Loading...
2010 11-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 18, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 18, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are no changes to be made, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda. O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to adopt the agenda Opposed. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. A. Approve Minutes of November 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there is one item on that and that is the approval of the minutes from the November 4th regularly scheduled Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 2 of 65 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any additions or corrections? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Now, down to the real part of this meeting. Before we open up any of the projects tonight basically I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the process we go through and what we do is we will open up all the items of a specific project and, then, we will ask the staff to give their report and the staff report is basically as the project adheres to the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and they will give us their interpretation of the project and how it fits within the system. Once the staff has given their presentation, then, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been completed it will, then, be open to the public to make public testimony. If, in fact, there is an individual in the audience that is speaking for a larger group, like a homeowners association, that one individual, in speaking for many others, will be allowed ten minutes to speak and any other individuals speaking on a specific project will have three minutes to speak. Once all testimony has been taken, the applicant will, then, be afforded an opportunity to come up and respond to anything that's been brought up in testimony. Once that process has been completed and our Commission has had an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and of the staff, we will close the public hearing and deliberate and if, in fact, we have enough information we will render a finding tonight that will be forwarded onto City Council. So, that's the process. Item 4: Action Item. A. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: CPAM 10- 001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of Land from Office to Medium Density Residential B. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: RZ 10-004 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8 Medium Density Residential) Zone Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 3 of 65 C. Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2010: PP 10-003 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRAIFBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4 Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Rohm: And so with that being said at this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing from November 4th, 2010, of CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The first application before you. is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the designation on 4.9 acres of land from office to medium density residential. A rezone of 5.3 acres of land from the L-O, limited office, to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use amendment is also requested. Preliminary plat consisting of 24 single family residential building lots and four common other lots on 4.9 acres is also proposed. On the screen before you you see a zoning map and an aerial map of the property. The property is bordered on the north by low density residential uses, zoned R-1 in Ada County. Greenhill Estates Subdivision. To the west medium low density residential properties to Woodbridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Magic View Drive and across Magic View is a low density rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. And directly to the east is also rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 24 attached individually owned townhomes in clusters of two, sharing a common property line. The applicant envisions this development to be a retirement community for folks 55 years of age and over. This is a copy of the proposed plat on the left and a copy of the proposed landscape plan on the right. Each dwelling unit is proposed to have a minimum of 1,100 square feet of floor area. This is a layout showing the site plan. They share a common lot line in the middle and, then, they are attached. The applicant has submitted one elevation and floor plan demonstrating how future buildings on this site will be constructed. From a dimension shown on the floor plan the structure appears to fit on all of the proposed lots. Staff recommends a minimum of two different styles of townhomes be constructed within the development for variety and that the additional elevation is submitted for review prior to the City Council meeting. Building materials for the proposed structures consist of wood siding in a mix of horizontal, vertical, and shake siding, with stone veneer accents. A 464 square foot clubhouse is also proposed, which will contain a restroom, mechanical room, and meeting room that will serve as a neighborhood great room for activities. Also structures are required to comply with the design standards in the UDC and guidelines in the city's design manual and will be reviewed for compliance with these standards with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications prior to issuance of building permits. At this time we don't have detailed elevations. Those are required with the design review application and we will have four-sided elevations at that time, where as we don't now. Back up here to the plat. Right of way for the extension of Hickory Way here, that's here at the northeast Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 4 of 65 corner, exists off site and will eventually be extended here to the south to Magic View. Staff is recommending that any fencing constructed along the east boundary of the site be setback a minimum of ten feet and landscaping be installed and maintained to the property line, so we don't end up with fences right on the property line right on the street, you know, when that eventually is extended. There is a valid Conditional Use Permit for amulti-family residential development on this property. It consists of 24 dwelling units, the same as proposed, they are except within six four-plex units. There was aplat -- preliminary and final plat that was approved on this property, but it has expired. That's why the applicant's proposing a new plat tonight. Services have been installed at this site and the roads are existing and paved and everything. So, just trying to get something that will work on this site, so they can go forward with this development. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is medium density residential and what is proposed does comply with the Comp Plan and the UDC. A written testimony was received on this application from Scott Noriyuki, the applicant, in response to the staff report. He is in agreement. There were three letters submitted from the Woodbridge Homeowners Association and Alston Jones. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions and development agreement provisions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff also recommends a modification on condition 1.6 in Exhibit B, that the last part of the sentence be stricken as there is no longer a caretaker unit proposed in the clubhouse. When this application was originally submitted there was one proposed and that just didn't get taken out on the revised staff report. And also if we could strike condition 2.6. There is no flood plain on this property, so it doesn't apply. That's all staff has if the Commission has questions. Rohm: I guess probably the first question that comes to mind is can you expand on the DA? Wafters: Sure. Would you like to know specific provisions of the development agreement? Rohm: I think that would be worth sharing. Wafters: Okay. As I -- I could do that. I'll just put them up before you here. 1.1.2 here. As I already mentioned, the fencing restrictions along the east boundary of the site, ten feet back from the property line. Consists of the property that are adjacent to a street. Off-street parking is required in accordance with the requirements for townhouse dwellings listed in the UDC. All townhome structures constructed on the site shall substantially comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A-5. There will be a minimum of two different styles of townhomes constructed within the development for variety and that the applicant's required to submit at least one additional elevation for review prior to the Council hearing, as I stated earlier. Clubhouse structure shall substantially comply with the building elevations shown, except that we would like them to incorporate stone veneer accents consistent with the townhome structures. Development shall substantially comply with the site plan and landscape plan that was submitted with this application. A certificate of zoning compliance is required to be submitted on each of the proposed townhomes structures and clubhouse structure and administrative design Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 5 of 65 review is required for all structures in accord with the Unified Development Code and the city's design manual. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. I think that kind of helps the audience know that the staff and the development -- developers have, you know, sat down and established some guidelines for the development of this to take place, so it's been with a great deal of thought that this is moving forward. Wafters: And we have. When they -- if I could just add this. When they originally submitted their application they submitted just some sample -- you know, pretty wide variety of elevations that probably weren't necessarily going to be built. Since that time we have worked together and they have come up with one elevation so far and they are going to expand on that and, you know, go forward to, you know, a little higher quality building materials and elevations to City Council on this. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions of staff? O'Brien: I have none. Marshall: I do. Is there any percentages on the different building styles? I assume that going through design review we will be -- design review board will be looking at the architectural aspects of the two different designs, a minimum of two different designs. But is there anything stating that they can build just one of one design and the rest of the other design or is there a percentage or anything like that that -- or is that the purview of design review? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, design review does ask for a variety, you know, in building materials and in the design of the structures. It does not call out a certain percentage, no. But there are specifics, you know, related to the building materials, the modulation of the structures, you know, windows, that kind of thing. Marshall: Considerable variety. Wafters: There does. There does need to be, yes. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good evening. For the record Shawn Nickel, I'm with Stanley Consultants, 2264 South Bonita Way here in Meridian. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, kind of sharing responsibilities with Scott. Scott will be able to address any questions you have about the elevations and anything specific to that. I'm just going to talk about the -- if I can work your little toy here. Talk about the subdivision itself. First of all, want to thank staff a lot for working with us. I think they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 6 of 65 were a little concerned when we first brought this in and it has progressed quite nicely from a -- maybe a recommendation for -- for denial to a positive recommendation. We do appreciate staff working with us and making us come up with some creative elevations. As staff has indicated, we are going to bring another elevation forward prior to City Council that will provide that variety. The conditions themselves I think we are okay with all of them. We do have one concern that I guess I can talk about and that's that recommendation by staff for the -- regarding the extension of Hickory Street from the -- from the north and you guys can see that drawing. Now, currently there is right of way -- oops. I'm sorry. There is right of way from our --from our northeast boundary up to that subdivision. The stub street is not built, in other words. We do understand and respect the responsibility of that road some day connecting down to Magic View. However, it's currently not on our property and if it -- if it were to stub and go along our eastern boundary it does create kind of a problem for our development in that it does require us to offset our fencing ten feet and not knowing if that stub street will ever be extended in the future and understanding that there is a responsibility that, you know, we do all want cross-connection and given the fact that this -- you know, we are really tight on this project, because we have existing streets that are already built and we are trying to fit everything in there, we think it's more appropriate that when the property to the east does develop that -- and they are going to go through through a planning and zoning review, that at that time that road be figured out and probably curved to the -- to the east providing the proper common lot, so they don't create the double fronted lots. So, right now as we have it designed we are not creating an ordinance issue with double fronted lots, it's when that property to the east develops that that will be created. So, what we would like to do is we would like to agree on that top corner lot, because it's going to take some time before we will curve that road to the east, that we will agree to a condition that we will offset the fencing on that first lot right there, because that lot, no doubt, we will be double fronted, but there is nothing we can do about that because of the design, but, then, eventually it will need to curve to the east when that property does develop. So, that's the only real contention we have. Everything .else we are in agreement to. Again, we appreciate staff working with us and it's important to understand the history of this property in the fact that we are not increasing density, we are working within what we have been given, which is an existing street system and we are, basically, turning amulti-family four-plex project into a single family attached townhouse project with the same number of units, the same density and the same amenities with the clubhouse and open space that was previously approved. So, with that I'll stand for any questions specific to those items. Rohm: Well, Shawn, my first question is if you -- if you folks are not in control of the property to the east, how did you know that that roadway is going to veer away from the property line and not specifically parallel your property? Nickel: Well, I guess my argument is that it would need to be through the review of -- just staffs review they would have to use the ordinance and make sure that that property owner is not creating that -- that conflict. In other words, we are not creating the conflict with our development, we are developing our property to our boundaries. If and when that property to the east develops they would be the ones creating that -- that Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 7 of 65 conflict and so at that time when they design their project staff is going to have to, you know, explain to them that if you build the road -- because they are the ones that are going to develop the road -- develop that property to the east. When they develop that road it's going to have to be through the design and discussion with staff that it's going to have to be offset, otherwise, that property owner is creating the conflict in the ordinance. Does that make sense? Rohm: Well, I suppose in a fashion, but staff has come up with the solution that you just put your fence ten feet off of the property line and, then, that road wouldn't be in conflict. Nickels: Yeah. And the problem with that is, first of all, you're creating a -- basically, you're creating a ten foot gap between our property line and that fence and so who is going to maintain that ten feet? It's going to be kind of a no man's land. Rohm: I think the staff report says that the homeowners association will take care of ten feet. I mean that's the way I heard it. Nickels: Right. Wafters: The actual owners of the property would maintain their own property. It wouldn't be a common lot. It wouldn't be an HOA thing, it would be the -- it's part of those homeowners' lots. