise -- otherwise. So, you're saying that this street is going to be 33 feet wide here, here, and here? Cook: That's correct. Centers: Okay. The entrance, too. Cook: Right. Centers: You would be okay with a condition that two accesses is required by this Commission, unless approved otherwise by the fire chief prior to the City Council? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 21 of 71 Because you said you spoke to him, he made no mention of it, so I guess we will put it back in your -- my proposal, anyway, we put it back into your lap that you go back to the fire chief and get him to sign off on no second access, since you're giving him a 33 feet street. Cook: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that's correct, I definitely will be getting back with Deputy Chief Silva on this and, hopefully, he will be real thankful that we have a full 33 foot wide street section and see that as an adequate solution. Centers: Then, the sewer easement, what I recommend is that, you know, you comply with the 20 feet as requested, unless sewer access changes, unless you utilize -- meaning this. Cook: Correct. Centers: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Rohm: I think that covers it. Borup: A question for staff on the sewer easement. The 20 feet -- yes. Mr. Freckleton. The 20 feet is intended for maintenance? Is that the main reason for that width? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the width is for maintenance, for -- if we got to get in there and dig it up, we got to have room for equipment. We need that 20 foot width. Borup: And the point I was getting to -- and I can understand that and it makes sense, but how much consideration to give to the depth of the sewer line. If you're needing to maintain or repair a sewer line that's four feet deep or one that's 16 feet deep, there is a difference in the amount of area you need. Freckleton: Certainly. I mean there is a difference in the equipment that you're going to use to do that job. Borup: Right. Freckleton: If it's four feet deep, I don't want to be digging that by hand, it's going to take a backhoe to -- Borup: Well, no, it's still going to need equipment. Freckleton: Yes. So, 20 feet is about the minimum operating room that you'd need to dig. On this one we have -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 22 of 71 Borup: I guess what I'm getting to, if you need 20 feet to dig a sewer line that's four feet deep, one that's 15 feet deep is -- 20 feet is not enough, then. Freckleton: One that's 15 feet deep I don't think the Public Works Department would sign onto it going down between lots, we would want it in a public right of way. Borup: Okay. That answers that question, then. Freckleton: This particular one we have man holes in the public right of ways. You know, if we end up with a clog that we got to go out and take the hydroflush equipment to it, we can get to the man holes within a public right of way. So, far as day-to-day maintenance, it's -- you know, we are not going to need access it. It's -- Borup: Not in your lifetime, probably. Freckleton: -- in the event that that thing -- you know, we have to dig it up, because it's broke or something. Borup: Okay. So, probably not a lot of flexibility on that 20 foot, then. Centers: Thank you. Cook: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- it looks like everybody is here for something else. Commissioners? Centers: I don't have any other questions or comments. I think it's pretty straight forward and a good in-fill project. As I said, I think -- well, you see a stub street requirement necessary all the time. So I would move -- Borup: Our only thing that needs to be worked out is the location of the sewer access. Centers: Well, I think -- I think he agreed he can give us 20 feet and take it from that lot to the south, unless he changes his access to the other proposed -- Borup: Okay. Centers: I think it's pretty straight forward. Borup: Okay. They have the option of going either way. Centers: Yes. So, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: I'll second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 23 of 71 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Well, I made some notes, so I will continue on and would recommend approval of item six on our agenda, it's RZ 03-010, it's a request for a rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC, 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated -- date stamped August 22nd. What am I looking at? That's not the right page. That was from Nampa-Meridian. Cancel that. From our memo -- the staff's memo dated -- hearing date October 2nd, received September 29th. End of motion on the rezone. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Would also like to recommend approval of item seven on our agenda, it's PP 03-025, it's a request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and five other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC, at 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments and with the following amendments. Page six, item one, simply add: Unless sewer access changes. Then, of course, that paragraph would not be applicable. I guess let's make it item 10 on page seven, all streets to be 33 feet minimum width. Let's just make it item 11, the Fire Department's requirement for two accesses to the subdivision shall be resolved prior to City Council Meeting, otherwise, two accesses are required, unless the Fire Department signs off and agrees to waive that requirement. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Inc. – west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Next item is PP -- Public Hearing PP 03-026, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 24 of 71 Siddoway: One moment, Commissioners, while I change the slides. Thank you. Chairman, members of the Commission, the project before you now is Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. It is a replat of four existing lots in the existing Stokesberry Subdivision. That project is also known as Carol Professional Center. It's on Eagle Road just in front of River Valley Elementary, which is right on the half mile between Fairview and Ustick Roads on Eagle Road. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of September 25th and the October 2nd hearing date. The applicant is proposing to take the four existing lots and resubdivide them into 15 building lots. That area is 4.15 acres. The original plat had seven building lots and the four building lots on the west side would remain untouched. This would resubdivide the front three large ones, plus the front landscape buffer, which I will talk more about in a moment. It's already been annexed into the city as L-O. The lot sizes that they are proposing do conform to the L-O zone. This aerial photo was before the development was done. In Stokesberry Subdivision there are existing businesses on the back three lots. They are anticipating a fourth one. You can see the River Valley Elementary behind it. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat, which is a little difficult to read at this scale. The site plan itself helps to pop things out a little more, showing the different pad sites and the parking, so I will use that one to speak from, but we also have the plat available for reference. Just for the record, there is a revised plat from the original one that was submitted with the application. That revised plat has an engineer's stamp on it of September 8th and that's the one that the staff report has reviewed. We have gone through the Preliminary Plat findings and, in general, find that they do meet the requirements of the ordinance in those regards. There are three special considerations, which I would like to go over at this time. The first one is the landscape setbacks. The landscape area along Eagle Road has already been landscaped and planted as part of the original subdivision improvements. A condition of that original plat was to put that landscape buffer in a common lot, which was done. If we go back to the aerial photo and the lot lines, you can see there is a separate line in the front for the landscape buffer. Current ordinances in the landscape ordinance also require the street buffers to be on a common lot for consistent maintenance purposes. The proposed plat does show a 35 foot landscape setback as an easement. It's note 13 on the plat. But it is not a separate common lot. Without that, if this were a common lot, these lots would not be able to meet the frontage requirement as well. So, we have noted in the report that other subdivisions, such Silverstone that was before you tonight, as well as others like El Dorado, Mystery View, Boyd, and others, has successfully petitioned the Commission and Council to waive the requirement for the common lot and to meet the intent of that ordinance by agreeing to common maintenance of those landscape areas in the easement and staff does not object to that arrangement given the precedent that's already been set by other recent plats. So, you may wish to discuss that and consider whether you feel it should be or not, but I guess we are just saying that we are fine with it as proposed. Number two, the parking area, as a plat we don't usually give detailed comments on parking. There are no conditions of approval related to parking, but I did get -- provide some feedback, since this does significantly affect the original layout, which was only three building lots, it seemed apropos to consider it -- the effect that this would have on the parking. I did total up the number of -- the total square footage proposed in office space and calculated the number of parking spaces that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 25 of 71 would be required and came up with 109 spaces. They are actually depicting 190 spaces on here, so it seems to be amble for the uses that would likely move in there. I did also note some -- there are some modifications to this layout that would need to be done, which can't be handled with certificate of zoning compliance applications in the future, as well as the handicapped parking would need to be refined per the Americans With Disabilities Act. Item number three deals with building elevations. The applicant has submitted the elevations of existing buildings on those back three lots, Specialty Homes building the one north of it that currently I don't believe has a tenant and there is also the day care that's on the site. The building elevations got quite a bit of discussion in the original Stokesberry plat or the Conditional Use Permit, anyway, and they were -- at the time there was discussion about whether every lot in the subdivision should be required to come back for a separate CUP. At that time the Commission and Council steered away from that requirement in this subdivision and, instead, went the route of just requiring some tight building standards for buildings to be built in the subdivision and did not require each one to come through with a CUP. So, I would just ask the applicant address how they will maintain the same quality and care through buildings as required by their CC and R’s and the Development Agreement on these smaller lots and I would just ask them to address that tonight. With that said, the conditions of approval are contained in the staff report, we would recommend approval upon some closure to these last few remaining items and would stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, you really didn't put the buffer common lot in your conditions of approval, did you? Siddoway: No. Centers: I didn't see it. Okay. Siddoway: Because it -- as written it would just be allowed to stay as proposed. Centers: Right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you, I'm Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. I appreciate your indulgence in taking this application before the next item, not that I don't love the public process, I'm just ready to get on this. We will just make it brief. This is -- should fall under the category of the best laid plans. We had three larger lots here and they are just not going anywhere. It's been determined by the applicant that smaller pads would work much better, given the current market conditions, and so that's what we are trying to accomplish with this. We meet all the standards with these lots. We have plenty of parking. We will have no problem redesigning the pop outs and we will still be over-parked by a considerable amount. With regards to the issues that Steve brought up, we are in agreement with the landscape easement. It's really, you know, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 26 of 71 half of one, six dozen of the other, it's -- we get frontage from Eagle Road, but all the access is coming off the internal roadway, so there will be cross-access easements for all of these lots to use all of that -- those drive aisles and parking places. So, we think that's a good common sense approach. And with regard to the building elevations and the required sort of design of the buildings, we are perfectly fine with the condition of approval that says that the previous approval is still in effect, along with all the conditional of approval. The buildings will look like -- just like the ones you see, which comply with the current CC and R’s, they will just be smaller, use the same building materials and the same basic design, the buildings will just be a little bit narrower and not as deep, so we fully intend on complying with it, it's in the developer's best interest to have nice looking buildings in there. The CC and R’s that the city originally bought off on will be in full force and effect for this development and we don't have any problem with a condition to that effect. So, I'll leave it at that and if the Commission had questions, I would be happy to take those now. Borup: Any questions? Centers: He covered it. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Daren. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to -- come forward, sir. Kane: My name is Ray Kane, I live at 3047 East Leslie Drive, which is directly behind the fourth lot to the north. Originally, when this came up it came before the Planning and Zoning and were guaranteed that this would be a professional development for doctors, dentists, that type of thing. We agreed to that. Most of us in that -- in fact, all of us but one family that abuts this property, are retired or semi-retired. So, the noise issue from Eagle Road and additional traffic in and out of that place bothers us. It seems to me that when you take four lots that aren't very big to start with and, then, you divide them up into 15 and compare those to the four that are already there, there is no comparison. We have gone from something that looked very nice and in Mr. Barnes presentation here before -- you all are not the same ones. I think Mr. Borup is the only one here that was here at that time -- he equated these to look like those professional buildings that were on corner of Maple Grove and Ustick Road. Now, none of these look like that, but they are acceptable the way they are now. Those were all brick buildings, if you're familiar with them. St. Luke's is in one of them now, there is a dentist, and there is several others. None of these have been built to compare to those, but they are nice, good-looking buildings, and acceptable. We just don't -- I don't think that throwing in a bunch of little cracker box buildings is what we were promised and so I'm very much against it. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 27 of 71 Centers: No. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Come forward. White: I'm Robert White, I live at 2995 East Leslie. I have got the same sentiments that Mr. Kane expressed. We -- between Eagle Road and the school behind us, four more or three more -- really, we are talking three lots the way I look at it, because the one lot is already bermed, that's the buffer to Eagle Road. But three more professional buildings in there I don't think hurt the area and I don't think creates too much more noise, but my concern is 15 small buildings probably are going to be very hard to get professional people in there and if there is a 190 parking spaces involved and the type of businesses that are going to bring 190 potential cars, we are going to have a little bit of a traffic problem on that -- in front of that grade school also exiting out onto Eagle, so I would be opposed to it. Serino: My name is Louis Serino, I live at 3109 Leslie Drive, which is adjacent to the -- backs up the cul-de-sac. Unless I missed something, I'd like to ask the staff if they have addressed Riverside egress and ingress, the existing situation, at all. Borup: Well, you need to address the Commission, and, then, we can address the -- Serino: Well I didn't hearing anything. I guess I'm wondering -- Borup: What was your question on -- Serino: If there has been any change to the egress and ingress at River Valley. Borup: What do you mean by -- Serino: Is that going to change? Is that going to be improved? Is it going to be expanded? Are they going to run more roads through the berm? Is there any plans for additional egress and ingress. That's what I'm asking. Borup: Okay. Well, we'll get an answer to that. Serino: Okay. My point, I guess, that I'm leading up to is the existing egress and ingress just seems to be being ignored. It was ignored initially in this initial proposal, it certainly hasn't improved any, and I can tell you from a business man's perspective, I can understand why these lots are not selling. Furthermore, it's going to be exacerbated by 190 more cars and I can speak to you from experience, because I drive a school bus for the Meridian School District and I'm in and out of that place eight times a day. I can tell you it's a nightmare trying to get in and out with the existing situation. So, I just can't imagine 190 more cars trying to get in and out of that situation, so to sum it up, definitely I'm dead set against it. By the way, I do not speak for the Meridian School District, I'm speaking as a neighbor. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 28 of 71 Centers: Would you point out where you live, sir? There is a pointer right there. At least there was. Yes. Serino: Right there. Centers: Okay. And the other two gentlemen are -- Serino: Ray Kane lives there. Bob White lives right there. Centers: And, then, someone lives down here? Serino: No. Centers: Oh. Okay. So, all three live right up in here? Serino: Correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Serino, question on the improvement for the access. Are you saying it needs to be wider or are you saying it needs -- Serino: Who is speaking? Borup: I am. Serino: By access do you mean the River Valley Road? Borup. Right. You just said it needs -- something needs to happen, but you didn't say what you felt needs to happen. Serino: We have a single road with no traffic control going into that facility. As it stands now, the school parking is overloaded. They are already parking in the streets, they are parking on the aprons to these -- Borup: Well, that's a separate issue. Serino: Okay. Borup My question was -- it sounds like you're saying you think it needs a traffic light there. Serino: Certainly a traffic light would help, although I just -- I just can't see Eagle Road being stopped and grid locked with a traffic light there. I know, ultimately, it's going to happen, but my concern here is that we are going to have too much activity in this subdivision to the point where even a traffic light is going to greatly diminish the viability Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 29 of 71 of any use for this lot. Quite frankly, I think, rather than increasing density, this subdivision should be reducing density. And, by the way, the original two story building that was going to be Mr. Barnes' office building was never built. That's been replaced by all this. Borup: You'd rather see a two story building there? Serino: Pardon me? Borup: You'd rather see the two story building you mean? Serino: Do I need to see it? Borup: No. You'd rather see that there? Serino: I'd rather see lower density than higher density. I really think you should hold them to the plan at the very least. Borup: By density you mean the number of people that would work or -- Serino: The existing road is overburdened by the school alone. That's why those lots are not selling. There isn't any businessman that's going to want to go in there, because he knows that his clients are not going to want to go in and out of that nightmare. Borup: Well, I'm trying to understand your definition of lower density. I assume you mean less -- less people using -- I mean smaller lots doesn't necessarily change the number of people that would be accessing this site. Serino: Well, 190 parking spaces does. Borup: Well, 109 is what the buildings would -- Serino: He's got 190. Borup: Right. So, he's got extra. Serino: Right. Borup: You're saying if they build it they will come. Serino: I don't believe they will come, quite frankly. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 30 of 71 Serino: What will happen -- what I'm afraid of is that there is going to be another go around and it's going to be further watered down than what it is now. My feeling is that you should hold them to the existing plan, at the very least, if not reduce it. I mean those -- you got my sentiments. I really don't think it's a viable situation. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Does the applicant -- Mr. Fluke, do you have any final -- any final comments? Maybe while you're coming up, I don't -- Steve -- Siddoway: On the road issue -- Borup: No. On the first project, what the number of parking spaces that would have been required as the original project was designed. Siddoway: That's a fair question. I don't have the answer. I don't know if Daren knows. Because there was a significant amount of parking for the three buildings, because they have a large square footage, just about -- Borup: Well -- and that's what I'm wondering. You get large two story buildings, it's going to have a bigger capacity than smaller single story buildings. Fluke: Right. Borup: Can you comment on that? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Daren Fluke, again, JUB Engineers. Thank you. The parking ordinance is set up as a ratio and for office, Steve, it's one for 250 -- Siddoway: It's one for 400 for professional and sales offices and one per 200 of specific areas if it's medical, dental, or clinics. Fluke: So, the ratio goes up with the square footage and the buildings -- larger buildings means more parking. The ratio is going to be about the same. With regard to their not being professional offices in there now, that's because, you know, a single dentist or two dentists or orthodonists don't need that much space and that's exactly why my client's asking for this is they are asking for a smaller amount of space. They only need in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet or even less in many situations and so that's exactly -- this is in response to those varied requests. With regard to access to the site, the existing River Valley Way is the one and only access in. That is at the request of the Ada County Highway District when it went through originally. That road does lie at the half mile and so there is the potential it will be signalized in the future. Now, of course, it's wrapped up in a bunch of larger issues with Eagle Road and the amount of trips that it's currently carrying, but, you know, I can tell you that if they do allow signals on Eagle Road, they would be at the mile and half mile is where they are planned to go, to enhance -- or to help with the operational aspects of the road. With Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 31 of 71 regard to the noise, I just simply don't see how this will be any noisier than what you have got out there now. I mean there may be more people coming and going to the site, but they come there to do their business and they leave. You know, much as with the previous plan, whenever you have commercial or office uses abutting residential uses, we try to buffer those and be sensitive to those other land uses and we will carry through with exactly what was approved previously with regard to buffering and landscaping and separation of those uses, and so, really, the intensity of use isn't that much greater than what was previously approved. The Ada County Highway District has reviewed the application and has approved it, it's not required any particular improvements to the road system and so I'm not sure, you know, what the issue is there. If -- you know, if the replat doesn't work and these don't sell, well, too bad for the applicant, you know, but I think that it's in the city's best interest to give him this opportunity to try something different, so that we don't have the vacant land sitting there and I guess the market will answer that question about whether or not Eagle Road is too busy to have anymore land uses on it and I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure we will find out when we go through. So, I think that's all I had. If the Commission has questions, I'll take those. Centers: If you could, Mr. Fluke, kind of with your pointer there, show me how the original seven lots looked, especially on the north side there right -- yes. On the north side. Fluke: The north side was, essentially, as it is not, except for you had a lot line coming across like. There was another lot line coming across there. Centers: So, you -- and I guess my point is you were going to have how many buildings on the north side originally? Up in here. Fluke: One. Two. Three. Centers: And how many are we going to have now? Fluke: Four. Centers: Thank you. That was my point. I don't think you have increased the density next to the residential area. I don't think you have increased the traffic with the smaller lots. I think you can have larger -- larger buildings, you were going to have two story buildings, which were previously allowed, you're now going to have single story; correct? Fluke: Correct. Centers: With the same uses, dentist offices, anything that applies to the L-O. Fluke: It would apply to the L-O zone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 32 of 71 Centers: Right. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any comments from any Commissioners? Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: I'm open here. I mean any other discussion? Rohm: The only comment that I would make is it appears as if the number of parking lots is going to remain pretty constant based upon square footage and, you know, as it is from the previous approved plat, they would have had at least many parking spaces as they are going to have with the proposed change, so I don't see that as a huge difference and I would say we should just go ahead and move forward with it. Centers: Yes. And I think the applicant made a good point, this owner has sat there I don't know how long, maybe four years now, or three. Borup: Probably right before you came. Centers: Okay. And I think he should be given the opportunity to market his product and if he wants to go to the expense of hiring this engineer to redo it, which was probably considerable, on the gamble that he's going to be able to sell smaller parcels, then, let's give him the chance, so I would recommend approval of item -- actually, it's item eight on our agenda, moved up from previous No. 12 and it's the PP 03-026, request Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated, west of North Eagle Road and north of east Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments with a transmittal date of September 25th and our hearing date of October 2nd. It should be noted that the applicant will have to convince the Council that a common lot for the landscape buffer is not required and I didn't see anything else. Anyone else see anything? End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to move on or would someone like a break? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 33 of 71 Centers: I'd like a break. Borup: We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the next project, three items, Public Hearing AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. All these pertain to proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises. I'd like to open these three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a Preliminary Plat for 59 building lots, annexation and zoning of 11 acres. They are a proposing a rezone to R-8 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Development, to allow reduced lot sizes, frontage, and setbacks from the dimensional standards for the R-8 zone. Now, before I get into my preparation, I wanted to make a couple of corrections. The applicant will not be asking for reduced home sizes, they will be meeting the home sizes required through the ordinance. I want to go through and correct the setbacks that the applicant is asking for. If you want to go to that page in your staff report. For front setbacks they are asking for a 15 foot setback for all home types. For the rear setback they are asking for nine feet for the garages in the alleys and 15 feet for all of the other home types. For side setbacks they are asking for five feet for all home types. For street side setback they are asking for five feet for all home types. For lot size they are asking for a 3,500 square foot minimum and for lot frontage they are asking for a 34 foot minimum. Centers: Excuse me. Wendy. Are you reading from page two of your report? Because it didn't balance with what I'm reading. Kirkpatrick: Oh. Okay. I have been reading from a fax that the planner working on this project had sent me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 34 of 71 Centers: Well, then, we need to amend the report, page two. Kirkpatrick: Right. I think we want to go ahead and delete the submitted setbacks -- the setbacks depicted in the report and we want to include these setbacks. Centers: Okay. Kirkpatrick: And I can give a copy of this to the Clerk. Okay. Let me go ahead with the site plan. Let me show you the location of this project. It is located on Victory Road. It is located just to the east and south of Sherbrook Hollows and to the west of Thousand Springs Subdivision. We also have a canal that runs along the northeast corner of the property. I also want to point out that just to the south of this property, on the south side of Victory Road, we have a proposed neighborhood center as part of our Comprehensive Plan. Here is the aerial of the site. You all should have a copy of the revised site plan submitted by the applicant. ACHD required for them to move their entry point. They had it previously lining up with that road on the west. ACHD required them move it to the center of the site, so they had more distance between another access point with Victory Road. The applicant has also worked with staff and they lost a lot in the northeast corner of the subdivision and they have increased the size of the park. So, actually, now they are submitting for 58 lots. So, we acknowledge -- I'm sure you will know we have a fair amount of concern and we have comments received from the neighbors, so I wanted to address what I think some of these comments may be and also let you all know why the Planning and Zoning staff is in support of this application. I'm going to go back to the site plan. The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian, which is our vision document for how we want to have growth happen in the City of Meridian, shows this area to be medium density. That proposed -- the proposed rezone to R-8 meets the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's especially appropriate, because it's located on Victory Road, which is a major thoroughfare and it's located just to the north of a proposed neighborhood center. We also have a Comprehensive Plan goal that supports a diversity of housing types and I'll go forward and show some of the proposed -- we have -- towards the center of the subdivision there is some long, relatively narrow lots and I will show you some of the proposed homes that the developer is showing. So, we are -- staff supports that diversity of housing types. This is a goal in our Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has worked with staff throughout the application process. They worked with us on increasing the size of the park and the applicant has also had a neighborhood meeting, I think it was last Thursday, where they met with a number of folks in the community to discuss their concerns and I wanted to -- before we take testimony from the public, I wanted to point out that while the public -- I know they have some concerns over the price of the homes that are coming in and the quality of the homes, while the audience -- while the people that are testifying can address home prices, it's not appropriate for the Planning and Zoning Commission to bring up house prices, whether you recommend approval or denial of this application. Are there any questions of staff? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 35 of 71 Borup: Question at all from the Commissioners? Could you clarify one of the setbacks? The alley setback for the garage. Kirkpatrick: Okay. I believe that the applicant is asking for where there is an alley loaded subdivision lot with the garage in the back, that there will be a nine foot setback, so it would be nine feet between the street and the garage. That's what they are proposing. Between the alley and -- Borup: The first -- the first they were saying ten originally; is that correct? Kirkpatrick: I think it's been modified to nine. That's what the planner working on this project submitted to me. Centers: Well, ten is for a front garage. Kirkpatrick: They are, actually, asking for just a 15 foot front setback for all home types and we probably want the planner working with the developer to clarify that, if it will be different, if there are any garages in the front of the homes. Borup: That's why I was a little -- I was a little confused on that. Kirkpatrick: Actually, the applicant gave us a plot plan showing how one of the homes on the smaller lots in the center of the subdivision would fit into the subdivision. You can see over on the left side, that nine foot setback between the garage and the alley, and the 15 foot setback between the front of the home and the street, that's sort of a plot plan to show how these -- and we, actually, asked the applicant to show us how these homes were going to fit on these lots. It's not a lot size that we see a lot of in Meridian. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their application? Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs, I live at 200 Louisa Street in Boise and I'm representing JLJ Enterprises and the Soda Springs neighborhood. As always, staff, I think, has done a really good job of outlining some of the special conditions around what we think is a very innovative subdivision for Meridian. I'm not going to go over any real project specifics, but I do want to point out that we are now at 58 lots, instead of 59. The original application did show an additional lot in the park area. We have lost that. The ACHD did ask us to resubmit, because they wanted us to move the entrance from the western street into the center. If I need to, I can clarify those setbacks. Those setbacks were included on our letter of intent. You probably have a copy of that in your file, so we have always intended to have nine-foot setbacks on the garages in the alleys and 15 foot front yard setbacks. I want to say I have reviewed the staff report and I think it's very complete. There is only one place I think we need some clarification and I'm hoping Bruce can help me. We understand that there is two different places where we talk about sewer lines and one location in the staff report it says there is a sewer and water available directly adjacent Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 36 of 71 to the subdivision in this area here in Victory Road, because it's part of -- it came in as part the Sherbrook Hollows Subdivision. In another one of the conditions it says we have to extend the sewer line 3,400 feet up Victory Road and I'm hoping maybe Bruce can help clarify that a little bit, if you would ask him during some question and answer, because that is a condition that's fairly new, it comes from some decisions that were recently made by City Council allowing another developer to move a sewer line away from the master plan. However, I do think there are some alternatives, possibly temporary, but there are some alternatives for that sewer, so that this smaller subdivision doesn't have to extend sewer that length at this time. I just wanted to start off a little bit -- again, I don't want to go over real specifics of the subdivision, I'm sure you have read the staff report and the staff has done a really good job of that, but I just wanted to tell you we did meet with the staff before we really even had a concept. We wanted to talk to the staff and find out what it is that the staff and the city envisioned for this area and one of the things that we heard was that the was city really interested in some alternative housing types. We wanted something for -- I would say the 25 to 45 year old professional, active lifestyle -- okay, I'm going to say to 46, because I'm 46, so this is the type of housing -- it's a lifestyle choice where people have smaller yards, very high quality, but smaller homes and something that is maybe a little different out there and I know that's going to be one of those issues that may come up with the neighbors. Also, we started looking at this particular area, we did see that there were quite a few of 8,000 square foot lots, typical R-4 subdivisions in that area, but, then, we saw the Comprehensive Plan with a neighborhood center just across the street and feeling that this subdivision, which doesn't connect, because there are no stub streets from Sherbrook Hollows or, of course, over the canal from Thousand Springs, that we feel like this would be a nice little in-fill, with some good density, some incredibly attractive homes, though they may be a little smaller than what surrounds them. However, it does provide the density and the great number of folks that would -- that would use the commercial center across the street. I mean one of the things that makes the commercial -- little neighbor commercial work are roof tops and this is what we are hoping that we can add to the viability of that plan that the city envisions. Wendy mentioned, of course, we do have a lot of interest from the neighbors and your package included a petition that was signed by many of those neighbors with some concerns about Soda Springs. One was the depreciation of property values. That was listed at the top. Now, I know you have heard this a lot and I don't know that I can actually stand up here and say anything that's going to convince anyone that their property values are not going to depreciate. I mean everyone seems to think if something's different it's going to change the value of my property. I really don't know of a whole lot of subdivisions that go in that actually do that. This is not -- this is not low income housing, okay, and this is not an entry level subdivision, this is a medium priced subdivision of high quality homes. There is a concern about the over density of the proposed property. Again, this does meet the city's desire for medium density residential that's in your Comp Plan. The 5.3 dwelling units per acre, even though we are asking for an R-8, that is to be a little more in line with some of the dimensional requirements. We had to ask for something and the R-8 is the jump from R-4 to R-8 and so we asked for the R-8. It is medium density. It is supported by the Comprehensive Plan in that area. The other concern, of course, is traffic congestion. It Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 37 of 71 says Victory Road and surrounding streets. Victory Road is classified as an urban collector. Actually, that's where the traffic should be. It would be very inappropriate for us to construct something like this in the middle of a larger lot subdivision, so that those homes had to go through the subdivision. I think it's very appropriate that there is an entrance off of Victory Road. Again, I think it's unfortunate there is not another stub street that could have connected us to Sherbrook Hollows, but that wasn't provided as part of the Sherbrook Hollows Subdivision. We did have a very well attended meeting on Thursday and many different opinions about the development and you're going to hear probably several different opinions tonight. From the neighborhood meeting and afterwards discussing with the builders, who we hope to represent, there are a couple of builders that have submitted information to be included in the package and we have some photographs of those. Two different builders now are hoping to be involved in the project. After meeting with the neighborhood, I think we would like to add a few things to the conditions and these are things that I know that we can agree upon and that is that behind the 6,500 square foot lots, those are the lots that actually -- the larger lots that touch Sherbrook Hollows, we -- there is now a chain link fence, because this property is used as a pasture area, so what we would like to commit to is having a cedar fence along here. Okay. That was something I think came from the neighborhood. They wanted to make sure that they weren't looking into someone's backyard any longer, so, of course, we will have to work with the adjacent property owners to make sure that fence is located along the property line. One of the things we also talked about is these homes here are the 6,500 square foot homes and we have made a commitment that if we back up to a one story home, we will build a one story home. If we back up to a two story home, we will build a two story home. Now, the additional information about the one story home, that does include a bonus room above the garage, which I think is typical. However, in this case that bonus room would not have a rear-facing window, so one of the real keys we have heard from the neighbors out there is that if you build a one story home here and it backs up to an existing one story home, you can have a bonus room, but you can't have a rear-facing window, because you don't want someone looking over the fence at the backyard. Now, that's one of the commitments that the developer wants to make to try to work with the neighbors. We also, of course, have had a lot of discussion about lot sizes and home sizes, particularly. We have -- and I can make a commitment for the development team and the builders that these 6,500 square foot lots will have these home minimum sizes, 1,500 for one story and 1,750 for two stories. Those are pretty good size homes and they do match the minimum home sizes that are in the Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood. Even though the Meridian code does allow us -- and we made our application under the code allowing some of the homes -- percentages of the homes to be built starting at about 1,001 square feet, as you understand the code, we would like to commit to some higher standards and this is mostly to satisfy the neighbors who do have some issues with the home sizes. For the lots that back up here on Victory Road, we would like those to be a minimum of 1,300 square feet and we will commit to having one-story homes there. For the neo-traditional homes that you see in the interior, of course, they front on these streets, but they back up to the alley, so they do have rear loaded garages. We would like to commit to have 1,300 square foot one story homes and 1,600 square foot two story homes minimum. Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 38 of 71 Centers: Do you have that all in writing, so you can give us a copy? Suggs: I can. I can make sure you get that. I'd like for that to be included in the record with -- Centers: Right. That's why I -- Suggs: And it should be included. I think we have been asked to put together a Development Agreement once we get to that point and that would be included in the Development Agreement. But those are things now -- in our discussions -- I will have to tell you a little bit about that. Now, these are a bit larger than the minimums that are typical in Meridian and I'm thinking that the developer here really is trying to work with -- with the neighbors, but he's also trying to make sure he doesn't push these builders that he's already got interested in this project with some really good quality homes, out, because they really don't want to build the big boxes, just to get the square footage in and not put the quality in those homes that they are used to putting into homes. Now, Mr. Jewett, who is the developer, was unable to be here tonight, we did have a meeting and at that meeting we did start talking about home sizes and one of the things Mr. Jewett did want to do -- and you will hear this tonight, I'm sure, is he wanted to be a part of the Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association, that way that except for the home sizes, that he would have -- the Sherbrook Hollows folks would have some architectural control. I don't think we are going to be able to do that, because I know that this -- Borup: We need to keep your comments on the record. If we can't do that, we would ask you to leave, please. Suggs: I do know that there was a real desire to do that, but I do know that after talking to the builders, they really can't go higher than those as minimums. Now, you will see that Mr. Roth is one of the builders that I'm familiar with and he has also built in Heritage Commons and on Harris Ranch. His -- I like it, I like his work. Many of his homes are larger than 1,300 square foot minimums for one story, but he is afraid to commit himself to that -- to some -- something larger than that, because he may, indeed, have one property owner who wants come in with -- an empty nester who wants a little bit smaller home and I think that 1,300 on one story is adequately sized for these new urbanist lots that we calling these right here. I think -- I'm hoping you will understand I'm seriously hoping the neighbors will understand that we are really not backing up here. What we are trying to bring is a very high quality project -- yes, it's a little different. It is something that maybe Meridian is not used to. I'm seeing this in other subdivisions. I work in Eagle and Kuna and those neighborhoods and I'm seeing more and more of these types of mixed uses of homes and mixed sizes of homes, too. I'll just say on a personal note I was also looking for a home last year, I found myself a nice home, it's 1,350 square feet, I don't need anymore than that, and it's just me and I can't afford a home that's a lot larger than that, because of the prices of homes these days, even with the great interest rates, so I just throw that out kind of as a personal note, because I like to think that I'm building subdivisions that I could actually live in. So, again, we are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 39 of 71 asking for your approval of the Soda Springs Planned Development, with annexation, with a zone of R-8 and the Preliminary Plat that you see as revised, required by ACHD. We agreed to the cedar fencing as described and home sizes -- and I can go through those again, if you want me to. On the 6,500 square foot lots we would have 1,500 single family -- square feet for a single story. That would include a bonus room over the garage, however, no rear-facing window on that room. 1,750 square feet, two stories, that would be only if there is a two story behind. On the Victory Road lots, 1,300 square foot minimum home sizes, one story. In the interior lots that have alleys in the back, 1,300 square foot one story and 1,600 square foot two stories. I would ask also that we might get some clarification on the sewer as a possibility. I will answer any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Centers: I just had one question and, first of all, it does appear that you tried to make some concessions after the neighborhood meeting. Did you do a plat just based on 6,500 square foot lots and how many you would get on 11 acres? Would it be about 44, 45? Suggs: I didn't even do that. Centers: Would that be close, Brad? Here we have five point something -- Suggs: Three units per acre. Centers: Yes. I think in a standard R-8 you have right four, don't you? Per acre on a standard -- what I'm getting at is how many more do we have here? I think the audience -- personally, I think it's about 14 lots more, 14 houses? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, yes, you know, kind of a general rule of thumb is you can subtract 25 percent or so for the right of way. So, you know, if you round off and say it was ten acres, I mean you're looking at two and a half just off the top for streets. The R-8 is -- you're usually going to be right about three and a half at the 6,500 square foot lot minimum. So, I think you're probably right in the ballpark. Probably 15 lots less at a straight R-8. Centers: I guess question for staff. What were the two amenities that they have given us, which wasn't really talked about? Kirkpatrick: They have proposed a park with a tot lot and they are also continuing the regional pathway, which runs along the canal at the northeast part of the subdivision. Centers: Yes. Which allows them to go with the Planned Development. Kirkpatrick: To apply for the Planned Development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 40 of 71 Borup: Maybe while you're here we will ask Mr. Freckleton. Any comments on the sewer? Freckleton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. As Jane pointed out, there is some kind of conflicting information in the staff report. as you might remember, the Tuscany Lakes project, the original sewer alignment for that project, they had to pick the sewer up at Meridian Greens, they brought it out onto on Victory Road, the original plan was to bring it down Victory Road to Locust Grove and south on Locust Grove to serve the development. The developer of the Tuscany Lakes project purchased the property that's on the opposite corner. He approached the city with a proposal to reroute the trunk line down through his development and out onto Locust Grove. Thereby it doesn't -- it did not come to the corner. His proposal was approved by the City Council. City Council did place a requirement on him that he had to financially participate in bringing sewer from the Ten Mile Creek crossing to the intersection at Locust Grove. So, what I was kind of getting at in my staff report, when I talked about the 3,400 feet, as I said, currently the sewer trunk ends approximately 3,400 feet, which that's where it is right now. When I was preparing the report I totally had this sewer in mind as to where this project is going to sewer to and that is, ultimately, where it's going to sewer to. Talking with Jane earlier, their thought was that they would dump into the existing sewer in Victory Road, which currently serves out through Sherbrook Hollows and out to another drainage area. That proposal is -- I believe it's fine. What we are going to have to do is do some verification of capacity of this receiving sewer to make sure that -- that we have the additional capacity to handle the project. Right off the cuff I don't think it's going to be a problem. What we are to going to do once the sewer is built up Victory Road is we are going to, basically, chop this off, so that the sewer no longer will flow this direction and it will all come down to the Ten Mile Trunk. So, long story short, when I was preparing my report, I had this ultimate sewer service in mind and wasn't thinking about the interim solution and I think the interim solution will be fine. We are just going to need to verify some capacities and that sort of thing. Borup: Okay. Does that clarify that? Suggs: Yes sir. Borup: Mr. Freckleton, I think when this project goes they are to bring the sewer line to that point? Freckleton: That's correct, sir. Borup: And, then, anything -- when this develops it would continue on? Freckleton: Well, currently, there is sewer in Victory Road along the frontage of Sherbrook Hollows. The sewer from this point flows to the west to this point and that's where it turns and goes into Sherbrook. We have sewer in this segment right here, but it flows back to the east. So, when Sageland develops, they are going to be designing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 41 of 71 their sewer such that it will be at a depth and slope that will be able to intercept this manhole right here. So, basically, this segment right here is going to be redone, so that the sewer will flow all the way down Victory and out. Borup: Okay. Suggs: It's all a matter of timing, it seems. And we appreciate the city working with us on that. Borup: Okay. Anything else you wanted to -- Suggs: I will stand for any questions. Borup: Did we have any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Like to take this opportunity to -- for any public testimony. I might mention a couple ways that -- and I think the instructions in the back maybe outline that, because we do want to try to hear from everyone to the extent possible. We have made some provisions -- I mean to do that with a large crowd, that's why we have a three minute stipulation, but when we have a -- affecting a large neighborhood, if there is a neighborhood spokesman that would be speaking for the neighborhood, we would have time -- I mean pretty much -- as much as they would want to go into. So, let me ask that first. Do you have a neighborhood spokesman? You, sir. And is there anybody in here that he is not going to be speaking for? Okay. We had three -- well, can we clarify that again? Rohm: I think that's a definite maybe. Borup: Again, if we have a neighborhood spokesman that's going to be speaking for the neighborhood, we will allow the extra time. Okay. Let me see the hands again who he is not speaking for. One, two, three, four, five. All right. Let's proceed with that, then. I assume everyone else, then, that he will be speaking in your behalf. Centers: Mr. Chairman, could I add one thing? Borup: Yes. Centers: And I will just tell it like it is. If five different people come up and they all say the same thing, I'm not impressed. You know, so if it's something different from each person, I definitely want to hear it. But the first person comes up and talks about traffic and the next one and the next one, you know, you have made your point with the first one, so I think you see my point. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay, sir. Semahe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lucien Semahe, and I live on 3036 South Grimes Creek Avenue in Sherbrook Hollows and I was appointed by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 42 of 71 neighborhood or a few people in the neighborhood to come and speak on their behalf, as well as the board -- the neighborhood association board of Sherbrook Hollows. Let me, first of all, say that Sherbrook Hollows, in essence, is not opposed to the development, in the sense that, yes, we do have some concerns and I will address that shortly to you and it's based on various things that I will also address as well. With development and progress, as you all know, comes challenges and we want to make sure that those challenges are met and the development is designed to develop in such a way that is cohesive with what's existing around it and we do welcome diversity, by the way. We are not opposed to diversity. And, truly, we have no problem with the pricing of homes. The pricing of homes is not the issue. What we have not had any clear directions from the developer is -- we keep hearing the quality, but -- and we haven't seen anything in concrete besides pictures and everything else, truly what's going to go on that development. I mean I can propose 20 ways of how many homes or how many, you know, plans of homes I can put on that development, but our concern is what is truly going on that development. Centers: Could I interrupt right now? Semahe: Sure. Centers: Lucien? They wanted to become a part of Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association. Semahe: Do they? Centers: If you -- hold it. If you would allow them to come into Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association, you can amend your CC and R’s and you can control the quality of the construction, but you don't want to. Semahe: The concern from the neighborhood is that the developer has not approached the homeowners association board to truly join the Sherbrook Hollows -- Centers: It's my understanding they wanted to. Semahe: They made in their application that they have intent, but they have not made contact with any of the members of the homeowners association board. Centers: Okay. Well, we will have the applicant address that. Excuse me for interrupting. Semahe: And that was a concern to us, because we don't only make as residents of Sherbrook Hollows the decision, that's why we have a board that, you know, meets with the developer and, therefore, comes with points to the neighborhood and, then, say, okay, what do you want to do. So, we are really not out flat saying we don't want you. We never said that. And, as a matter of fact, for the record when we had our first neighborhood meeting last Thursday, I personally tried to bridge the neighborhood and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 43 of 71 the developer and the people representing the development together to say, you know, we can work together here, we can make things work, let us work together. So, we are saying here tonight we want to work with the developer, but we want written commitments on what is going on, not just, okay, we can do this and we can do that. I mean the fencing and all that stuff, granted, that's a very nice step on their part, but there is more to it than that and that's what the neighbors -- and I speak, again, on behalf of the neighbors, that's what they are really concerned about, because they don't have clear direction from the development of what's really going to take place. Centers: Written commitments based on the roof style? The colors of the homes? The siding, the type of siding -- or what are you talking about? Semahe: I'll tell you what I'm talking about. Centers: Okay. Semahe: During the neighbor meeting last Thursday when they said we would like to join your association, our question was, then, you're going to abide by our CC and R’s, because that's what it means to join the association. And the answer was, yes, but as you well know, they would like some amendments to the CC and R’s. Okay. Well, amending the CC and R’s does not happen just because the developer wants to amend the CC and R’s, it's going to take voting to amend the CC and R’s. So, these are technicalities that the neighborhood has to go through in order to accommodate the new development. I mean we are not opposed to development, but we are asking for the right steps to take place, not just we have a development, it's going to go, are you with us or against us. Well, we didn't even have enough time to know about the whole development. The public notice that went -- by the way, how many weeks or days do they have to put the public notice up? Borup: Ten. Semahe: Ten? Okay. Then, they met it, because I know for at least two weeks it was up. Okay. So -- but, still, there is so much involved in this particular development that the concern of the neighbors is there and that's why the -- but let me maybe address some of the concerns. First of all, it's the density as it was hinted to you and that's because when we look -- if you put the plat on -- okay. The balance of what -- you know, what we -- some of the things that we propose -- as you look at the balance of the lots, we, first of all, yes, when the neighborhood went in it's like, oh, my gosh, look at these small lots, what are they going to do there, and we said, well, wait a minute, let's listen to what really they want to do. I mean we can't assume what they are going to do until we listen to what they have to do. The middle section, you know, we said, okay, fine, but on the perimeters, then, we said -- and that's something I talked to Jane this morning about, I said is it feasible for your development with those big, you know, larger lots on the perimeters to continue with them along the perimeters of Victory and, then, give the development more feasibility and more balance. I mean we are not telling them we don't like your small lots, get rid of them, you know, just stick to R-4 and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 44 of 71 that's all we want you to do. We said, fine, you want to bring diversity, we welcome it, but how about some more balance. Now, we didn't hear any answer in that effect, because I don't know if the developer thinks it's feasible or not. That's not an answer for us to answer, it's for the developer to answer. And that's -- I mean in your opinion, I mean, will it balance the development to have more of these lots go around Victory and it gives the new neighborhood a better entrance and a more cohesiveness and, then, therefore, the neighborhoods around it, then, it will blend better. And, then, we are not objecting to a well done job, as they said earlier, you know, they -- for instance, they said we -- we are going to stick to the quality that -- and they referred us, by the way, to the development at Heritage Commons and, by the way, some of us went and visited these homes in Heritage Commons and I can tell you these homes are very nice homes, Roth Construction has done a very good job, in my opinion at least I could say, they are very good quality, and what we want from them is that quality that they referred us to at Heritage Commons would be followed in this development. If you refer somebody from the neighborhood and say this is what we are going to do, are you truly going to follow that standard that exists in Heritage Commons or is it going to be now different in Soda Springs, but, yet, the same builder. I mean if we were told in the neighborhood meeting that this is the example they are going to follow based on Heritage Commons, I would say I don't have a problem with it, if that's what they are going to do. But we don't have anything in writing that this is really what is going to take place and this is where the apprehension on the part of the neighborhood, you know, is taking place, because it's all talk and we haven't seen anything -- because during the neighborhood all we have seen is the plat and, you know, commentary back and forth. That's all we have done. Borup: I'll just maybe mention one interesting thing along that line. The neighbors of Heritage Commons had the same concerns when that subdivision went in. They were acre lots adjoining that one. Semahe: Well, they have 176 -- Borup: Yes. And -- but there were other neighbors that were closer and they had the same concerns. I live near that area and I had a lot of people after it was approved said how could you approve those little tiny lots with alleyways and I was getting that kind of stuff. The calls and comments I got after the subdivision went in is the prices of those homes are so expensive how can anybody afford them, you know, and I just thought it was interesting the contrast that 12 months made. Earlier everyone was concerned that the lots were so small that it's going to be a little, low income, substandard housing, after went -- after they went in the comments was the housing is too expensive that normal people can't afford it. Semahe: We are not concerned about that. For the record, we truly want the developer follow through with -- Borup: Well, I'm saying that was the concern of the neighbors of Heritage Commons. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 45 of 71 Centers: You're not concerned about what? Semahe: I am not concerned about the type of homes or the prices of homes that are going in there, because I agree with Keith, when he said, you know, if the quality -- again, what we are stressing here if -- that the quality will be pursued in these homes, then, yes, I agree with you that the quality, then, that you're selling is not cheap, therefore, there is no concern about -- Borup: But I don't think there is anything in those covenants that specified anything different than what these covenants would say. You know, you would have to compare the two to really know for sure. Semahe: Well, are you referring to the covenants of Heritage Commons? Borup: Yes. Yes. Semahe: Versus which covenants? Borup: The covenants of Soda Springs. Semahe: Which means they don't have covenants, they are asking for our covenants. Centers: They will have. Semahe: Okay. Have they submitted any covenants? Centers: We -- excuse me. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Well, they will, yes that -- Semahe: Okay. So, what you're saying to us, then, they will have the same -- Centers: No. No. We don't write the covenants. Semahe: They do. Centers: They do. And for you to ask us or anybody developer to put it in writing for the quality of the project is unreasonable. Totally unreasonable. I have never heard of it. Have you, Mr. Chairman? Semahe: Well, they told us -- Borup: And that was the point I was trying to make, it would probably be worded similar to what Heritage Commons was worded. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 46 of 71 Centers: They require square footage in the CC and R’s, she's committed to more square footage on certain lots. Some CC and R’s require different roofs, like Meridian Greens. Maybe no metal siding. You know, certain colors not allowed. Earth tones. But quality is driven by marketability and salability of a good product and they are not going to sell it if they don't have a good project. Semahe: All we mean by the quality is the pictures that you have seen of these homes, that's what we are referring to. I mean that's what they are telling us they are going to do. I mean, are we not going to hold them to what they are telling us they are going to do or they can do whatever they want? Is that -- I mean if they were going to do what -- one if they can do what they want after the commitment with the neighborhood, then, why did we meet? Why were we informed of these commitments if they are not going to follow -- Centers: You met. Obviously, you gained some ground, because she's -- they have committed to -- Semahe: And we thank them for that and we recognize it. We are not ungrateful. I mean we are not ungrateful, but what we are saying is they referred us to Heritage Commons to compare the quality that is going to go into Soda Springs. We did go to Heritage Commons and we liked what we saw and what we are saying is if this is what they are really going to do, that is fine, and we are referring to the middle section, because those are the alleyways, you know, homes. We do have a problem with those, because personally, being in the profession as well, they are very well done. Centers: And we can have the applicant address that. Semahe: That's fine. That's all we are asking for. Now, the location of open space, when you have a subdivision of this size, the only open space for this -- and this is another concern that we have -- supposedly, for some reason, they did not -- or joining the association was not feasible way of doing it. I mean that's a possibility, that's still on the table. We are not saying we are pro or against, we simply need more time in order to put that issue together. The only place -- I mean how big is that common area for the subdivision itself only? Is it an acre? Centers: A little over half. Semahe: A little bit over a half and the Commission feels that's enough open space for this subdivision with zero line lots, no backyards for the children? I mean, yes, maybe it's designed for a single person to live in those homes, but it could be a family living in it. I mean they cannot be denied access to live in it, which means there would be children in those homes. Where are they going to go? To that lot and that's sufficient for almost 60 homes to have just -- I mean we are asking the question, we are not saying it isn't, we are asking the Commission the question is that adequate and if you say yes, then, you made the decision. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 47 of 71 Borup: How much does Sherbrook have; do you know? Semahe: No, I don't. We have -- we have common areas and we have all that line behind that line that is common area and we have common areas, you know, sporadic along the neighborhood. I mean the kids can play in the yards, but -- I mean we have concerns for the -- I mean they have nowhere to go. Centers: Well, to answer your question, it meets the requirements. Semahe: It meets the requirements. Centers: Of the City of Meridian. Correct. Semahe: Okay. Then we got the answer to that. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that as part of the Planned Development application, the applicant submitted photos as part of the application. We require them to be within substantial compliance with those submitted photos or, essentially, the elevations that were submitted. Borup: So, that would be part of the approval. Kirkpatrick: So, we would -- and by substantial compliance we would mean similar roof lines, similar materials used, similar housing shapes and types, and the planner may want to -- Jane may want to address that, but we would require them to be within substantial compliance. Semahe: So, again, to answer -- to ask the question again, if the plat is on the -- on the screen again. How does the Commission feel on the fact that these lots, again, that are, you know, adjacent to Sherbrook Hollows and as they continue along Sherbrook Hollows all the way down and continuing on Victory, I mean is that a possibility? I mean is that something we can negotiate with the developer, see if that's something maybe to balance the neighbor -- the new neighborhood? I mean what's your opinion on that? Borup: I know from a market standpoint the less desirable lots are those backing up to a high traffic road. Semahe: Which is Victory. Borup: Right. So, you're not going to get people wanting the larger, more expensive homes, are not going to want -- I mean I think you would agree the same way if you were moving into a subdivision that's not your first choice. Semahe: I wouldn't mind one of them. I would move in. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 48 of 71 Borup: Yes. And so that makes them more difficult to sell. I did notice that the lots along the west boundary are seven lots and the lots in Sherbrook are seven lots, it appears, so there are an equal amount of lots along that boundary. Semahe: And we recognize that and, again, we do thank the developer on taking the extra step, as you heard Jane, you know, saying that they will go single against single and double against -- we do appreciate that. We are not, you know, saying that the develop -- again, we simply need more clarification and I guess what I'm saying, on the other hand, they need to sell us the development, too. I mean we are already there and it's like, you know, you're moving in, okay, tell us what you're trying to do. And we are not against it. And, again, for the record, we are not against the development, it's just we want to make sure it's done right. That's all we are asking for, in essence. And the other concerns are, of course, traffic. I mean you take Tuscany, who is going to have 500 plus homes, okay, you already have Thousand Springs -- God only knows how many homes they have. I mean, again, abundance of homes. You have Sherbrook, you have also Sageland Development going on the end -- I mean all within one block, it's all going at the same time, and the speed limit, also, that is a concern to us. I mean when we first moved it was 50. We got them to drop it five miles per hour, you know. You know, 45 miles an hour, you and I know teenagers -- I mean anybody could be living there. They don't drive 45, oh, they are allowed five more miles. They are driving 50. And, see, that is a dangerous situation just brewing and brewing and brewing and we don't know what the plan is and, hopefully, you know, ACHD and everybody else concerned, you know, will address that issue as these developments go in, that the speed limit, probably, is no longer adequate for a rural area. I mean you go on other more congested roads and they make you go 35 or 40, but yet our speed limit is much higher. I mean that is a concern from a point of safety and traffic. I mean in the morning, as we speak right now, without Tuscany, without Soda Springs, and without Sageland Development, we have a hard time -- I'm never on time to work, even when I get up early. Everybody is driving on Victory and trying to go and now with the construction, of course, you know, that for Tuscany, et cetera, we all wait in line, waiting with the flagger, you know, but that's not the issue, the issue is as we stand now with the density that we have and the residents that live in that area, we have a traffic problem and that's why the neighborhood, from the standpoint of density, we are concerned. Okay. Anyway, traffic and the density, we talked about that, and -- so I guess they want me to wrap up, so that's it. So, I will give them a chance to say their peace. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Note that was your neighborhood that wanted you to wrap up. We were giving you the time. Semahe: Can I say one more thing I just remembered? Can I -- Centers: Don't ask me, ask the lady behind you. Semahe: One more thing. We, initially -- and, just for the record, we came to the developer and I personally talked to Jane and I suggested to her 1,400 square feet Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 49 of 71 minimum on the inside and 1,600 square feet -- you know, 14, 16. Okay. Because based on the plans that we saw that were submitted and, you know, like Roth has, the smallest one we have seen on the Roth Construction was like 1,465 or 1,480. So, we know that what was submitted at the neighborhood meeting, you know, meets the 14 -- you know, requirement on the part of the builder. Now, the way I understand it, the builder is concerned that as these 1,300 square feet homes go on the perimeter of Victory, how is he going to compete with those 1,300 square feet homes along Victory? Well, I believe the promotion here should not be that the builders are completing against each other, they are actually competing to make the neighborhood a better place to live in and that should be the heart of the competition within the builders as they go into a development. It's not like, oh, you have a 13, I have a 14, so your house is going to sell before mine. I guess that's not a -- that should not be a concern. Borup: I agree. Semahe: And, you know, going 14, 16 in the middle -- and this is what we are requesting, maybe is also another feasibility for the development and we request that as well. Now, the -- Borup: Do you know what the minimum size for Sherbrook is? Semahe: The minimum is 15 on a single story and 1,750 for a two story. Borup: Okay. Semahe: That is our -- and, initially, for the record, we suggested that along the development and as we understood what they are trying to put in, we also understood we needed to compromise a little bit with the developer, so he can develop his land and put a reasonable square footage that is desired. And I end it right there. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners? Centers: No, thanks. Don't dare. Borup: Thank you, sir. Semahe: You don't dare? Borup: He doesn't dare. Thank you. I think we have got about five more people that wanted to come up, so let's -- Harding: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My name is Steve Harding and I live at 2243 East Mackay Court and just a couple things I'd like to bring up. Brad, can we go back to the -- where it shows like Victory Road. This development here is going in and that's an R-8 development, it has 39 lots going in. We have 59 lots -- or 58 lots going in. And for me it's a matter of density, just that many people backed up there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 50 of 71 We have got two great -- similar size parcels, ten and a half acres versus 11 acres, we have got 39 and 58 lots and, you know, he addressed a lot of those issues. There was discussion about irrigation and whether they were going to tie into our irrigation system and whether or not our system would support it. I don't know with the association not tying in if that's part of the deal or not. We had had a meeting and discussed and somebody had indicated that it would take quite a bit of improvement in order for them to tie into our system to make our system work properly. And on the single story homes, I would point out my home is right there and I have a two story home there, but it is two stories that butts out to the road. I have no windows facing this subdivision south and so when they said they want to do single story, single story, double story, double story, I would want to make sure that what goes against my house is a single story home, because that's what my home faces south to that subdivision. My two story is basically like a -- it's a bonus room facing the street, plus other windows that facing the street. So, I'd like clarification from that, if that's when -- if she could address that. And that's all the points I'd like to make. Centers: What was your name again? Harding: Steve Harding. Centers: Harding? Harding: Yes. Borup: So, your question is -- I mean she stated that the two story homes would not have windows facing to the north. Harding: Well, she said two story on two story and one story on one story. Borup: Right. And the -- okay. She said that any bonus room -- any bonus room plans would not be facing. Harding: Right. And my point is my house has -- is a two story, but all my windows face out towards the street, so, essentially, when it faces that subdivision, it's, essentially, a one story home and I would want that addressed on the plot plan, if I could. Centers: Well, she's saying the same thing, she said a one story with a bonus room above the garage. Harding: I have a two story. Borup: But he's saying he's got a two story, but he doesn't want his neighbor to have a two story. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 51 of 71 Harding: But the way my windows face it is, essentially, like a bonus room. So, I'd like that clarified at least for that lot that's going to abut against me. Centers: And they are being required to have their own pressurized irrigation? Harding: Are they? Centers: Yes. Harding: And I will point out she said that the builders didn't want to be part of the association. We didn't necessarily say no to that, the builders said they didn't want to be a party to more control that we might want to do with them, so it wasn't us, necessarily, it was the builders that said no. Borup: Thank you. Hansen: My name is Nancy Hansen and I live at 2460 East Victory Road and I have written some comments and I have copies if you want those. Our property abuts the proposed development of Soda Springs. We would like to question the reason Meridian feels it necessary to use up the rural properties to develop dense subdivisions in its sprawling Comprehensive Plan area so quickly, to develop subdivisions and school districts that cannot accommodate the rapid growth, to develop subdivisions before core services of police, fire protection, et cetera, can be developed, to add another ten car trips per household per day to already crowded streets. Is it really just, as the developers of this subdivision stated at the recent neighbor meeting we attended, that Meridian planners like dense subdivisions, so you can have a larger tax base. That seems a poor reason to abandon the rural, agricultural history of this community. That being said, we have been down this road before and realize that this is a train we cannot derail. Therefore, for the protection of our property, we would like the following: First, a buffer of landscaping between our property and the proposed development, preferably a berm landscaped with trees and shrubs. Second, a vinyl fence to separate our property from their development. Third, R-4 zoning at the very least, which at least keeps it consistent with the previous subdivisions around us. Fourth, the developer to present specific designs and plans to this committee before agreement is given. Fifth, any conditions and agreements negotiated through these meetings to be written on the plat, so that they are adhered to in the future. Sixth, the developers to be responsible for any cost incurred for the necessary movement or change of our irrigation source due to the Soda Springs development. And, seventh, that lights along the proposed roads bordering our property be hooded. The developer also stated at this neighbor meeting that Meridian's Planning and Zoning would not worry about a buffer zone between us and the subdivision, since our property is considered future development. I hope you truly do not dismiss our concerns so casually. We realize that the acreage is potential development, but we have lived here for over 13 years and plan to continue to live here. When this developer approached us about selling our property last summer, our response was an immediate no thanks. Our property is not in Meridian city limits, but it's quickly becoming an island surrounded by subdivisions and, thereafter, dependent Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 52 of 71 upon your decisions. I just remind you that we were here first and we have been good members of this community. Despite the neighbor meeting, the developers are not our neighbors and you do not know what the potential 60 households will bring. And I have a few comments that I wanted to make after listening to the engineer tonight. At the neighbor meeting they had agreed to a vinyl fence between our property and their development, but she didn't say anything about it tonight up here, although she commented to us in the audience -- or at the seats. And also I wanted to note that the tot park that is an amenity, those are not buildable areas, the water table is too high and when they went into the subdivision previously, they can't build there, so -- and also calling them half acres, the boundary is actually in the center of the canal for that, so when you talk about those half acre lots or that half acre, you're also considering the easement between Nine Mile Creek and the canal. So, that's part of that half acre. And, then, when Wendy Kirkpatrick talked about requiring the substantial compliance, I just want to make sure that -- I don't know how you would insure substantial compliance. We went through these meetings before, before Thousand Springs was built, and the agreements that were made weren't followed and we wound up in a legal battle with that and so that's something that these people need to think about is before you say, well, we would require substantial compliance, how do you require it, how do you police it, how do you make sure it's done? And that's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Do you live right there? Hansen: Yes. Centers: How big a parcel do you own, ma'am? Hansen: It's four acres usable and if you consider the easements across Nine Mile Creek and the canal, if you went to the middle of the canal like these lots do on the subdivisions, it would be six acres. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. M. Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen, I live at the same property, 2460 East Victory Road, and I'm not going to repeat all this, I just want to go on record that I agree with everything that was said previously and I'm not going to bore you with it, I just want to be on record that I state this, too. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 53 of 71 Hansard: My name is Donald Hansard, I live at 3035 South Gold Bar Avenue. Recently moved in there. And I think Mr. Centers' very first statement, basically, about the number of homes, 59 versus possibly 42 -- 42, 44 homes. I think that's more in line with what should be in that particular area. That addresses a lot of traffic concerns. Another question that I have is as far as an emergency type situation, how do they get to those people if something has occurred, is there enough access to that for -- if you can put that -- put the slide up -- there. They have a single access. Is there enough room to get in there with, you know, fire equipment, ambulances, in the event a major -- you know, you're talking about dense area with people if there is a fire, you know, can you get in there with the safety equipment to get those people out. Is there enough room. Borup: They do have -- they have the main access here, then, they have an emergency access right here. Hansard: Okay. Okay. Basically, I think everybody has, you know, stated great points on this thing. The main thing, I think, that everybody is really concerned with is quality of the homes and density. It's a little overcrowded. I think they need to cut back the size of -- the number of units that are going to be in there. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Godby: My name is Louise Godby, I live at 2238 Mackay Court. I live on the common area that they have been talking about. I have got a couple of questions. Number one, if you have got 58 homes, where in the world are the kids going to play, other than jump the fences or whatever and play on the common areas by the canal and I guess I'd like a little clarification on the common areas that are behind, you know, our canal. When we moved in three years ago, we were the last person in Mackay Court cul-de-sac. We moved in because everybody else was fenced out and that gave us the look of a large yard, the enjoyment of quail to feed, birds to feed, nobody back there. We came from an area where we didn't live with fences and so I don't like my backyard fenced, so I bought this house. Now, I'm concerned that because there is going to be 59 homes there with no place for the children to play -- I mean, you know, ten feet between houses and 15 feet to the road and nothing in back of the house, they are going to be playing in the common area and destroying property. Now, I was told that the reason the common area was there was that the canal company had to have access to repair any problems with the canal. If that is the case and we have lots that leave that space, isn't that going to be required of Soda Springs? Borup: What -- could you repeat that again? Lots that leave the space? Godby: Well, if you look at Mackay Court -- or I mean Sherbrook Hollows. Borup: Okay. Yes. I'm looking at it right now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 54 of 71 Godby: Okay. I live basically at the Mackay Court -- the 10:00 o'clock position. This -- right. Okay. I live right there. My house -- total backyard is open. I was told that the reason this exists is because the canal company needs to get their big equipment in there in case they have problems with the canal. Well, if that's the logic, doesn't there need to be access along here also, so that cuts out most of the play area? Centers: They have an easement. They have an easement. Godby: Do they? Centers: Yes. Seventy foot wide. Miller: My name is David Miller. I live at 2225 East Dworshak Court. I bought in that area for a specific reason, having a high quality home and large lots. The proposed Soda Springs Subdivision drastically changes that way of lifestyle and that density that's going in there and if the Commission thinks that what's being proposed is acceptable to the neighbors, I think they ought to take another to look at it. Those small lots in the center with nine foot off the alley to the garage, what kind of car -- if they can't get it in for some reason, they want to stop and unload the groceries, it's going to be hanging out in the alley. You got potential problems. I mean it just doesn't make sense. Think about what's going in there versus what's around it. It doesn't wash. That's all I have to say. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. K. Harding: My name is Kalyn Harding, I live at 2243 East Mackay Court and I wanted to finish clarifying on that walkway back there. Right now there is currently a fence that Sherbrook Hollows built and put up. Is there any reason why we have to take that down? Yes. Right there. That is not a thoroughfare. I mean it is for us. Centers: You don't want to take your fence down? K. Harding: No. Centers: I don't think they have to, but maybe the staff -- yes. K. Harding: She addressed that -- you know, that there was all that walkway bike path. Well, there isn't, because there is fence there. Centers: Yes. Well, that is a 70 foot easement, according to the plat that I'm looking at here for the irrigation easement. Seventy foot wide. K. Harding: Yes. Okay. Well, that's fine, but, you know, she just -- when she was up here speaking she was saying that we have this whole bike path, walkway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 55 of 71 Borup: Well, how about when it leaves -- how about where it leaves your subdivision, is it -- K. Harding: It just ends. Borup: There is a fence there also? K. Harding: Yes. Centers: Well, I think she was referring to kind of the open space and the quail and the birds. K. Harding: No. No. No. No. No. I'm talking about the developer. Centers: Oh. Okay. I was talking about Mrs. Godby. Okay. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, just to clarify, there is a regional pathway in our Comprehensive Plan that runs along the south side of the canal. I believe in Sherbrook Hollows there is currently a private easement for the pathway. The City of Meridian's Parks Department will need to work with Sherbrook Hollows to obtain a public easement and continue the pathway through Sherbrook Hollows, but the city's vision is that will develop as a regional pathway and will connect to the regional pathway in proposed Soda Springs Subdivision. Borup: Well, that's what I had understood the statement, but what happens to the north? Is the pathway continued on? Kirkpatrick: Actually, I'm not -- I'm not certain where it picks up again. On our Comprehensive Plan it does show that it continues to the north. I'm not sure where the actual next built-out segment is, but we do show a continuance for it on the Comprehensive Plan. And we can bring the map over here if that would help, if you would like to look at it. Borup: There is one right down here. Okay. Have we got one final person? Come on up. Nelson: Sorry. I thought you were done. I thought I'd let everyone speak first. My name is Mark Nelson, I live at 1236 East Brozdi Street and I don't even live in this subdivision. Figure that out. Centers: Where is it that you live, then? Nelson: Sportsman’s Point. Right across Locust Grove. Centers: Oh. Okay. I know where that is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 56 of 71 Nelson: And, actually, we spend quite a bit of time in this subdivision. Our kids have friends over here and the school system is -- and we, actually, have been talking about moving, depending on what the school district does with the schools the next year or two, and moving over into this area, because we really like it, we'd like to get a larger home. So, that's why I see it having an affect in a year or two down the road. This is where we were kind of looking and I just think that it's not -- the continuity of the design and I agree with the higher density and the master plan and the whole thing, but across the street there is going to be the neighborhood center and I think on that side of the street it's more appropriate for the higher density. Right. But the plan is the neighborhood center is going to be on the other side of the street in that area. Centers: That's where the little half circle is on the Comprehensive Plan. Nelson: Right. Centers: You're right. But those little half moons can move a little bit. Nelson: That's fine. But within that side of the -- in that township on that side -- or, excuse me, that section, that higher density -- I know that -- Centers: You have done your research and you're right. Nelson: So, anyway, there is going to be the neighborhood center, I think the higher density is more appropriate where they can walk to it and that sort of thing. Centers: You have done your research. Nelson: And they can't be running across the street and even though right now you might imply that the homes might be too nice for a starter family to get in there, the concern is who buys the house ten years from now, not who buys it next year, and so I'd just like to see that density more in tune with that side of the road. The higher density needs to be in the neighborhood -- or in the side of the interstate, we need higher density people or houses also, but I just personally feel that it belongs on the side where the planned neighborhood centers would go. And I know that there is no way for you to really control that quality, but the cost of the property really drives that more than anything. So, the safety and security of the higher density, once kids do move there and the amenities are on the other side of the street and I'm thinking ten years from now and I'm looking at potentially moving out of our subdivision and that's the where we -- Centers: What's the concern ten years from now on the resale of one of those? I don't follow that. Nelson: No. That's not it. The -- right now you don't really get into the other subdivisions, there is no walkway in between them, it just looks to me like an Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 57 of 71 afterthought, it's not a cohesive design. Eventually, the homeowner that owns the property to the south -- or the east, rather, has no plans on selling now, but, eventually, it's going to get sold, eventually it's going to be subdivided, and it's going to look like another piece that wasn't designed to be a cohesive piece, so you have just tons of little curb cuts up and down the road and, like I said, all the amenities will be on the other side. So, I just think that's where the higher density needs to be and keep this one -- and maybe not as low density as that subdivision, but not this high density. Centers: This property right here, I think it was 39 lots on eight acres -- ten. Ten acres. Which was higher density than the R-4 and we didn't have anybody here. I shouldn't say anybody, but we didn't have this many people. Nelson: Well, I think you have more of a buffer between the homes on the other side. Isn't there like a canal goes through there and -- Centers: Yes. That's possible. Okay. Nelson: So, it's not the same. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Quickly. Hunter: My name is David Hunter and I live at 2237 East Mackay Court. I have a -- I moved to Meridian to kind of get away from the hustle and bustle of all the neighbors. I love my neighbors now, I have two neighbors, and I live -- I live right here and I have a back lot line of 184 feet and those three houses are going to be abutting my yard. And, so, in other words, I would be surrounded by five different families. I don't know how many people surround your houses, but I'm sure you don't like to be crowded in and I just have a concern about three houses facing my backyard. Centers: Are you on a cul-de-sac? Hunter: I am. Centers: Yes. Well, I think that explains why you have that big back lot line. Hunter: And that's my concern. Borup: What's your front lot line? Forty? Hunter: Thirty-five or forty, yes. It's a bigger lot in that subdivision. That's all I got to say. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 58 of 71 Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, you had -- he's been raising his hand two or three times. Borup: I assume you have something new. Anneker: My name is Shane Anneker, I live at 2019 East Dworshak. I'm, actually, a board member for Sherbrook Hollows. I didn't know anything about this until two days ago when some of the people that live in my subdivision told me about it, so I was, actually, trying to sit back and hear both sides of the story a little bit. My biggest concern, realistically, about all this is the walkway issue, because in that back area that they are talking about putting a walkway through there, there is a ditch that goes across there, along with the houses, so there is, really, only about ten feet, probably, where they could, actually, put a walkway. The ditch runs perpendicular with the fence line on the canal, just in case you didn't -- but -- so, the walkway is kind of an issue. I really don't think it really would go well there. And, another thing, how come, if they offered vinyl fencing to the other neighbor, why wouldn't they make that uniform throughout, because that's going to leave an odd ball tie in, isn't it? Centers: Hopefully, the applicant is making notes and she will address that. Anneker: Okay. I just -- you know, to me it's looking like you're getting two different stories from whoever they are talking to. And, like I said, I tried to sit back and watch and see what's going on, because I kind of had a lack of knowledge, to be honest with you, and -- but those are the -- just basically everybody else has already talked about stuff that -- thank you. Centers: Thank you. Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen. I'm sure you know where my property is at by now, but there is one thing that hadn't been addressed here. There is -- I think it's called Nine Mile Drain between our property and the canal and since we have lived there, it's been at least twice that Nampa-Meridian has come in there with backhoes, dug the creek out, piled it on our property, their right of way, and just left us with a mess. I assume if that drain gets plugged up where they want to tot lot, they are going to have to do the same thing. I keep my property mowed, I don't let weeds grow. Where they have piled all this stuff I cannot mow it. They dug up rocks two feet in diameter and piled up there, they came with a cat and flattened it out, but it is still so rough that I have no way of mowing that, so they need to be aware that if that drain gets plugged up, they probably will come in there, they have the right to with their right of way, they could be in there with a backhoe and a cat and they are going to make a mess of the place. Thank you. Borup: That's understood. Jane, did you have some final comments? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 59 of 71 Suggs: Yes, sir, I do have some. I'm Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street, representing JLJ Enterprises and Soda Springs. I guess I should go over a few of these concerns, because I understand that they are concerns of the neighborhood and I'm just as concerned -- I'm just concerned in making sure that we have that dialogue as I am convincing you that this is a great subdivision for the area. One of the things, though, is I feel as if I'm kind of getting a little bit of a difference. I have a representative of the neighborhood and most of the -- most of the neighborhood or many of the neighborhood spokesmen agree that they like the overall concept, but -- but we did have at least one person -- oh, okay. Borup: We have got everyone's petition, so I think there isn't -- Suggs: I guess -- I guess my point is that there are still people in the neighborhood, even though I feel like I'm negotiating this development with the neighborhood, I'm not, I'm just negotiating this with a certain part of the neighborhood and already there are people here that don't agree with the concept at all and are going to continue to be dissatisfied, so I guess that's -- one of my issues is that it's so hard and you know this, too, and I actually serve as a representative on the board of a neighborhood -- the north end neighborhood association in Boise, where it was very hard to determine who was really representing the neighborhood, so I just want to keep that in mind as I talk through some of these. I know have difficult that is. We did talk -- you did mention a really good point about putting larger lots along Victory. I'm not prepared to make any kind of change to the lot sizes tonight on that. We do feel like those lot sizes are the ones that are most appropriate to back up to victory Road. There will be landscape buffer. We have committed to have that landscape buffer with the basket weave fence in the landscaping along the front, along Victory. I didn't bring my pointer. Here it is. This will be similar to what you see in front of Sherbrook. We would like to make that seamless. But with these one stories here, I don't think you're really going to see something that the detracts from the neighborhood, but we do know that those will not be the most expensive lots in the neighborhood, so that's why they are shown as the smaller lots. There was a concern about the quality of Heritage Commons. We did ask that -- some folks that were interested in this -- the builders that were working with us go out to the Palisades and Fenwick, those are the type of subdivisions and you have photographs and I think you might be passing those along. Also, looking at some of Mr. Roth's products now, I can say Mr. Roth likes to build and Mr. Campbell like to build these products and they do a really good job of them. This is not going to be Heritage Commons, this is not -- it isn't going to have a clubhouse and so one of the things I want to keep in mind is that to tell one person with one subdivision we want you to look just like another subdivision, it may be not look exactly like and I just really don't want to fool anybody to think that every single home you see out in Heritage Commons is going to be duplicated out here in Soda Springs, so I just want to be clear about that. We are using the same builders and they do construct to the same quality. We did submit the Sherbrook Hollows CC and R’s, because we did want to be a part of that. I'm seeing some -- there might be some difficulty with that. I would hate to delay the approval of this subdivision subject to some CC and R’s, because certainly the people bringing those up tonight were not even on the board of the neighborhood -- of the homeowners Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 60 of 71 association, so -- and the homeowners association was notified our neighborhood meeting by mail just like everybody else, because there were two addresses for the Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood association. Borup: So, did you -- are you saying that the wording of the CC and R’s substantially the same as Sherbrook? Suggs: We would have our wording of our CC and R’s and the architectural control be very similar to that of the Sherbrook Hollows. We submitted that. The difference, of course, would be that we will not have those same sizes that they have, but we did submit some information -- Borup: Okay. That's -- that's why I just wanted clarification. Suggs: Some of the information, just tell me tell you, that we did submit a 30 year architectural composite shingles, hardboard or cottage lap siding, no vinyl siding. That's important. I can't think -- we can't put it on the plat yet. We haven't convinced Mr. Priester to let us put that on the plat, but we are talking about some sort of -- and you have seen from the photographs there are some amenities in the front, masonry, colors, some architectural details to the -- especially to the front facades. Various roof pitches. So, that quality issue is really hard to address. I think when you show pictures of the guys that are going to be building the homes in your subdivision, that's about as close I can get and if we need to put some stuff in writing in our CC and R’s, in addition to what's already in the Sherbrook Hollows CC and R’s, we can do that, but we would like to mirror those. I have a commitment from the developer that if we don't get into this Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association, our CC and R’s will look a lot like theirs, except adjusted for the size of lots and homes. On the open space, we are not able, because we don't have the ten percent open space, we don't -- we weren't able to use that as an amenity for our Planned Development. We are using -- and I'm kind of crossing over several of the different speakers. That is a regional pathway and we are constructing that. We have been instructed by the Meridian Parks that we are going to have to build that according to their regional pathway standards. I think that's part of the plan for -- your Comprehensive Plan, it does show on your Comprehensive Plan, it is one of our amenities. And, yes, it could be that that is a low lying area and can't be built upon with homes, but you wouldn't really want to put homes back up against the canal there, especially if we are to provide -- and we do, a 70 foot wide maintenance easement. The area that you see of about a half an acre does not include that, so we actually lose about a third of an acre, which is totally unusable to us. Centers: When you calculated the .59 acres, did you go back to this line? Suggs: To the fence line, yes. Centers: Right to there. Suggs: To there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 61 of 71 Centers: And what is actually usable there? From here out? Suggs: I would expect that it could all be usable. I'm understanding from -- and this is something I'm understanding from the property owners and from the engineers, that there may be a -- there is a drain through there. Some of those may have to be tiled -- piped in. Centers: Have you been to the property? Suggs: I have only been in the front of the property, because -- Centers: Okay. You haven't looked back there? Suggs: I have not looked back there. The engineers have when they did the survey of it and they will be preparing appropriate plans for that. Borup: The plat says that there is a ditch there that's going to be piped. Suggs: Tiled. Yes. Centers: I'm just trying to get at how much of that .59 is actually usable park area. Suggs: I would say pretty much -- almost all of it. There will be a pathway through a portion of it right here that will be the common pathway through here. There is a fence - - is this the fence line right here? I can't see. This is the fence line that we can't use. From the fence line here we can't use. That's the 70 foot easement. So, we -- that fence like is the part that would be unusable. Centers: Okay. Suggs: And I think that's at the bottom of the slope and so there is a flat area with the drain. Centers: And your pathway is going to be on this side of the fence. Suggs: Yes, it is. Centers: Right here. Suggs: Yes, it is. Centers: Which is going to be 15 feet wide? Correct? Borup: Ten feet is what the plat shows. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 62 of 71 Centers: Ten feet? Okay. So, based on the topog there, the fence is where the dotted line is? Suggs: Okay. I'm showing the fence on the plat here. Centers: Right. Suggs: With the -- my understanding was that that fence that we will install will be at the bottom of the slope. If it needs to be someplace else, we will do that. We will certainly make sure it's where the irrigation company wants it to be. We are -- Borup: The plat does show the pathway at the top of the slope. Suggs: At the top of the slope? Up here? Borup: That's what -- Suggs: Okay. Borup: Well, that's on the landscaping detail. Suggs: Okay. It was my -- well, we can't show the -- Borup: The other detail shows the fence at the bottom of the slope, so there is -- there may be some conflict there. Centers: Yes. You can't do that. Suggs: No. And I apologize if there is discrepancy and we need to go on the record as saying we will put the pathway in a place where it's accessible and not -- doesn't endanger anyone being next to the canal there. I mean we know that there is a certain portion of that property back there that is totally unusable to us. In fact, when we worked out this the first time, we talked to the staff and the staff let us know that we couldn't include that in any of our calculations for open space. That's just lost area. We would like to make the commitment again that if there is a one story house -- and so we know that in a couple of locations here there will be a place where there might be a two story here and a one story here and I guess we just need to clarify that whatever is the majority of the lot, I guess, is what we would build. I mean if there is a two story behind us, we would like to build a two story also. If there is a portion -- a small portion of a lot that's a one story, I would still say that we would like to be able to build a two story, just for that same reason. If we build a one story we would have mostly a two story looking over us, so it's sort of that, but that's been a concern with some of the property owners, they have called me and said how do you deal with this, because the lots don't exactly line up. The concern about the conditions -- the homeowners association and being a part of the homeowners association, the only concern was when I talked to one of our builders that I know very well, he was quite concerned with having some restrictions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 63 of 71 placed on the square footage like we talked about before. And we have talked a little bit about developing rural land. Mrs. Hansen, our next door neighbors, they are concerned about that, concerned about they were building before the services are available, and, as we all know, in many cases the houses come and the services come later, that's the way they are paid for. So, that's unfortunate. They wanted landscaping. I don't believe at this point we are going to be able to do a berm and a big landscaping area. We are putting in a portion of a public street. We have been working with ACHD to provide that. There will be a small shoulder and if ACHD allows us -- and I'd like to work with them -- I would like to put a fence along here, if that's what the property owner’s want. We were hoping that since they would be seeing the fronts of some houses, separated by the street, or a portion of a street, that that would not be a big issue for them. They do have a row of trees on their own property, so I have to point out on their property they have a row of trees right here that do provide some visual barrier, but those are not on our property. We have already -- I know you have already talked to your staff about substantial compliance. We have provided those photographs and some information and those would -- that information could go in the CC and R’s about restrictions on roof pitches and that type of thing. Someone was concerned about an emergency situation. We do have this as a temporary -- this is a lot right here and this is going to be maintained as an emergency access until we have another access and that would be only when this property does develop and that homes would front here and there would be another access to that. Probably a street stubbed out this way. We did this, because wanted to provide a better opportunity for that homeowner, should they choose to develop. We felt a bit restricted, because there were no stub streets and so someone had talked about the cohesiveness of the neighborhood, we do feel that that might have happened if the Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood here had been required to stub a street out, so that there would be that. But now we really are a separate little pocket neighborhood and so we don't want to cut that piece of property here off to do the same thing, so we want to provide some opportunities, so that next to it is a smaller piece, it has an opportunity to develop wisely. I don't know how to address where the kids are going to play. Again, I think we are talking about some of these houses will have backyards where the kids can play and some of these will have kids will -- the kids will go into the tot lot and some of them will have kids that are old enough that they will sit at the video games, like most of the teenagers do. But I don't -- I'm hoping that we can get to a point where -- one of the things the developer wanted to do was maybe build the tot lot, so it was kind of centered along the open space for the other neighborhood, too, but it sounds like that that's probably not going to happen, because they really don't want those faces spaces to connect. I think that's unfortunate. I would love to see the open spaces around all -- several neighborhoods connect together. That's the whole idea behind it, providing those connections, that's a place we are working for. Again, Mr. Miller says the concept is just not acceptable to the neighbors and so that -- you know, I'm hoping to negotiate, but I don't know how to negotiate, because this is a concept that I think some of the neighbors like and some don't. I think, though, we are asking, again, for the R-8, we are not building eight units to the acre, we are building 5.3 units to the acre. I don't believe that's too dense for this. The neighborhood center, typically, is characterized by neighbor commercial uses and, yes, I think it's very appropriate, even across the street, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 64 of 71 to have denser development, closer to those neighborhood -- those neighborhood commercial uses. Mr. Hunter, you already pointed out is on a cul-de-sac and that's why he's going to have three houses backing up to him. We run into that all the time, you know, so -- oh, why vinyl versus cedar. We had walked about it in the neighborhood meeting, what we wanted to do here, and it seems that cedar is the fence of choice throughout the Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood and so we were willing to put back -- put up between the homes what they have between their own homes, which is cedar fencing. I haven't cleared this with the developer, but if we can put a fence here and the neighbors do want it as something other than cedar, we can do vinyl, but I would ask that -- that's because they don't have that kind of fencing around. I would hate to have to put vinyl here, which is different from what you see throughout the entire neighborhood through here, so -- I'm just hoping to put this cedar up. What else can I talk about? Are there other concerns that you heard from the neighbors that you want me to address? Borup: Okay. Anything from any of the Commissioners? Anything else that still needs addressed? Has there been any -- I don't know if there has been any demographic studies of similar neighborhoods as far as the ratio of