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: So we are going to rely on ten people to mow that patch of grass? Nickel: It just -- it just creates a lot of -- it creates a lot of maintenance issues. And the other issue is with the amount of area we have between our -- the back of our buildings and the property line, it really decreases that -- those backyards to -- you know, to a smaller area. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I was curious if we could see a farther away view, so we could see all of Hickory Street or Hickory Way. How long is this going to end up if it's a straightaway right up to Franklin? I mean not that I'm always a fan of Mr. Nickels' suggestions, but it might be a good idea to have that road -- I mean no -- it might be a good idea to have that road curve and create an actual slow down, so that you could slow down your traffic. I mean that looks to me like it's going to be a very long stretch of road right up to Franklin. Marshall: The first thing, though, that goes through my mind here is that originally this appears that Hickory is designed to run right along that property boundary and you're asking the next property owner over if -- if and when they ever develop that not only are you going to have to -- on your bill extend that street, build the street, but we are going to ask for extra -- extra property, because this other property is a little tight. We are going to actually -- we want more of your property than create abuffer -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 8 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: No. No. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm stating is it looks to me like if we have an opportunity here to possibly say, no, we are going to force Hickory Way to curve and, therefore, create a natural speed bump, if you will -- anytime you have got to turn a corner, generally unless you're 17, you're going to slow down, so -- Rohm: In any case, that's what your request is and did you have another question, Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: My simple point is, though, that we can't put any conditions on the property next door. They can come in and request anything they want in the future and, then, we will have to decide at that time whether that's appropriate or not and we can request that it curve that way and whatnot, but at this time we can't put any conditions on that. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not suggesting that we put a condition on it, I'm suggesting that by accepting Mr. Nickels' suggestion and allowing them to keep that ten feet it will make the argument stronger in the future that that road needs to curve, rather than be a drag strip. Nickels: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm not suggesting -- suggesting at all that we put or force conditions on the property next to us. All I'm saying is that when they do submit their application they are going to go through their review process and, then, through the ordinance, the ordinance is going to say you can't put that road right up against the property line, because now you're creating double frontage lots. They will design it to meet that. So, that's all I'm saying. And, again, we are not trying to buck interconnectivity. It would be different if the road was centered and half of it was on ours and half of it was on theirs, then, yes, we would have that responsibility. But since it's completely off our property and it runs straight -- it's kind of creating a hardship for us and especially when you already have roads already built in that we are trying to work with and, then, you have that kind of no man's land that's going to have to be maintained. So, that was my point and I was just bringing it up for discussion and -- Rohm: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Before we open it to the public I have a question for staff. When this project came through previously, this road design and layout of this subdivision was, as it is now, other than it was four-plexes, rather than townhomes. What was the thought of staff related to that Hickory Way at that time versus now? Is there -- is there any difference in perspective now than there was then? Wafters: I remember it being called out in the staff report, Commissioner Rohm. I don't remember if there was any specific requirements placed on them. I don't believe there was. There was some discussion about it. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 9 of 65 Canning: Chairman, my recollection was that because it was multi-family units it was all going to be commonly maintained open area anyway, so they just agreed not to do the fence on that side or they had a lower fence. We can look up the previous findings and let you know after the testimony, but that's my recollection. Rohm: Well, that's all right. I was just curious, because, ostensibly, it's the same project, but it's just building townhomes, as opposed to four-plexes and the lot configuration is, ostensibly, the same, so just curious. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Was this the one where you had -- it was four-plexes, but they were two stories tall and you parked underneath? It wasn't that? That's not ringing a bell? Wafters: I don't believe they parked underneath, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. They were two stories. I'm not positive. Canning: We can look up that, too. Newton-Huckabay: I know I was on the Commission at the time this was approved. I'm just trying to remember exactly the development that it was. Rohm: Okay. At this time we are going to open it to the public testimony and, remember, each individual that testifies you have three minutes to testify and if, in fact, one individual testifies to a specific point, it doesn't increase the validity of that point to have it brought up again. So, once -- once a point's been made it doesn't change things to have more than one person bring up that same point. So, with that being said -- Wafters: Chairman Rohm, excuse me. Could I interrupt for just a moment? I believe you may have had another -- the other applicant want to speak on this, Scott Noriyuki. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Yes. Please do. Thank you. Wafters: You might ask if he did, but I think he -- Rohm: I apologize. Noriyuki: Thank you. I didn't want to be rude. I figured I would wait. Scott Noriyuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise, Idaho. I represent the developer. A couple things I would like to address. First of all, I want to touch on the architecture. I think that's going to be heavily discussed here shortly from the adjacent subdivisions and landowners. We are naturally committed to producing additional elevations, floor plans, details and commitments as far as our exterior finishes. However, coming through the P&Z process and piggy backing a comp plan amendment on top of it, I hope you can appreciate our Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 10 of 65 conservativeness until we kind of take care of the base land use approval and requirements. Just so we are not spending excessive money and ultimately not getting the project approved. That's our number one. Number two, we -- we clearly feel that we are bringing in a project that's superior to what was originally approved. These are going to be privately owned. These ownerships will not just be the structure, it will also be the base land underneath it, which I think is important. It's a sense of ownership and pride. So, I think we have got a good chance of having nice landscaping that's maintained and exteriors that are maintained. I sent staff a comment or a response to the staff report making a commitment to not only submit additional elevations and finishes prior to Council hearing, but also to the adjacent homeowners via their board of directors, so that they would have a better understanding and, ideally, a better comfort level. So, with that that's the architectural aspect. The roadway aspect. I just kind of want to talk about a couple of different concepts on that. And I appreciate what everybody is saying as far as right of ways and not trying to put burdens on other folks. Really looking at the comp plan and what the existing land use is, is on the northern property line we have got R-1 within the county, essentially. It may or may not develop in the future, but there is right of way there. We are proposing the R-8 with the higher density, but the subject property to the east is L-O. So, the reality of a series offices being built in that particular area and wanting to have connectivity into a low density neighborhood, I don't know that, one, the neighbors would want that and I don't know that necessarily that would be ideal from a development standpoint. I expect that you're going to see kind of up in that -- I guess we would say it would be the northwest corner where that right of way is. I could see an office being placed ultimately. Just a consideration. And with that I'd stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just had one. Missed the date that he said those other elevations were going to be -- Noriyuki: I made a commitment of two weeks from this hearing. We just got the staff report and yesterday I received a letter of concern from the adjacent homeowners association, so I think it's -- reasonably it's going to take us about two weeks. I anticipate that if we get a recommendation tonight theoretically we could be in front of Council inside of a month or a little over, somewhere around there with the holidays. So, I thought two weeks was appropriate to prepare that, get it submitted to the city, as well as the homeowners association and provide my information to the board of directors, that we have a good one, two weeks of interplay, essentially, before going to Council. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Noriyuki: I'm assuming that's a fair timeline. Newton-Huckabay: And that seems reasonable to me, yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 11 of 65 Noriyuki: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Isn't this property currently L-O? The property you're on right now, the property where you're currently discussing is zoned L- O; is that correct? Noriyuki: It is -- well, when it was originally developed and originally approved, it -- well, it's always been L-O via the -- the comp plan, but the original comp plan and L-O zoning allowed for multi-family and residential. Between the time that the project was predominately developed, went defunct, and now we are in control of it, that ability to have a residential within the L-O zoning doesn't exist anymore. But we are looking at it from a standpoint of this is by and large developed. Ninety -- 90, 95 percent. The only thing that's outstanding is structures, landscaping, and fencing. Aside from that we have got public right of way, we have got every single utility in place, curb, gutter sidewalk, asphalt, and we are just working within the confines where, really, we could fold and say, hey, let's put up some four-plexes, go through design review, but from a development standpoint we feel more comfortable with private ownership. Marshall: I guess my comment was the property to the east is also L-O at this time and seeing what's going to be there, I just don't know and -- as well as comment on connectivity is an issue with EMS and fire and everybody else and whether that goes office or not, I would foresee the city still requiring connectivity. Noriyuki: And that I don't know, because I have to assume that the subdivision to the north has existed for several years and it has its own connectivity and has not increased from a density standpoint, but that's an excellent question. Just, absolutely we -- and maybe what we should do is pull up the aerial photography, so that we could all take a look at the roadway system. You know, essentially, we have excellent egress considering our roadway and I have to expect that all of this L-O that will develop in the future is, of course, going to have excellent -- what is the probability of the R-1 actually somebody -- somebody assembling several of these one acre parcels and demo'ing the houses and increasing the density. I don't know. That's -- Marshall: That wasn't quite what I was going with. I was simply suggesting, though, that the property to the east, you were saying you foresee an office building there and, potentially, that's possible, but I'm just saying that the possibilities are a little larger than that and we have to take that into account as well, that there is considerably more possibilities there than just simply an office building and the fact that the probability is that connectivity will happen no matter what goes in there. Noriyuki: Sure. So, with that said, like Shawn had suggested, I would be happy with the ten foot on the first most northeasterly property and the reason why is -- not that I'm trying to shove a responsibility onto an adjacent parcel or a restriction, but practicality states that we have got an existing roadway and we have only got about a hundred linear feet of depth between our existing roadway that is constructed and was approved and this right of way. So, if the city and the ACRD or the -- let's say the next developer Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 12 of 65 proposed running directly south, it would be counterintuitive to design principles, because you would be approving double front on, which we don't want to do that. I hope. That's an opinion and I'll just leave it at that. Marshall: Understand. Rohm: Thank you very much. Noriyuki: Thank you. Wafters: Commissioners, if I may add just a little more information on that. Hickory Road has not been improved or open -- the right of way has not in this area. It's planned here to extend, but it has not been constructed right here where you see Hickory on the map, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I have to stand corrected, Sonya. I apologize. I just realized that I was -- when I glanced at it the first time it looked like it was and, then, I noticed that it isn't, so that was my mistake. Wafters: No. That's okay. And just to answer one of your other questions, they -- the garages are just like single family dwellings, they were not necessarily under either. And there was a -- I just pulled up the findings from that -- that other approval and there was a requirement for fencing along that east boundary, six foot tall vinyl fencing along the west, north and east boundaries. It was called out in the staff report for the Commission and Council to take a look at and determine what they wanted to do with it and they ended up approving the project with fencing along that boundary. Was there any other questions the Commission had on the previous approval on this site? Rohm: I don't think so. Wafters: There was originally -- this property is zoned L-O currently and before there was a requirement fora 25 foot wide buffer on L-O zoned properties to residential uses, so there was a 20 foot wide required buffer on the west, north and east sides of this property. Not necessarily in a common lot, but just be provided on each of the lots as an easement. So, hopefully, that helps. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time would Beth Monteith, M-o-n-t-e-i-t-h, would she like to come forward? Oh. Okay. She said that she's not speaking from the audience and I guess I will just go to the next person on the list, then. Mark Monteith. Oh, you're not speaking either. Okay. All Fox, would you like to come forward. And, record. Fox: Main I continue to sit down? right. How about Celeste Fox? Okay. Mr. please, state your name or address for the Rohm: You may. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 13 of 65 Fox: My name is Gene Fox. By the way, it's very difficult to hear in the back. My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Wood Haven and I represent some of the citizens from the Wood Haven community. So, I will try to make this as quick as possible, but it's probably more than three minutes. But five years ago -- five years ago I stood in front of the P&Z and I -- Rohm: Before you continue, could I get a show of hands of who he's speaking for? Okay. All right. Thank you. Fox: Anyway, I was here five years ago in opposition to a project being built behind our house and, then, a year later my wife and I worked diligently to help Mr. Alston Jones with his Waverly Place project. Mr. Jones had asked for a zone change the same as what the current developers are asking for, but he was denied. So, I will ask you, has anything changed to make the current application acceptable? Mr. Jones was able to find a way for his project to fit within the current zoning ordinances. He worked closely with the neighbors, listened to their concerns, and brought in a quality proposal. Becky McKay was able to design a project to fit on the available space. There were to be 24 units, varying in size from 1,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet, plus a 2,000 square foot clubhouse. Sadly, economic conditions ruined the development. People lost substantial amounts of money and the citizens of Green Haven and Woodbridge suffered much disappointment. New developers took over the property, where as I learned tonight they haven't yet taken over the property, but if they get it it would be at a sale price. They had one meeting with the neighbors on September 8th, but presented only some lip service and no concrete offerings. It was, basically, a farce to satisfy city requirements. We, the neighbors, heard nothing more .until it was learned that the developers had submitted a proposal to P&Z that included four or five elevations based on photos that were harvested from the Internet website. P&Z staff recommended acceptance, but that changed when it was pointed out that the suggested plans would not fit on the lots, except for one, and the square footage of that house was less than what code required. The proposal was tabled. It should be noted that the errors were discovered by a citizen of Woodbridge and not the P&Z staff. No effort was made by the developers to interact with the neighborhood. We heard no more until last Monday, a time frame which gave us only two days to check out the new proposal. The information supplied was extremely sketchy, which leaves us puzzled as to why staff is, again, willing to recommend acceptance. We object. Why is the developer so anxious to have quick approval, but is not willing to offer comprehensive -- comprehensive details of the project. What is the sales proposal? Where is the features list? About 4:00 p.m. this afternoon we received an a-mail, we learned that the petitioners would need two weeks to prepare their material list and design. If they need two weeks, then, why are they here tonight? The state of unpreparedness annoys me. It is as if the petitioners have no respect for the neighborhood or the P&Z Commission. I see this as being intolerable and a sad way to conduct business. They are planning to build 12 duplexes and it is my suspicion that they will turn them all into rental units, an end run around the no apartment restrictions. The developers are asking for something special, that is a zoning amendment. They should be required to offer something special in Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 14 of 65 return, but such does not seem to be part of their plans. This proposal should not be accepted merely because it would be cheap to build. That would be a step back for the community. Whatever is built will live for 20 or 30 years. It's a sad project as build now it will still be sad in 30 years and the residents of Woodbridge will be forced to look at it every day as they drive by. We are not obstructionists. We know that something will be built there. All we want is a quality product and some transparency by the developers who will slow this project down and ask the developers to work with the neighbors in good faith. Please don't accept this project based on promises. Don't accept a pig in a poke. Let us all have some good hard looks inside the poke. Thank you. Rohm: A question for you, sir. Fox: Yes. Rohm: Appreciate your testimony, but as I was listening to you I was wondering if you are saying that you would rather see a number of four-plex complex -- a number of four- plexes built on this property, rather than the duplex -- well, they are duplexes, they are townhomes, that are being proposed by the developer at this time. You think four- plexes would have been a better development? Fox: I believe that -- I believe that the product that Alston Jones proposed was quality and I'm very suspicious that this current project is not. Rohm: Okay. Fox: Whether it's four-plex or two-plex it doesn't matter to me. The end is the same, 24 units. All Iwant -- all we want is something worthwhile. Rohm: Yeah. And I think the city does, too. Thank you. Any other questions of this individual? Thank you, sir. Fox: Thank you. Rohm: Now, Mrs. Fox, did you want to speak as well? C.Fox: Good evening. My name is Celeste Fox. I live at 582 South Wood Haven Avenue in Woodbridge Community in Meridian. Here -- well, Commissioners, here are some of the questions that we believe need to be answered before you make a decision. Where are the other elevations? You know, what we see is just one. What about a variety, size, orientation, materials, which can result in a much more attractive project. What about a mix of single story, two story, wainscoting, variations of brick and stone. The neighbors have not been given any of this kind of information. What about exterior design materials, roofing materials, roof pitch, siding. Landscaping. Why did the previously approved detached sidewalks disappear from the plan? They really softened the streetscape. Where will the visitors park? This new plan requires 20 foot driveways -- 24 foot, leaving only one extra parking space between units and no Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 15 of 65 additional parking spaces with a common driveway. And what is the purpose of the clubhouse? This one is about 1/4th the size or less of the Alston Jones project that we so strongly supported. It looks like a pump house with no design elements, the side facing Magic View that we drive by every day, and very close to the entrance of Woodbridge, has one tiny window -- bathroom window without any other architectural features. This is parked in the middle of the only green space. And this is compared to the previously approved project where the clubhouse was offset to the side of a nicely designed park area. Why were we told several months earlier by P&Z staff that they would not be supporting this project and the zoning change. What changed? Why was P&Z staff going to recommend approval of the October 21 meeting without adequate details? Why hasn't the neighborhood been involved? That's our really big question. Mr. Jones spent a lot of effort to inform the adjacent neighbors of all the details of their plans and it was very clear the intent was to build a quality project that would not only enhance the neighborhood, but would also provide a great transition from large houses in a beautiful neighborhood. This developer has spent no time with the neighbors discussing details of this current project. The lack of transparency causes us great concern. Where is the transition between large single family homes in a neighborhood with strict design guidelines, even to the color of paint we can use, to the very small duplexes? What about setting a minimum of 1,500 square feet or more adjacent to the larger houses? We are pretty sure that Alston Jones' project got approved, because so many of us supported it. Don't blind side us just because the economy didn't allow Alston to finish the project and because infrastructure is already in. Smaller does not have to be poor quality and cheap looking or negatively impact property values. We are the stakeholders. Please slow this project down and require the developer to go back to the neighbors to work on designing a quality project that would be a good transition from the really nice subdivisions you have in this area. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Before we continue I wanted to ask staff again. Is this project still under design review as far as the elevations and everything is still going to be submitted through staff, is that correct? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, that is correct. Design review will be required on every one of the structures in this development with a certificate of zoning compliance application prior to issuance of building permits. Rohm: Okay. And the follow up to that, with these being townhomes my presumption is the -- probably the smallest one is going to be 2,800 square feet, the two unit combined together. Wafters: The applicant has stated that the minimum dwelling unit size will be 1,100 square feet. Rohm: So, you have got 2,200 feet minimum? Wafters: Yes. There are no minimums in the R-8 district, but they have stated that it will be at least 1,100 square feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 16 of 65 Rohm: But each structure itself in combination will be 2,200. Wafters. Twenty-two hundred. Yes. Rohm: So, you know, that at least will give you more of a visual of what the project is going to look like, than, an 1,100 square foot single unit. Wafters: And if the Commission would like to add a minimum dwelling size in the DA provisions, that is an option also. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up before we move forward. Marshall: I also have a question of staff. Did we have the exact same design review process in place the last time this came through? Wafters: Chairman Marshall, Commissioner -- or Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, no, we did not have design review at that time. Marshall: So, this is a new process that we have in place now? Wafters: It is. Yes. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would Roger Tibb like to testify? Okay. Peggy Slaten. From the audience she said no. Scott Clark. From the audience he doesn't have anything to testify to. Bob Jessup. Pardon? Okay. Well, she already spoke. Okay. I'm sorry. Is there anyone else's who would like to testify to this application? Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Noriyuki: Thank you. Rohm: Please state your name and address. Noriyuki: Oh. Sorry. Scott Noriyuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise, Idaho. As mentioned earlier, I anticipated the architecture and exterior finishes would be a predominate concern and I'm just going to reiterate our commitment as we have made to produce additional elevations, transmits them to the city prior to City Council, with a listing of our finished products on the outside, as well as to the homeowners -- adjacent homeowners. Excuse me. With that I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 17 of 65 Marshall: Just a comment. It does appear that there is a significant disconnect between your project and the neighbors and it doesn't appear like there is a lot of interaction there, that maybe some might have been helpful. Noriyuki: Recognized. I felt like -- like I had communicated the best I could with what we had and what we were proposing. However, feels that there a there that would like some more information and we are happy to information. Rohm: Okay. 'e a couple folks out meet them with that O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Thank you. Scott, I noticed this before and I'm glad it was brought up again. I was just kind of curious as to the clubhouse size is really a concern of mine, as far as the size of the restroom is a quarter of the size of the entire building and it just seems like it's so inadequate if you wanted to have a gathering of, you know, people and retired, if they are, with family and friends, it's just going to be totally inadequate to be able to do anything. Are there picnic benches? Are there barbecues around there anywhere or planned to or -- I don't know. Noriyuki: We planned on some outdoor seating. We had planned on keeping it small for a handful of reasons. One, there is only 24 units. This is not a large facility. We anticipated that it would be for general activities or maybe conversations, not a senior center or a bingo hall per se. Just a nice gathering place. Also, we are trying to keep in mind -- keeping HOA costs somewhat in check, so that they don't become burdensome and we can keep the quality where it needs to be. O'Brien: Okay. But I still stand by the fact that I think it's just inadequate. Noriyuki: Okay. O'Brien: I mean just one family, if they are a retired couple, has -- has families from both sides. I have gone to senior areas where residences in attendance at some of these gatherings, birthday parties or anniversaries, you know, 15, 20 people is not uncommon and it's too -- there are too many people for the house that they live in or the residence, but certainly not adequate for this kind of a structure to be able to conduct any kind of a fun time. Noriyuki: Understood. Understood. And I appreciate what you're saying. I had kind of modeled the dimensions after several -- several clubhouses that are positioned next to oftentimes swimming pools within subdivisions that a lot of gatherings will take place for birthday parties or what have you and I kind of modeled that I guess occupancy expectation on the square footage. That's how I came up with it. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 18 of 65 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Just maybe one comment that, if, in fact, this project does get moved forward to City Council I would strongly recommend that you have very well developed elevations and make them available to the public, the folks that are taking their time out of their evening, make sure that they have that in their review prior to City Council, because, you know, I think for the most part I think the unknown is the thing that people fear the most and if, in fact, you eliminate these unknowns, it goes a long ways towards gaining support and that's -- that's just from my perspective to you. Noriyuki: Understood and agreed. A couple quick items I just kind of want to clear up. The property is owned. It is not optioned. We are beyond thinking maybe we might or might not do this. It is owned. But the elevations, agreed. They were concept only. want to reiterate that we are dealing with several land use applications and want to get a comfort level on the base usage and, of course, we will spend the time and energy to do appropriate elevations, details, and meet with the -- the adjacent property owners. Regarding the comments of us pushing this process through, we have tabled this and, then, tabled it in conjunction with staff to spend some time thinking about these design criterias. So, it has been slowed down, hence, the continuation. Rohm: Okay. Noriyuki: One last item. Regarding the development agreement, really, that's the protection item. The design review and the development agreement and the designs being locked into the development agreement, that at such time we ideally get through City Council there is a protection level there for the adjacent property owners and for the city that we will have to conform. Rohm: Thank you. Well -- and, in essence, that's why I asked staff to review those -- the DA agreement, so that the audience would know that their concerns are being addressed by staff. Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Rohm: Additional questions? Marshall: Quick comment, though. You have already indicated that you would provide the homeowners association, those neighbors around, with -- with elevations and the like. I would recommend that be quite some time before, like a week before City Council. Noriyuki: As I said, our goal is to develop them within two weeks. We just got the staff report. We have got the concerns from the adjacent homeowners. It is going to reasonably take us two weeks. I anticipate, typically, it's a month, if not a little more, before we make it to Council. That will allow two weeks of comment, conversations, possibly a meeting. Ideally the only thing I would ask of the adjacent homeowners if -- if there could be one or two people identified that I could communicate directly with via e- mail or phone call to transmit the designs, that would -- that would kind of help me just Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 19 of 65 so you could funnel your concerns and questions and, then, I could address them appropriately. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? I just have an observation, too. It kind of bothers me. Is that think this is pushing things quicker than I like to see it go through. I would like to see the new elevations and also hear the comments from the surrounding people about this process and if it's acceptable and, I don't know, I just think we are push this thing on to -- we are not able to look at it ourselves and make some kind of a judgment call as far as what the applicant has to say and also the people, so, I don't know, I think we should see this again. Rohm: Let's have those comments for the discussion after the hearing has been closed. All right. Do you have any additional comments that you'd like to -- Noriyuki: No, sir. I don't. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Rohm: Appreciate it very much. At this time -- Marshall: I have a quick question of staff. Design review. When does that come into play? When do these elevations go in front of design review board? Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the design review application is submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application. It is an administrative design review by staff. Marshall: So, would the neighbors get an opportunity to have any input or discussion in that? Wafters: No. Not unless they filed a Council review application, if they were unhappy with the results of those. Marshall: How would they -- if they are not involved with that, how would they know what the result of that is? Wafters: They can certainly check back with the planning department. All of our files are public record. There is an applicant tracking database on our website also where they can follow the application. Marshall: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 20 of 65 Nickel: Could I make one comment before you do close the public hearing? It's just in reference to your motion. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, for the record Shawn Nickel. If you do in your motion decide to -- decide to postpone this, which we hope you do move it forward -- may we request that you do discuss in your motion the -- basically, there is two issues here now, there is the elevations and the quality of the project and there is also the land use and I think it would help the developer moving forward in working with the neighbors if he had an idea of your thoughts on the land use. In other words, do you guys feel that the requests -- what we are requesting is appropriate, provided that we work the details out, if that would -- that would definitely help the property owner move forward, so -- that was all I had. Thanks very much. Rohm: Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we close the public hearing on -- one second. I want to stop myself before I get too far. Knowing what my personal preference on this is, we wouldn't actually close the public hearing, I'd prefer to continue the public hearing. After comments, do you want me to go ahead and close it and if comments pan out, reopen it or -- would that be your preference? Rohm: That would be my preference. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I recommend we close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: May I make my comments first? Rohm: You may. Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I would like to see this continued for the sole purpose of giving the homeowners a chance to interact with the developer, discuss the elevations and get a chance to talk about those things that are of interest to them, such as materials and that type of thing that are used on the development. I feel like that the land use rezone, given the changes to the UDC, is appropriate at this time, so I wouldn't recommend any changes to that and I would stand in favor -- or am not in favor of staffs request to move the fence ten feet from --from the property line. I think that that's going to created an eye sore. It's one thing if you're relying an a homeowners association to take care of that. Ten different retired people, I think that's possibly a little bit unreasonable and every time the -- anything comes up with the Woodbridge Subdivision I always am so thankful of what an organized group that you guys are and you talk to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 21 of 65 the issues and you address the issues that are of concern to you and I think that it makes it very easy from my perspective to -- it's not hard to give you what you're asking for and that's a chance to interact with the developer and talk about your concerns that you have and I think that's really important and I don't think it's unreasonable. So, think that for that reason I'd like to see it continued until at least the end of the month. That's the end of my comments. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have additional comments beyond what -- O'Brien: And I agree with everything that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had just talked about and I'm in favor of that as well. Rohm: Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Several things. First off, because design review is later and kind of after the fact and I know design review has done an excellent job for Meridian in the past, but I would prefer to see the neighbors involved in the process and would like them, you know, to get some buy in there. It sounds like in the past they have been rather reasonable and willing to work with people and I'd like to see that so everybody is happy with this. We do have an existing something out there that we have got to do something with, we'd like to see developed, I'd like to see this go forward. You know, again, I'd like to see a mix of housing opportunities within the city and it does need to be able to blend in well with the surrounding neighborhoods and so I believe I, too, am leaning towards probably a continuation in that I feel I'd like to see a little more work between the developer and the neighborhood, get some -- a little more concrete designs down, some ideas that make everybody happy before seeing this again. I also -- I will agree sense the existing road -- I can't remember the name of it. To the north there. Newton-Huckabay: Hickory. Marshall: Hickory. Thank you. Hickory Way. Is not actually developed and looking at the rest of that, that may never be developed and may not be -- and I have to agree, I lean to the fact that that may well be better served by aiming that -- if it is eventually connected through -- more to the east and I would agree with not moving the fence there. That creating that buffer is probably going to end up with ten foot of unmaintained property and that could be an eye sore and I -- I do worry about that. So, I guess those are my thoughts. Rohm: Thank you very much. My comments are mainly directed to staff. If, in fact, we move forward with the -- would it be the CPAM and the RZ? Can we move those forward and continue the preliminary plat? Is that how -- so that the developer would know that the land use would be favorable to their development and it would be the preliminary plat alone that they would need to meet with the adjacent property owners in order to respond to their concerns? Is that what your recommendation would be or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 22 of 65 Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, our code states that they are concurrent applications, that we will process them concurrently, and you could separate them out -- Iguess the only concern I have is that the reason they are going for the Comprehensive Plan amendment is so that rezone matches what was approved previously, but if the Commission or the Council is not inclined to approve what was approved previously, then, is the Comprehensive Plan amendment appropriate. So, you're kind of in a circle there and it all became because of a lack of clarity in the code at the time, the light office land use designation was supposed to only allow office uses, but it wasn't abundantly clear that you couldn't have all the uses allowed in the L-O zoning and so that's how it originally got approved. So, it wasn't -- it wasn't originally planned to have residential here, but we are kind of at this stage where all the infrastructure is in place, so, again, it's -- I guess I -- the short answer, which I should have started off with, is wouldn't recommend it, I would recommend keeping them together. Rohm: Okay. I think I might have a solution. I think possibly to keep them together and only continue these with only one item of discussion at the next hearing and that would be elevations of the proposed development would be the only thing that would be discussed next time we meet as a group and, therefore, the developers will have had an opportunity to come forward with more precise elevations and the adjacent property owners would, then, be able to have had their comments and that's the only item that would be available for discussion with this continuance. Does that -- Canning: My only caution, Chairman Rohm, would be that I heard landscaping mentioned, I heard variety and footprints mentioned, which are kind of related to elevations, but if you could maybe clarify that. Marshall: That's also does affect how they sit on a piece of property. Newton-Huckabay: I was going to recommend that all of the preliminary plat applications be open for discussion at a continued hearing. Rohm: That works forme. Newton-Huckabay: Will that circle us back around on the Comprehensive Plan? Canning: No, not quite that far. But the elevations aren't tied to the plat, the elevations are following along with the rezone because they are addressed in the development agreement. Newton-Huckabay: Good point. Rohm: I think probably just with the way this has gone tonight the commitment that we will make is that if we continue it to the next hearing date of the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning, that will give the developers and the adjacent property owners an opportunity to sit down and iron out their differences and we reopen it for final action at our next meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 23 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think given that the developer needs at least two weeks on the elevations he was working on, we probably want to go with our 18th meeting -- 16th meeting. Rohm: That works for me. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to reopen the public hearing? Rohm: I don't think we need -- oh, you have to reopen it just to continue it. Nary: Yes. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearing on CPAM 10-001, RZ 10- 004, and PP 10-003 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly meeting of December 16th. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Marshall: Second. Rohm: That's your motion and your second? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: So moved and seconded. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue these three items to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in on this hearing. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: CUP 10-012 Jack in the Box by Stantec Architecture, Inc. Located at 1815 S. Meridian Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District anc Existing Residences Rohm: And with that we will move on. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 10-012 for Jack-in-the-Box and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The next application is a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant for Jack-in-the-Box with adrive- thru window in a C-G zoning district. The site consists of 1.13 acres -- or, excuse me, 1.3 acres is currently zoned C-G and is located at 1815 South Meridian Road. Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 24 of 65 map here on your left. The aerial view on the right. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is a Walgreens retail store and pharmacy, zoned C-G. To the south are residences in Elk Run Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are a variety of commercial uses in Southern Springs, zoned C-G. And to the west is -- directly to the west is undeveloped commercial property, zoned C-G and, then, Lowe's further to the west there. A Conditional Use Permit is required by the development agreement for all uses on the site. Additionally, because the drive-thru is within 300 feet of existing residences and a residential zoning district to the south, a Conditional Use Permit is required per Unified Development Code 11-4-3-11. The subject Conditional Use Permit application satisfies these requirements. There is a -- the sight plan that the applicant is proposing on the left and landscape plan on the right. The applicant is only proposing to purchase and develop the northern 98 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, as shown on the site plan. There is approximately 140 feet separating the proposed southern property boundary from the existing residences to the south. So, the property boundary you see here is not its actual current configuration, it reflects what the property will look like after the property boundary adjustment is processed. The property owner does intend to submit an application for a property boundary adjustment in the future that reflects this boundary. Staff recommends the boundary line adjustment be approved and finalized prior to issuance of certificate of zoning compliance for the site. The applicant has expressed an issue with the timing on that. As an alternative staff recommends a modification to condition number 1.6 of Exhibit B of the staff report to allow the applicant to proceed with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application with the property in its current platted configuration, which would require a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along the south boundary adjacent to residential uses. The applicant could submit a revised certificate of zoning compliance application with site and landscape plans reflecting the adjusted boundary once the boundary adjustment is complete prior to occupancy. The proposed hours of operation for the sit down portion of the restaurant are from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. The proposed hours of operation of the drive-thru are 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Staff has concerns about the noise from the speaker and drive-thru, as well as noise from car stereos negatively impacting the residences to the south approximately 150 feet away. Typically there is a transition in zoning and/or uses between higher intense commercial uses and residential uses that lessen the adverse impacts of uses such as this on residential uses. However, there is none in this case. Further at this time there is not another structure or landscaping between this site and residences to assist in providing a sound buffer. For these reasons staff recommends the hours of operation of the drive-thru to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., consistent with the city's noise ordinance. If at some point in the future the property to the south develops and a landscape buffer is constructed along the south boundary as required in commercial districts that abut residential uses, the applicant could request a modification to the Conditional Use Permit in regard to the hours of operation at that time. These are the proposed elevations. A little history on this property. In 2005 it was annexed with a development agreement as part of the Meridian gateway project and zoned C-G. In 2006 a variance was approved for aright-in, right-out access driveway to the site from State Highway 69. That's what's shown here at the northeast corner of the site. In 2007 a preliminary and final plat was approved for Medina Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 25 of 65 Subdivision that included the subject property. The final plat has since been recorded. A development agreement modification was also approved, then, to allow the right-in, right-out access to the site from State Highway 69. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial and the proposed project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. Written testimony was submitted from Richard Dugie, Stantec Architecture, the applicant, in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report, with an alternative provision added to condition 1.6 as previously stated to allow the applicant to submit for certificate of zoning compliance with the property in its current configuration. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. This is the -- a little prettier picture of the landscape plan, too, if you guys want to take a look at that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sony, what is the elevation difference between the residences -- residential area just south and west of that location? It's in like abowl -- not a bowl, but it's different elevation. Part of a bench I think. Wafters: Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the property directly to the west is on the same plain as this property. The property to the south is substantially higher than this property. So, there is a bit of a berm, if you will, and a fence there that's already constructed at the boundary. O'Brien: Okay. There isn't -- isn't there some kind of a slope directly to the west in that area behind Walgreens? Wafters: Further to the Lowe's side I believe there is. O'Brien: Okay. The reason I ask is that it has some -- it has some value considering the noise issue. Wafters: Sure. Yeah. And, Commissioner O'Brien, if you look at the zoning map here, you can see the lot lines here, the six lots in Madina Subdivision there is one lot here separating this site from the Lowe's site. O'Brien: And one further question. Will they be using the same right-in, right-out that Walgreens is currently using for their back parking lot? Wafters: Yes. That is correct. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 26 of 65 Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Huber: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Huber. My address is 8385 West Emerald. We are the developer on the project. The applicant is here tonight to address some of the staff items. I just wanted to give you a brief history of this project. We -- some of you might recall this is the old Country Corner store. We bought this property approximately seven or eight years ago and developed it into six lots. We bought this property because it's the hundred percent location in the valley and its -- its location, its proximity to the interstate freeway and Meridian Road, State Highway 69, make it an ideal retail location. We are going to be selling just a portion of Lots 5 to the applicant and we are excited to have a national chain join our development. That's going to leave another lot between the Jack-and-the-Box and the existing residential, which in answer to Commissioner O'Brien's question, is approximately 17 foot difference in grade elevation there. We think that this is an appropriate use of this location and this property and we would recommend that you approve it tonight. I'd like to turn it over to the architect for Jack-in-the-Box Mr. Dugie. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? No, sir. Huber: Thank you. Dugie: Good evening. My name is Richard Dugie. My address is 12134 134th Court, Redmond, Washington. We are the architect and the applicant of the CUP. The only item we would like to address that we are contesting as far as the staff report goes are the hours of operation. Jack-in-the-Box is dependent upon its drive-thru for about 60 percent of its sales and on other locations around the area they are open 24 hours. We don't see -- we don't think the sound decibels will be a problem. I have provided staff with a decibel study that, basically, comes from HME, they are the suppliers of the speaker itself. First I'd like to note on the speaker it faces -- lost my direction here. It faces to the north while the residences are to the west, so it's not directly pointing to the residential area, it's pointing towards the Lowe's. The HME study has shown that at one foot away from the menu board you got, essentially, an 84 decibel sound level. And as you get further and further away from the menu board or the speaker itself -- and this is going away from the speaker, at 16 feet you're down to 60 decibels. And as you -- you know, so you can kind of see it's already dropped 24 decibels in, basically, 15 feet. The second page of the study I have is also OSHA standards for sound decibels and as you can see a typical neighborhood is a decibel level of 45 decibels and a very quiet residence is 40 decibels, getting down to 30 decibels for a very quiet library. So, as you can imagine the further you get away from that speaker the decibel will be continuing to drop. So, we are in the opinion that the sound decibels of the speaker board itself are not an issue as far as being -- you know, contributing to a noise factor that will, you know, hinder the residents and also cause us to not have a 24 hour drive-thru. That's my main argument at this point. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 27 of 65 Marshall: I do. Can you assure me that all your customers have mufflers on their cars? Dugie: No, I cannot do that. Marshall: I think part of the issue with the noise is not Jack-in-the-Box, but the intense amount of traffic that it generates and the question is how much of that is going to affect residents close by and we are 150 feet away and, I don't know, I don't know if residents are here to speak to that or not, but I have to admit that is something that I think staff is addressing and I have a concern about, that your business is dependent on intense traffic movement and intense traffic movement does generate noise and in the middle of the night when I'm trying to sleep I don't want it next to my bedroom and I don't think my neighbors in Meridian do either. So, I think that's the concern right now, not necessarily the speaker board. Dugie: Well, that was what staff put in the report was -- Marshall: Okay. Dugie: -- the menu board. So, that is what we are contesting to. The other scenario you mentioned as -- we can't guarantee our customers may mufflers on their cars, but neither can we also guarantee that the mufflers -- there is mufflers on the cars going down the highway right next to the residential neighborhood. So, we are on a very busy intersection, it is a state highway, there is 24 hour traffic on that highway, so we just don't see how we should be hindered as a business with a car that's just idling and, really, people aren't doing 60 miles an hour in a drive-thru lane, hopefully. But they are doing 40, 50 miles an hour on the highway. So, the sound level on the highway will far exceed and even drown out the restaurant as a whole. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I just had one clarification, because I got confused. The drive-thru speaker is on the west side of the building and the residences are south of the building; isn't that correct? Dugie: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's --okay. Dugie: So, the person pulling up to the speaker board will be -- the sound will be going to the west versus the south. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 28 of 65 Huber: Mr. Chairman. Add one more thing. Jeff Huber, again, for the record. Once we do the lot line adjustment we are going to have another lot there to build another building between the residence and the fast food operation and I don't believe we will have another fast food restaurant there. So, it's going to be, again, another buffer to any noise that might be to the -- going to the south and -- and Mr. Dugie's quite correct in stating that the noise from the roadway itself is much louder than any noise we would be creating within our project. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Huber: Thank you. Rohm: There is nobody that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward and testify now is that time. Okay. Good. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 10-012. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 10-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I think -- I think the project -- my personal feeling, I think it needs to go forward with what they are requesting as far as 24 hour operation. I think -- I agree with the applicant that I don't believe there is going to be an issue -- there could be from time to time, but overall the freeway noise itself, plus the Highway 69 is -- is -- it's quite real and it would -- it does block out any noise you may get from a restaurant of that type. So, I'm not for limiting the hours for the drive-thru. I think that if there becomes and issue, I think the homeowners in the residential area should come up with a request to change that if they will, but that's -- that's down the road. So, in the meantime I think I'd like to see it go forward. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, one of the main reasons that -- if I remember correctly there are CUPs on the entirety of this property is to give those folks living in that vicinity an opportunity to voice their concerns and the impact that it would have on their personal enjoyment of their property and since there are -- I have no concerns with this. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 29 of 65 that the fact that the speaker sound is going predominately to the west, the homes are to the south. They are 17 feet higher than -- than the restaurant, approximately, if I'm understanding that correctly. And vehicles are going to enter to the north, so I have no concerns with this and I'm in agreement with Commissioner O'Brien that I don't feel that the need to limit the hours of operation are warranted in this instance. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I do have concerns about it, you know, but do they outweigh everything else? I can't say that they do. Especially considering it's a 17 foot elevation differential. There will be a building on the south we hope so, if the economy will pick up and the argument that, you know, State Highway 69 and you got Overland and the interstate there with significant traffic flow and the overriding fact is we don't have anyone coming in saying they don't want it. So, yeah, I would have a tendency to say yes and say yes to the 24 hour operation. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything to add to that. I think they have pretty well encapsulated that, so at this time could I get a motion to move this project forward? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 10-012, presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 18th, 2010, with the following modifications -- actually, just a comment that we do approve the 24 hour operation for the drive-thru and all the other articles requested by the applicant be in effect. End of motion. Newton-Huckaday: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-012 with the aforementioned modification to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you. At this time we are going to take a five minute break and we will be back at a quarter to 9:00. (Recess: 8:37 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.) E. Public Hearing: PP 10-007 Kingsbridge by Boise Hunter Homes Located at East Side of S. Eagle Road, Midway Between E. Victory Road and E. Amity Road Request Preliminary Plat Approval for 72 Residential Building Lots and 7 Common Lots on Approximately 38.31 Acres in an R-I Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 30 of 65 Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and at this time I'd like to open the public hearing PP 10-007 for Kingsbridge and could we get the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is for a preliminary plat. The property is approximately a quarter mile east of South Eagle Road, in between Amity and Victory Roads. Quite a bit of history on this property for you this evening, so I will delve right into that for you. Back in 2004 the property owner came back -- or the developer at the time came back -- came before Council and Commission with a plat. The zoning on the property at the time was R-3. They went forward, came in with quite a dense development. I believe that plat was approximately 200 plus residential lots. Got to Council, was denied. A year later applicant came back with another annexation, new plat, new planned development, for lesser lots, more consistent with the adjacent properties. That project went forward. The applicant worked well with the adjacent property owners. They came in, worked together, came up with a separate development -- or settlement agreement, which was also part of the development agreement that was approved back in '05 as well. Because of the current economic times and the previous developer no longer had -- this had not processed another time extension and so what's happened is approximately 38 acres of the site are approved under the old plat and under the old PD has expired. And so what we have before you this evening is phase one that I have highlighted for you shows what's been platted and so it's a portion along Eagle Road, it's a rectangular shaped piece and, then, we started heading north and there is some lots there. So, that's what I tried to portray for you and, then, what I have outlined in the black is what they are proposing to plat this evening. On this aerial, too, it will show you somewhat of what the old plat was -- what it looked like back in 2005. And that's the preliminary plat. And so you can see, if I move to the next slide, you can see the design has changed quite a bit from -- from the previous plat. I would mention that density and lot sizes and -- or number of lots has not changed significantly. I believe they are the same amount of lots. The density for this plat -- again, the property is zoned R-2. Originally it was R- 3 given the fact that the city went through an update of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, R-3 was no longer in place, so the property was annexed and zoned -- or was zoned R-2, rather than R-3. However, the DA was never amended as such to incorporate that new zoning standard. So, what we have for you tonight is adjacent properties around here, most of it is Ada County parcels ranging in size between five -- orthree acres and five acres. So, along the north boundary of the plat is the smaller of Ada County parcels, which is roughly three acres, and there is the four acre parcel and, then, as you move to the east boundary they become five and seven acre parcels and, then, when you go to the south boundary they are all approximately five acre parcels. And I'll go back up to the aerial here and show you. So, the smaller lots are here -- I mean they are not small lots by any means, but as far -- and relative to the other county parcels smaller lots are along the northern boundary and that was a concern back then and that's why the applicant, basically, was required to redesign the plat back in 2005 and so that's why even on this plat this evening you can see that the applicant has paid close attention to having larger lots along the perimeters and keeping with prior commitments to those adjacent property owners. Now, I would mention to the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 31 of 65 Commission that these lots -- some of these lots are slightly smaller. The previous plat had contemplated approximately 21,000 square foot lots. These lots range in size anywhere from 16,000 square feet up to 44,000 square feet. The smaller lots are along the southern boundary. To staffs knowledge I have not heard from any of those adjacent property owners, so I don't -- it doesn't appear to be a conflict with those lot sizes or any disagreement with the adjacent property owners. I would let the applicant at least fill you in on his discussions with them as we move forward this evening. The applicant is proposing two development phases with the plan. The first phase, if you could look on the plat here, that their dashed line kind of bisects the -- through the center of the plat. Phase two would be this portion. Phrase three would be the eastern portion. Open space has changed a little bit from the previous approvals, too. The applicant is now proposing to have a central park here as you come off East Kingsbridge Drive. The original plat had contemplated East Kingsbridge Drive as a continuous collector street that moved and connected to the adjacent eastern boundary. We discussed that option with the applicant and staff said, well, if you could have ACHD agree to designating the portion of East Kings Drive as a local street, we could support the layout as you're proposing with this plat, or at least support that street being designated as a local street. At the time of the print date of the staff report, staff had not received ACHD's comments. That has been corrected. Staff did receive ACHD's comments Monday morning -- or Monday afternoon. I have looked at that staff report and they certainly are in agreement with that portion of East Kingsbridge Drive being designated a local street. The only thing that I would point out on this plat is the applicant has proposed some common drives to access -- provide access to some of those lots. Because that street will now be designated a local street, there is really no need for the common drives to serve those lots, so staff has called it out in the staff report to -- we encourage the applicant to remove those. He certainly can leave those in, there is nothing that prohibits that, but our code does not restrict access to local streets. So, it seems to be appropriate that they -- if they don't need it, they -- if they don't want to put that in, they don't have to provide it. A couple of points of concerns or a couple of items -- excuse me. A couple of outstanding issues for you this evening. It has to really do with the amount of open space and what the applicant has proposed on the landscape plan and what I have tried to depict for you -- here for you is what those contentions are. Hopefully in your packet this evening you received the -- the applicant's response to the staff report, those are some of those conditions that he wants to talk to you before the Commission this evening and so, really, here is -- I'll start with the north portion of the boundary -- or the plat and, then, work my way to the southern portion, which has to deal with the multi-use pathway. So, really, along the north boundary the previous plat and concept plan or landscape plan contemplated a walking path amenity and a common lot. The applicant is proposing that with this. Staff is supportive of that. However, when I went out and drove the subdivision I did notice along that one lot that's already platted with phase one there were no improvements in that common lot. So, basically, if the applicant were to move forward with this plat, we would, basically, have a pathway improvements, common lots, and, then, to connectivity to the adjacent stub street. So, in the staff report I have conditioned the applicant to at least complete those -- that portion of the plat to get that continuity, that contiguous pathway to the street network. I believe they are in agreement with that. As you move Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 32 of 65 to the eastern boundary you can see the applicant's proposing a common lot with just landscaping with grass. In order for that common lot to be considered usable or a common lot it has to comply with the landscape ordinance requirements. Staff has recommended that they include that pathway along there and landscape it with the required trees. Under the ordinance that would be approximately one tree per every hundred linear foot -- hundred linear feet of common lot. So, I don't know exactly off the top of my head what the math is, but the applicant would have to comply with that. The applicant has pointed out in his response to the staff report that they would like just to leave that as a buffer zone, basically, a green belt between the adjacent property owners and the planned lots along that boundary. That can happen if it's just going to be open space and not a walking path, the applicant still would have an obligation to put one tree per every thousand square feet. My understanding in looking at the plat there appears to be a 40 foot easement there by the irrigation district and my understanding is they don't allow trees in that easement. So, the applicant will have to either coordinate with them to allow for the trees or add additional five feet along that eastern boundary of those developable lots and plant the trees within that boundary. Those are options for them. The other thing that I'd like to point out to you as well -- and here is some of the elevations the applicant's proposing. And I won't go too much into the settlement agreement, but I have researched that agreement and that agreement with those adjacent property owners, the previous developer agreed to constructing minimum home sizes. Staff has not conditioned the staff report to -- or the plat to comply with that home size, but just for Commission's recollection, just give you the history on this. The single story homes were to be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and the two story homes were to be 2,400 square feet. Looking at what the applicant's proposing as far as these elevations, it looks like these are going to be some fairly large homes proposed for the lots. So, we will let the settlement -- the city doesn't really have -- speaking with our legal department, the city doesn't really have jurisdiction -- is not a party to that settlement agreement, so, really, we have -- we can't really enforce that settlement agreement, that's a separate agreement between the developer and the previous property owners. My understanding, speaking with the applicant, they want to honor that agreement and they are committed to keeping those agreements intact for all those members here. If I can revert back to the plat really quick. The recorded DA on the site also mentioned limiting some of the lots to single story homes. Looking at the previous plat and kind of spec'ing out how that would play into this plat, staff has conditioned four lots along the northern boundary to be single story lots and those would be -- if you can see my arrow here, moving westward would be these four lots here are restricted to single story lots and, then, there is three homes here along the southern boundary that staff has restricted single story lots, too. My understanding is that was the agreement they had with the adjacent property owners and so the applicant was in agreement with that. So, to wrap up for you, to reiterate what the applicant would like to discuss with you, one, is that required amenity along the eastern boundary. As I mentioned to you, five foot pathway landscaping. The other -- or I skipped and forgot to mention the south boundary. Again, that's another irrigation district jurisdiction. It's a 60 foot easement. The City of Meridian's pathway plan depicts a ten foot multi-use pathway for that property and if I can pull up to the aerial, that's what you see in the light green along the southern boundary of this property. If you -- I would point out there is a glitch. You see Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 33 of 65 where that green line is, there is no pathway in the vicinity, that's, basically, a maintenance road. The pathway that is constructed and provided for the citizens in -- so, there is one that actually follows the southern boundary and stubs at the southern boundary, so it crosses the street and, then, there is a common lot platted with phase one and the pathway now just terminated there at that boundary. So, what I tried to attempt to do in the staff report was mention that this -- and we do have the park's project manager's in contact with the Boise Project group that maintains and occupies or maintains this irrigation ditch. We have not heard any -- we have not heard from them as what they would allow in their ditch. I would point out in the previous Kingsbridge file they did make mention that they did not want improvements -- limited improvements within that easement. At the time that this plat came forward we did not have the master pathways plan in place and so I think what has happened is the applicant probably could not get a commitment to construct that within their easement. It appears they did a separate common lot outside of that 60 foot easement with a pathway along that boundary. So if -- I tried to put -- make it flexible for both the city and developer. As the condition reads now, if the Boise Project Group Board of Control is what they are known as, if they allow the pathway within the easement staff has recommended that the applicant create two common lots that come off the adjacent western and eastern cul-de-sacs to connect to that pathway and, again, then, we have another issue with continuity. The pathway -- if it is in that western -- or in that southern easement it would be approximately 369 feet of pathway no connection, it would be a dirt road. So, staff has, again, incorporated in that condition of approval that they would -- at least from that western boundary of this plat to East Kingsbridge Street, they would construct that if it's allowed within that easement. We also put in a provision that if not allowed in that easement that they need to coordinate with the parks department for appropriate on street route and that would come probably with final plat or try to figure out what could happen here. What staff envisions is it follow East Kingsbridge Drive and somehow connect to the park, head south along that common open lot and, then, head north along the north side of East Kingsbridge Street and, then, stub at the east boundary to provide that ten foot pathway. I spoke with the parks department, they seem to think that's a reasonable compromise and they can work with the applicant to find an appropriate location if it was not allowed within that easement. Again, I don't have a definite for you. The other issue is the fire department and I wasn't able to get in contact with them, but right now we have a condition that they can construct no more than 50 homes in the subdivision due to fire access issues. The applicant sent over an exhibit for Joe Silva to review. He had left the office by the time I forwarded the a-mail to him and the exhibit, so I have not formally got an okay from them to strike that condition or modify that condition, but I did want to point that out to you and I will follow up with him when I have a moment to do so. Again, staff has not received any additional written testimony regarding this application. I have described the outstanding issues before you this evening. The applicant is in -- with the -- the few items that they want to discuss this evening. The other conditions they are in agreement with. Staff is recommending approval of the plat and I'd like to just point out to the audience that staff has -- with the approval of the plat, the planning department is recommending that they amend the development agreement to coincide with this development and tie in those elevations. The previous DA did not require elevations. The PD had some elevations Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 34 of 65 tied to it, but the. recorded development agreement does not. So, staff feels the appropriate mechanism would be amend that DA. I would point out to the Commission that the -- in the staff report staff has recommended the DA be amended prior to submitting a final plat. If the applicant's okay with it, we'd like to have them submit that concurrent with City Council review, so that we could act on that DA and the plat at the same time at the same hearing. With that I'll stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Noriyuki: Hello. Scott Noriyuki. 3106 Ridgeway Drive. Thanks for hearing me again. I'm first going to try to address my comments to the staff report just to be quick. Regarding the development agreement, we are absolutely in agreement. During that timeline I don't know if all of you have had a chance to read and digest this, but regarding the settlement agreement, I kind of threw this on some of the original perimeter lot owners that I wanted to discuss the southern property line 25 foot setback -- rear setback to explore support from them to reduce it to 15 feet. My reasoning is that the existing properties to the south I believe they have a 30 foot rear setback. The houses are existing. And, then, we have a 60 foot irrigation easement and, then, if we had our 15 foot rear setback that equates to 105 foot separation between structures. I think the original intent -- I'm assuming -- of the 25 foot rear setback was more applicable to the eastern properties and the northern properties to give them that additional buffer, but considering this easement I'm hoping that we can pursue bringing that back to a 15 foot rear setback. On the elevations, staff had had a comment requesting some additional single story elevations. Just considering the development agreement stated there were a handful of lots were conditioned to be single story, we did produce those, somewhere around eight or nine and we are happy to incorporate all of those. Regarding the micropath -- or, excuse me, the pathway along the eastern property line, our interpretation via the settlement agreement and the history of the project was this common lot along the eastern property line predominately was an additional buffer and transition from the eastern -- the larger eastern property owners, hence, if you look at the current plat, if you can pull that up, or current proposed plat, you can see that we have got these three very very large lots and kind of our intent and our interpretation was that that's just an additional buffer for the benefit of them and honoring the settlement agreement. Furthermore, from a pedestrian connectivity standpoint, we felt that we are only moving those pedestrians over an additional 140 feet before they start heading north or south. Regarding the ten foot micropath along the Ten Mile feeder canal, which is on the southern property line. It is my understanding from the irrigation district in talking to them and I also have the original letter from them associated with the original approval, that they will, in fact, not allow a micropath to be built on the north side. That is their access road and that is their duty to protect in place as it is, to provide maintenance for the water users and that is their standard approach. So, I anticipate that that won't come together. If it does we will absolutely build the micropath. So, our anticipation is is that we will be working with the parks department to find that connectivity through the East Kingsbridge and make it make some sort of sense with the -- with the sidewalk and micropath system that's Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 35 of 65 there. Secondary access. That's predominately something that has to be worked through with Joe Silva with the fire department. I spoke with him regarding this. There is some inconsistency or different perspectives, rather. When that standard is calculated from a singular phase standpoint we technically wouldn't be in compliance and in -- do you have that exhibit you can pull up? Or -- I don't know how to use all this cool stuff you guys have here. I'll try to verbalize it. In essence, if you look at the parcel of property that we are proposing to develop, the entire outline of it, you take the longest diagonal dimension and whatever one half of that dimension is that has to be the separation dimension between the two access points at a minimum or greater. We are deficient -- I believe it's by about 200 feet. Really, if you contemplate it if we were to move a portion of our East Kingsbridge it would not affect -- it wouldn't increase emergency access one way or another. It's really just a semantic. But, furthermore, when you consider that it's a two phase project, within the first phrase we are absolutely in conformance, because we will be building less than 50 homes. Once we get to the point of the third phase we have three access points at that -- at that juncture, therefore, our interpretation is is we are in compliance. So, we have pushed this forward towards -- to Joe and we will continue to work on it. Keep in mind his condition of that, regardless of the outcome, whether or not he agrees with us or he conditions it, the condition is not to preclude us from proceeding with the project or the development, it just caps us to where we can't pull the 51st building permit until that issue is worked out. With that I stand for questions. Rohm: I guess my first question is did you have a neighborhood meeting associated with this project prior to this hearing tonight? Noriyuki: Yes, I did. I had a couple of them. Rohm: Had a couple of them? Noriyuki: Yeah. I had one primary meeting with all of the adjacent property owners, but, then, I had a secondary meeting specifically to the original perimeter lot owners. The reason being is there was a -- there is a lot of history to this project. We are a new developer coming on that is purchasing this from the bank, essentially, and we are kind of getting up to speed on it and there is a settlement agreement associated with it that was incorporated into the development agreement, so we felt that there was some additional efforts in meetings we had to have with those particular folks, in addition to the one that included several of the phrase one owners -- phase one of Kingsbridge. Rohm: Okay. Any other question? Marshall: I do, Mr. Chair. I'm still a little confused on a layout issue with this common lot on the east side next to the three overly size lots. Supposedly this grass buffer. Who is supposed to own and maintain that? Noriyuki: Can I -- you're asking me? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 36 of 65 Marshall: Yes. Noriyuki: It will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Furthermore, a lot of the reasoning behind that is because currently those common lots or where those common lots will be there are gravity irrigation ditches, so we will be tiling those, essentially, and their easements associated with those. So, that's kind of the animal behind, in my interpretation of why we are creating those. Marshall: Okay. So, the three large lots are going to have a fence and, then, you're going to have -- how wide is that, ten foot -- or 20 foot? Noriyuki: Thirty. Marshall: Thirty foot along the east side there. So, you're going to have 30 foot of grass with the tiled ditch in it that, really, nobody is going to use or get enjoyment out of. Okay. Anything else we could have done with that -- I mean why couldn't we have extended those lots out to the end where those owners there were using it and still have the easement there with the the ditch? Noriyuki: I would be okay with that. Marshall: Just so -- Noriyuki: It comes down to a compliance and, then, open space. Currently we exceed the open space requirements. However, I anticipate if we skinnied that up to something around five feet, as opposed to 30 feet, we would be pushing our conformance from an open space. Now, it does -- it wouldn't affect any of our active open space, it's just the passive and the overall. But it also serves the purpose -- the true purpose of it was the buffer between this subdivision and the adjacent property owners via the settlement agreement, which we, as staff, said, technically, the city cannot enforce that, but we are opting to honor it. Marshall: Okay. Because I wish I was seeing the other people we were buffering against and understanding that a little better as to why we have had a buffer there. Noriyuki: Can you bring up an aerial, please? Marshall: It just doesn't -- you know, the purpose of open space is for the enjoyment of everybody in the subdivision and this appears to be beneficial to three lot owners. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm? I think the whole -- the reason that it's so odd like that was when this came through and the settlement agreement, which was something between the developer and those people who created the settlement agreement, that was at their request. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 37 of 65 Noriyuki: That is correct. And it was a negotiation between the developer and these eastern, northern, southern original property owners and we are opting to honor -- honor this agreement that was a buffer, but I also want to make the point that in addition to that we do exceed the open space requirements overall for the project. So, it does feel kind of like a waste to you, but it -- it is truly for the benefit of the eastern property owners. Marshall: Okay. And I appreciate the fact. I'm just trying to understand it, so I can understand the background of that, so that when we go in and we are asking for a pathway through there, how hard do we push for that and why. Noriyuki: Sure. Marshall: And what -- you know, what do -- do those people on the east even want a pathway there. I guess I'm just trying to understand some of the background and I understand it was conditioned, therefore, that it's got to be there and I'm -- but trying -- if -- I understand the background for it being there. It just helps me understand where we want to go with it. I mean -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Okay. Parsons: May I elaborate a little bit more for -- for your pleasure? Rohm: Please. Parsons: A couple things to keep in mind here. If it's just grass and it doesn't meet the plannings of the ordinance, it can't be counted as open space and, then, if that large area is removed as open space, then, what does that do with his open space counts. I mean we -- staff analyzed the plat on 5.32 acres of open space and that's why we conditioned it such. When we pre-app'd with this -- with Mr. Noriyuki we gave him the option of including the amenities that were platted with phase one. I mean that's always an option. If this subdivision is to be part of the HOA for Kingsbridge Subdivision No 1, they can certainly use that open space as part of their requirement for these phases. So, there is options available to you. I think, if I may, there is an original concept plan that I can put for you to show that buffer as the applicant is pointing out to you. They certainly could plat the easement on the property for the irrigation district and let those homeowners use that lot for their enjoyment, but I don't know how those adjacent eastern property owners would feel about that. As long as it was in their CC&Rs that no structures or nothing of that sort would encroach within that easement on the plat, I think we could still get the intent and not just have avoid -- a 30 foot void of grass out there in the middle of nowhere. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 38 of 65 Rohm: Personally, I don't think that's any longer an issue. I think Commissioner Marshal is just asking the question how did that come about and I think that answer made sense, it's an agreement between the development and the -- in that settlement agreement. So, I don't think it's any longer an issue. Marshall: In these aerials I'm trying to see what we are buffering against. I mean the house to the -- to the east there, there is, A, one house with a considerable distance -- I don't know what the distance is here, but it does appear to be larger than an entire lot distance, yet, we are adding another 30 foot, I guess, of grass. Okay. All right. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, actually, a question for the attorney. I know the city can't enforce this settlement agreement, but can we talk about it as far as the history of what it is, if it still -- if it still applies and how it came about and -- there is only two of us that were on the Commission when this came through the first time and that was quite awhile ago. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, certainly you can talk about it. I think what Mr. Parsons has said is we didn't tie -- other than tying the reference to the agreement, we didn't tie the conditions of the agreement, because that's what we wouldn't be enforcing. But if you need some of that history -- again, Idon't know if the parties here can provide that or not, but if you feel like that's something that would help you with making a decision here, you are certainly free to talk about it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, Ijust -- if my memory serves me correctly, there was a very concerned group of citizens that lives in the various perimeter around this development who went to a lot of efforts and I don't remember the details of that, but I would be hesitant to -- Rohm: Rescind? Newton-Huckabay: -- resigned those if the developer is willing to honor them and it's still a -- it looks like maybe we have some public hearing that could clear up for us, so -- Nary: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you don't have -- you can't rescind it, so -- Newton-Huckabay: What -- but -- oh, go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 39 of 65 Nary: Yeah. I think all the intent was is to make sure it was clear in the development agreement that's being proposed that the property owners, whether it's these people that continue to -- this developer or any other property owner, is aware there is another agreement that binds this property and that there are conditions they need to meet. But the city isn't the enforcement tool, the other parties to that agreement are the enforcement. Newton-Huckabay: Which takes precedence over the other? Nary: Neither. That's the lovely thing about the law, so -- it may not necessarily have one -- I mean certainly the city is going to.enforce whatever conditions it places on the development agreement. The conditions that the -- the signatories and that goes to this property, the other parties have the ability to enforce that. They have a private cause of action that they can enforce it with. The city has a separate cause of action they can enforce their conditions, but the city has a little more power, simply because we can prohibit building permits, we can de-annex the property, we can do other things in our development agreement, but I'm not familiar enough with the -- with the other development agreements to know what -- what enforcement mechanisms they have in. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: And I appreciate you -- you're willingness to come forward, but we have to take things in order here, so -- if you're testimony was specific to that settlement agreement, maybe the audience would like to hear it before they offered up their testimony, so if you'd like to come forward and speak to that. Ellis: My name is Pat Ellis. I live at 3885 South Gideon Place, Meridian, Idaho. I am part of the Dartmoor Subdivision. I'm a newbee in the neighborhood, so I wasn't here. We came in just after the settlement and the reason I'm here is we were not notified. I'm on the board and we were not notified by anybody that this was going on, except for -- Rohm: Okay. So, you're not testifying specifically to the settlement agreement that we have been discussing? Ellis: No. My reason for being here is to find out if that still stands. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Ellis: Okay. Rohm: Are you going to speak to the settlement agreement? Stott: Yes. Specifically to that. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 40 of 65 Stott: My name is Rick Stott. My address is 3685 South Caleb Place. And I was intimately involved in that settlement agreement, one of the principal people that were testifying and negotiating that settlement. There were -- if you could put up the -- the original plan, the settlement plan, we can talk about the different aspects of that and the reasons why we had it there and negotiated it. One of the key things that the staff has neglected to mention is the difference in the change of traffic flow, how it occurred in this new subdivision. And that was one of the major negotiating points of the settlement agreement. The easements and the buffer zones around the end of the property -- so, maybe we can just identify just a couple things. You will notice this rather serpentine street layout of the existing property, which takes most of the traffic through the Kingsbridge exit to the south of Dartmoor. Dartmoor, as you can see, is in the -- in the brown area and there is one where the pool and you go to the left to the west and there is one street through our subdivision Dartmoor. You can see that there are a few houses that theoretically -- the existing phase one anyway -- would exit through the Dartmoor Subdivision, but the vast majority of traffic actually goes -- it would flow through the main street and out through Kingsbridge to direct it away from the Dartmoor Subdivision. Dartmoor Subdivision has about 12 or 13 homes, open lots. At the point in time there were no sidewalks and still kids wandering about and so the design of the Dartmoor Street going to Eagle Road is such that -- in the way it's designed is that it's not a very open street and so you have a crook in the road that makes it really difficult to see cars coming from the Kingsbridge Subdivision, so there is a lot of effort in designing the street layouts so that traffic would exit to Kingsbridge southern part of -- and onto Eagle Road. The developer is planning to change that in a dramatic way where it appears that more than half of the subdivision is going to exit through Dartmoor, because most of the traffic will go north towards the freeway and through the Dartmoor Subdivision. So, that's one key point. The second key point is the buffer zones and the size of the lots -- the staff has correctly identified the fact that there are large lots all the way around the subdivision. The concept of this Kingsbridge development in this particular approval process was to keep the lots all the way around the edge fairly large to have a transition into the inner portion of the Kingsbridge Subdivision where their density is higher and so that you have a much more amiable transition between the larger lots that surround it, which some of them are horse property -- most of them are horse properties, actually, and keeping the livestock and the beautiful smells that go along with that fairly distant from the -- for most of the structures. And so that was a key thing that's associated with it. It's interesting to me that the staff has identified the fact that, indeed, the perimeter properties haven't changed. The only thing that's changed is the -- that it's owned by a bank and the economy is not so good. It shouldn't justify a change in that agreement that we negotiated so difficultly and went through a long process and came to a conclusion that seemed to be workable for the neighborhood and for the surrounding neighbors. It doesn't seem right that it would change and that would -- that would be manipulated by a developer just because the economy is a little bit tough. The minimum home sizes, again, trying to keep the overall with the Dartmoor Subdivision consistent with the Kingsbridge Subdivision and, in fact, phase one of Kingsbridge has very beautiful homes, very large homes, and very consistent with the whole theme of this whole entire development process. You can see that the open Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 41 of 65 spaces that they have in the original plat are beautiful center parks. The house sizes were large, consistent again with the surrounding area and keeping the property values up. The concern -- and the negotiated part of the settlement agreement was we were concerned that the -- like, for example, my property, which abuts the Kingsbridge phase one, is an acre and a third. The value of that property at one point was fairly decent. Now not so good, but -- but, still, in relative terms to -- to regular residential lots still pretty good and so keeping those home sizes was one of the ways that we had assurance that -- that the adjacent properties wouldn't degrade the value of the existing properties, whether they were three acres, five acres or an acre and a third like mine. Again, part of the settlement agreement that I think ought to be honored as we move forward. If, in fact, the lot sizes -- and I haven't been -- we haven't been invited to any of the meetings that the developer has proposed or suggested. We were not notified, other than from the Kingsbridge folks, that these things were going on, we wouldn't even have known this was going on at this point in time, which seems a little odd to me, since we were part of the settlement agreement and designed this thing to begin with. And so the -- I guess the question I have is if the lots are, basically -- that the number of homes are basically the same, the lot sizes have shrunk about a third of what the original plat was on average. I think the math doesn't exactly work. Why can't you just -- the developer just leave it the way it is? You get the same number of lots, you get the same number of pop in the income. So, there must be some economic reason that the developer is suggesting that, which makes me just a little bit suspicious about the statement from the staff that the -- it's not that much of a difference. And so I guess I would suggest those key things. As far as the perimeter, the buffer zone and the lot sizes combined make it so that you have, again, a natural transition. The walkway -- you're talking about a walkway around and understand that there is some changes and suggestions. We had a big debate about the walkway. In fact, I was, actually, one of the proponents of having it, because Ihave -- at that time I had a horse, I would have loved to be able to hop on the horse and go around the walking area and have a place to ride the horse, but that was outvoted by my neighbors, which I respect, and in their -- the fact is that they didn't want the risk of having open areas that were unmaintained, that access -- and as you rightly pointed out, there is spaces in here that just are unaccessible in general for the general public and that's a vary astute observation. And so that's the reason why those were dismissed and not put on the original plan. So, they compensated that with some other nice areas to walk, sidewalk, parks, that were intermittent throughout the subdivision and made for some really nice open areas and a really nice beautiful neighborhood. So, I think that was probably -- and I'm open for questions if you have any based upon the original -- our intent is for that original settlement agreement to be honored. We think it's a legally binding agreement, it should be enforced and will be enforced from our perspective, particularly as it comes to traffic and we will exercise whatever rights we think we have available to us to make sure that that happens, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 42 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: So, if I'm understanding what you're saying, your problem right now is they changed the street layout on what they are proposing as phase two and three and that's not in -- in your settlement agreement that you had? Stott: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Newton-Huckabay, that is correct, I mean one of the major negotiating points of the settlement agreement was they originally proposed kind of what they have got right now, where a majority of homeowners would traffic through Dartmoor Subdivision naturally, because you're going north towards the freeway. This -- this particular design makes it so that there are only about a quarter of the homes, maybe, that would go through the Dartmoor Subdivision. The natural flow would go through the Kingsbridge Subdivision going south and, then, into Eagle Road. Does that make sense? Newton-Huckabay: Uh, no. I am not following you at all. Stott: All right. I don't know if I can have a pointer or something that I can show you how this flow works, but -- Canning: There is a pen up there and you can use it to mark up the -- Stott: All right. Newton-Huckabay: I understand the -- the original Kingsbridge that you have on the screen there, but I don't see how the new one negates that. Stott: Okay. Well, let me show you -- so, let me show you just on this one first that if you take -- if you take this -- is this working? Okay. Well, if you take a look at the -- at the northern part -- northwest part of the Kingsbridge second division -- subdivision, you can see that the homes in that area would go -- would go towards Dartmoor. Naturally go out Dartmoor, which is the far left little -- right there. Perfect. That this to the east of that -- southeast of that is not a thoroughfare, it's a cul-de-sac and so all of the traffic -- if you go farther north and, then, basically, all of the homes from that section right there and, then, all the southern homes down through there would all get onto the main Kingsbridge Road and not want to go all the way and take the loop up north and back down around. So, all of the natural traffic flow would flow to the Kingsbridge exit towards Eagle Road. Okay. Out through there. Does that make sense? And so three- fourths of the subdivision would naturally flow out through the Kingsbridge Subdivision and not through the Dartmoor Subdivision. So, we can put the new suggested plat up there. Put it a little bit to the right, so you can see -- push it to the right here. My right. Push it to east. There you go. And to the south now. Perfect. Okay. So, now what you have is a natural exit strategy for most of these homes, particularly on the northern part that will go just west and, then, north and, then, to the Dartmoor Subdivision, right out through that exist. So, you have got twice as many homes, twice as many cars, because it's not the serpentine kind of design of the thing which flows the traffic south and out through the Kingsbridge exit -- main exit and through that. So, that's -- that was part -- and, like I said before, the original plat for the original developer had this kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 43 of 65 design and we negotiated within the settlement to -- to design it the way we did, through a serpentine look and so it flows south and out through the main street of Kingsbridge. And that was part of the settlement. Does that make sense? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Stott: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no more questions. Rohm: Thank you. Stott: You're quite welcome. Rohm: That was quite a bit more testimony than I had anticipated. Okay. Well, with that being said, then, I think I'm just going to start on down the list. If anybody that intends to testify is going to substantially say what this gentlemen has already spoken, it's not necessary. So, I'm just going to go down the list and if you have additional comments to make, by all means we want to hear them. So, the first name on the list is Pat Ellis. Would you like to testify? From the audience no. David Johnston. No from -- and Kathy Johnston. Bob Becker. David Collins. Okay. Pam Collins. Marshall: Mr. Chair, it may be germane to -- to understand if -- Mr. Stott was it? Stott. Rick Stott was speaking for these people, if they actually are saying that he was speaking for them -- no. Okay. Got you. I'm trying to see if there is any -- no, he already spoke for me, so I'm not getting up, so I just wanted to make sure -- Newton-Huckabay: You cannot testify from the audience, it has to go on the public record. Rohm: Right. Just let us do our thing here. Audrey Wilde. Okay. Pam Collins. Would you like to speak? You want to speak first and, then, have him speak? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. t call a name and if you want to speak you're welcome to get up. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think he's wanting to give his time to someone else, which isn't something we normally allow for one person to just pass their time onto someone else. think that's what -- Rohm: Oh. Okay. All right. I didn't understand it that way. Your -- Collins: My name is Pamela Collins, I'm at 3772 South Merrivale Way in Meridian. I would first like to say that I'm in full agreement with the previous gentleman's testimony and I wanted to add a couple of things about the history of our subdivision and kind of what's been going on in Kingsbridge one. So, I'm just going to kind of read from my notes. I'd like you guys to consider the history of our neighborhood and several issues Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 44 of 65 while reviewing the application PP 10-007. This application, obviously, proposes significant changes from master plan community that was presented to me as a prospective buyer just this spring and the map that we received previously, the original plat map, the master plan, as it was, as of yesterday is still being marketed to potential buyers in our subdivision and I'd like to say that if I had been presented with PP 10-00's plat map I may not have considered a purchase in Kingsbridge and I definitely would have purchased a different lot. So, I'd like to start by saying that I disagree with naming this application Kingsbridge and disagree with the annexation into the current Kingsbridge Subdivision, which seems to be an assumption that will occur. Kingsbridge phase one is the subdivision that was approved by the City of Meridian and began development in 2006. While the developer at that time had a master plan for the entire property, only phase one was completed. The plans for the land to the east expired, obviously, so we have a new developer with a new plan that is expecting us to simply meld into a new subdivision. Annexation with PP 10-007 poses several problems for us. Our current CC&Rs are managed by declarant, who has not fulfilled the obligations to the association as directed by the Articles of Incorporation. In fact, the declarant has informally made our homeowners responsible for the association. Our HOA is defined as an organization which cooperates -- or which operates and maintains the common lots that lie within the boundaries of Kingsbridge. It levies and collects assessments from the owners to defray the cost of such operation and maintenance and it performs other duties. When the declarant accumulated debt and failed to operate and maintain the common lots, the declarant willingly turned over the responsibility of assessment collection, debt payment, an operation management to the Kingsbridge residents. Since, then, committees were formed to oversee the maintenance of Kingsbridge phase one, leaving the Kingsbridge homeowners responsible for the homeowners association, essentially. Because of the overwhelming debt our budget is extremely limited. Our homeowners are volunteers. We manage to maintain the landscape for the common areas, the irrigation maintenance, and prepare -- am I done? Rohm: You need to wind up. Collins: Okay. Basically, we have been forced into aself-sustaining community. Am I finished? Rohm: Go ahead. Continue. Collins: Okay. Because of this debt we have been forced to become aself-sustaining community without really any assistance from our declarant. It seems to me that because of all the work that we have put into maintaining our own environment, that we should have a respected voice that's heard, but during the development and throughout the development of PP 10-007 we should have the right to protect our investment. We have heard several times tonight discussion about the economy changing master plans, not only here, but in the previous subdivision that was discussed. I'd like it to be known that in the last year Kingsbridge phase one has experienced more growth than it did since its inception and so at this point in our growth we have been asked to decrease our square footage requirements and decrease the quality of our front elevations in Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 45 of 65 future builds in phase one, without being notified by our declarant and we kind of feel that, as well as this application goes with all of the changes that have been made based on the economy changes, it doesn't really seem to me a valid argument when we have had more growth this year than we have had since 2007. We, basically, I think that -- I just wanted to reiterate the previous gentleman's concerns about the traffic flow. I mean we have real issues with the plat map, the changes to the amenities, the changes to the square footage requirements, the changes to the traffic pattern are valid concerns of ours. But I think that we come from a small community that has banded together and there have just been assumptions made that our CC&Rs are going to be adopted -- will naturally be annexed and I don't know that that's what we are prepared to do without having a respected voice. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Marshall: I do have a question. So, how much of this was discussed at the neighborhood meetings? Collins: We have had several neighborhood meetings. We were only -- Mr. Noriyuki -- sorry, Idon't have that name. Noriyuki. I guess I would like to point out the pattern here and the previous issues that we had. He only contacted our subdivision once and he did it only add as a courtesy and since, then, we have had extensive discussion about the changes. Rohm: Internally, but not with the developer'? Collins: Precisely. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of this individual? Okay. Thank you very much. Interesting. Audrey Wilde. Wilde: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Audrey Wilde. I live at 3758 South Merrivale and I would just like to mention that when we did meet with the applicant he was asked directly square footage -- minimum square footage size of the homes. The first response was 2,600 square feet, the second response was 2,400 square feet, and the third response was 2,200 square feet. Any other questions that were asked were answered with vague comments and we came away from that feeling like it didn't matter what our phase felt, that he was going to precede, the property had been purchased and that we would have to comply and as homeowners, as Pam has expressed to you previously, we have banded together and we have had to step up and take ownership of a development that we did not anticipate having to take that ownership of and the declarant has washed his hands of us and because of that we feel that we should be considered a separate entity away from this additional development, because we aren't really sure that we're going to be taken care of there either. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 46 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I'm sorry. What was the name on that testimony? Last name? Rohm: Wilde. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: With an E on the end. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Bradford Dedman. Dedman: My name is Bradford Dedman. I live at 3644 East Zaldia Lane, which is just south of the development. I'm here tonight -- I did not prepare anything to talk about, but I'm compelled by my neighbors, as this is going through -- in fact, you might notice that I'm one of the folks that didn't mark an ax on the pro, con, or neutral. I wasn't sure entirely what my position would be. I primarily appeared tonight just to make sure that the settlement agreement as discussed with the perimeter lot owners, as well as Scott, is being adhered to. It's extremely important. As Mr. Stott pointed out earlier, we went to great lengths and great detail and that's why we have such a unique pattern, I guess you could say, throughout the whole perimeter of Kingsbridge, both phase one, two, and three, of various treatment of buffer zones and finish landscaping between all sides, north, south, east and west and since I'm at the south side and I'm -- I abut Kingsbridge on approximately 940 linear feet, my property is on county land and is affected on the south side of the Ten Mile feeder canal and my property is, of course, affected on my immediate west side by what is already developed under phase one. I can't tell you how nervous I am in just listening to things this evening in the worry of changes that might come up with settlement agreement, because we all went to such great lengths, based on the facts as we were presented on our initial plats of phase two and three from four years ago. I'm confident that we can all help create a very nice neighborhood, just like a few of you remember we did within the initial Kingsbridge development, it was very much an ugly start that had a rather triumphant finish I think in Meridian development history, because you had so many entities involved. You had to deal with irrigation districts, obviously county and city land that was being annexed, a