children. Suggs: I don't know. I haven't -- I did not do any kind of study about this. I do believe that what we are probably finding for some of these lots, especially since there are smaller lots with some smaller homes, I don't -- it's hard for me to say a 15 or 16 hundred square foot home is smaller, but that you may find professional couples, maybe fewer children. I haven't -- I can't justify that, though. Borup: And the reason I asked, I just wondered if there was any little more comprehensive study. Again, I live near Heritage Commons and my observation is there have been few children in that neighborhood, percentage-wise, compared to what you normally have. It's been empty nesters and young professionals on the most part so far. Suggs: And you may find some families there. I mean we hope -- one of the things about providing different types of housing is to try to get, really, a diversity of families. I was doing work on a much larger subdivision south of Boise and had some conversations with the sheriff and they said one of the worst things that they could ever see was a subdivision where everybody was alike. They all are young professionals with young children and all these young children become adolescents at the same time and so one of the things that they really miss is having older people and younger people all mixed together. So, they really hope to get more of a mix and I'm hoping that maybe by providing some of the 6,500 square lots, which may be standard homes, that you will have some young families there, but you might have some young professionals or even some empty nesters and that's one thing I know that some of our builders now are trying to get the master down for the empty nesters, they really -- they want the -- some of the square footage, but that's some eyes on the community and that's a wonderful thing to have from a social standpoint and I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 65 of 71 Borup: Commissioner Rohm, you had a question? Rohm: Well, I just wondered have you had a draft set of CC and R’s that anybody had had an opportunity to take a look at, to do a comparison between your proposed development and what their development currently is? Suggs: Well, what we submitted for our CC and R’s were their CC and R’s, so we submitted those CC and R’s saying that our CC and R’s will look like those. We have some partnership issues with some of the people that were involved in their construction, work in partnership often with the developer of this subdivision and so we submitted their CC and R’s saying we wanted to be either a part of their homeowners association or have mirrored CC and R’s, with the exception of this lot and home sizes, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Suggs: Okay. Borup: Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Suggs: Thank you. Borup: Discussion? Is there anything else staff wanted to add? Kirkpatrick: No. Borup: Okay. Centers: Well, it seems as though people are bashful to speak up, I guess, but I never am bashful. And it may be a flaw in our Planned Development code or what have you, but they are going to put in a pathway that goes nowhere and that's one part of meeting the PD. The other part is the tot lot, because they don't have enough open space. And I'm seeing a nod of the head. And the open space that they are providing, in my mind, is not all usable. I think the key to me -- even though Chairman Borup hit on it, Heritage Commons -- how many lots there, Mr. Chairman? Borup: I think there is close to 300 when it builds out. Centers: You know, I haven't heard the stats either and the applicant -- I wrote it down, because she made the comment and it was part of my concern; I don't know how to address where children will play. That was her quote, unquote, and she doesn't. There are going to be children there. I can't give you a state whether it's two per household or 1.3. 1.3 is always hard to imagine to me. But there is going to be children there and I can see them playing in the alleys, in the streets, because there is not going to be enough room to play in the area. And, by the way, folks, I'm not running for elective office, so -- that was the big thing to me. If they would take out four or five lots and give Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 66 of 71 us more open space and, then, the big thing to me was the project we approved and I don't know if the Council has approved it. Have they, Bruce? Where it was 39 lots on ten acres. Borup: Sageland. Kirkpatrick. Sageland has not gone to City Council yet. Centers: It hasn't gone. But it pretty much flew through here fairly easy. Thirty-nine lots on ten acres. Here we have got 58 on 11. The gentleman that doesn't even live there hit the nail on the head. The higher density is -- in the Comp Plan is the proposal around a neighborhood center. You go with the neighborhood centers, some shopping, and, then, you got higher density, so the people can walk to that. That's why I said you did your homework. That's the thought in mind. I don't mind the higher density, but I don't think they have got enough open space. That's my biggie. For the kids to play there. I really don't. The higher density and the mix, I think the applicant has done a good job. You know, the 65 foot lots abutting Sherbrook, they have done a good job on that. I -- personally, I just think it doesn't have enough open space, because the applicant doesn't even know how to address it, don't know how to address where children will play. I don't either, other than the alleys and the street. But the higher density doesn't really bother me. I think it just needs more open space. The traffic bothers me, but that's up to ACHD. And the impact fees, they take care of that after the fact, just like they take care of schools after the fact. You can't put them in ahead of time. You can't widen Victory Road before you get the people, so you got to understand that. So, anyway, end of speech. Rohm: Well, to expand on that just a little bit, from a previous developments that have come through and what we have always addressed is they will develop out based upon their own marketability and if, in fact, this proposed development doesn't have enough ground to play on, then, people aren't going to buy there. So just because your perception is that there is not enough play room, if people have kids, they won't buy there, so I don't know that necessarily this Commission should be about making sure that there is a large enough backyard for each and every -- off of each lot. That would be my position. Centers: Yes. I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: The only way to really answer the two concerns is to know what families and who is going to be living there and that's an impossible question to answer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 67 of 71 Centers: I agree. Borup: I guess the best this Commission can do is to try to anticipate, to the best of our ability, what's feasible and what's workable. Centers: I think what bothers me, too, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the developer has just given us the bare minimum for the maximum. That's what concerns me. And he hasn't even given us that with usable space. I don't consider a tot lot to be an amenity. It's part of the Planned Development code, I know that, but maybe that needs to be changed down the road. You give me a swing set and a jungle gym and you get to have more lots. And, then, hasn't met the ten percent minimum. And the space that he is given is -- most of it is not usable -- or not most, but a lot of it. Go ahead. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I thought it might be helpful if I were to go through the amenity sections of the Planned Development standards. Centers: Good. Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I'll just read from the code here. They are required to provide two amenities and I will go through what those amenities can be. They could be, A, ten percent of the gross area is landscaped, which they are not providing here. B, they could be a private active recreational facility, such as a playground, picnic area, basketball, or tennis court. I believe that's the intention of the tot lot. They can provide provision for addition or public access to neighborhood parks or their public open space. That's not applicable here. And I believe that the second proposed amenity that they are proposing here is a public pedestrian or bicycle circulation system within the project. Oh, excuse me. That one's not a -- that one's not applicable. And, then, I think the point of contention here and the decision you will have to make, they also have the option of providing other amenities appropriate to the size and used of the proposed development as they be proposed by the applicant and approve by the Commission and Council. So, it's your decision this evening whether the regional pathway and I believe the five percent open space meets the intent of the Planned Development amenities. Borup: We have some question on the pathway. That's the regional pathway, it's in the Comprehensive Plan. Wouldn't that be required no matter what size lots or what type of project this was? Centers: Exactly my thought. We have required it on other subdivisions, period. Borup: So, if these were half acre lots, it would have been required. Kirkpatrick: It would be required. I think -- I know personally I have worked on several subdivisions that have come through Planning and Zoning and City Council where they provided a regional pathway as one of the two amenities. You may want to -- you may Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 68 of 71 want to look at the scale of the pathway that's being provided here versus pathways that have been provided by other subdivisions. Borup: I think we have had some and in my mind the length of that pathway is a factor. Centers: We have also had subdivisions come through where the developer -- we required the pathway to be in and put in and it wasn't considered an amenity for a PD. Kirkpatrick: And this is where this is up to your discretion. Centers: Right. And the pathway that they are putting in for this subdivision doesn't connect. Doesn't connect with anything. Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's a part -- it's a part of the regional pathway system, but Sherbrook Hollows to the north has not installed their part of the regional pathway, so it does not connect to that pathway. Centers: Right. And the way I look at it on the plat, it's about 150 feet and, as Chairman Borup stated, it is going to be ten feet wide. Borup: Between the asphalt and the -- Centers: Yes. Right. Kirkpatrick: And, then, five feet of gravel on each side. Borup: Five foot gravel shoulder on each side, so 20 total. Centers: Twenty. Mathes: But you can't guarantee Sherbrook is going to put theirs in. Kirkpatrick: No. The Parks Department will have to negotiate with Sherbrook Hollows. Currently, there is a private easement, they will have to turn it into a public easement. Actually, I have a note -- I have a not from the planner who is working with the developer -- and I don't know if this is an appropriate time to bring it up -- they are asking to continue the hearing for revision to the plan to show ten percent open space and they would be providing that as a second amenity. Borup: That would be the second amenity. Kirkpatrick: And they are willing to go back and revise their plan to -- Centers: How much open space do we have now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 69 of 71 Kirkpatrick: They are a little bit over the five percent that's required for a Preliminary Plat. Centers: Yes. She's, obviously, seeing the handwriting on the wall. Borup: Well, then, that's an option to continue -- continue the meeting for a plat revision, if that's what the Commission -- Centers: Well, that would be a good option for me. I mean I wanted to see more open space. That hit me. Borup: Any other guidelines for the applicant or would that -- leave that up to them. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, you could also use this opportunity to require the applicant to have another neighborhood meeting, so maybe some of these issues could be further discussed before it comes back to a continued hearing. Centers: If I made a motion to continue it, Mr. Chairman, would you agree on the 16th? You know, we always pick the second meeting. Borup: Oh, this month -- October. No. No. That's too soon. Rohm: If you had another neighborhood meeting, would you not have to reopen the Public Hearing? Centers: No. We continue it, see. Rohm: Well, didn't we close it? Borup: We did, but we can rectify that. Centers: Yes. We can rectify it. Rohm: Oh, we can reopen it? Borup: But I'm not sure if -- I wonder -- question what another neighborhood meeting is going to accomplish. Rohm: Well, that was my point is if you had another neighborhood meeting and didn't the open public meeting again -- Borup: Right. Rohm: -- what way would we have of knowing what came of the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 70 of 71 Borup: Well, if we are going to continue it -- well, see, we couldn't accept -- we couldn't take in any new information either, which is what we are heading towards, it sounds like, so we would need to take care of that. Centers: And I'm not in favor requiring a neighborhood meeting, but -- and I guess I would like to see a show of hands how many of the people would like to have another neighborhood meeting? Well, then, that's out. Borup: November 6th is not as heavy as the 16th. Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we reopen the Public Hearing for -- if I can find my agenda. Borup: Did you close all three Public Hearings anyway or did you just close the first one? Centers: Not specifically. You know, I'm never specific. I would like to make a most that we reopen -- or that we open the Public Hearings for -- we actually moved them up. For items eight, nine, and ten on our agenda as numbered. Rohm: Do you continue them? Centers: We are just going to open it now. Borup: We have a motion. Mathes: Second Borup: Second. All in favor? Okay. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: All right. Now, do we have another motion? Centers: Yes. I would like to make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we continue items eight, nine and ten, on our agenda to our November 6th meeting. Rohm: Second. Borup: And with any -- do we have a reason? Centers: Yes. I guess I was give that beforehand. I was going to. I think the applicant understands -- you know, and saw a lot of testimony about density and, then, my opinion on the open space and the project down the road that's 39 lots for ten acres -- I think they need to give up some of their lots and give back some open space and the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 71 of 71 if they come back with one lot, that's not going to impress me, but I'm not going to dictate to them how much. You know, I think they just have to come back. Borup: Okay. That's what we say, let them look on these -- Centers: If they are looking -- Borup: Well, I think Wendy has stated they are talking about reaching the ten percent, so they are going to have to almost double what they have got. Centers: I guess I'm not considering the pathway as an amenity and we don't have to based on what Wendy just read. I don't consider that an amenity, because we have required it of subdivisions, period, and it may be in the ordinance that tot lot or a jungle gym is an amenity, but, you know -- so they got one there, but they haven't met the ten percent. Borup: Okay. We have a motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: That concludes our meeting. Thank you, everybody. Centers: Now, how many of you folks are going to come back on November 6th? Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 03-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones – north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: Borup: Okay. You know, I didn't announce at the beginning, I hope nobody was here for item number 11, but that has been renoticed for the 16th. Mathes: I make a motion to adjourn. Borup: We have a motion to adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: And second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 72 of 71 Borup: Thank you. Adjourned at 10:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK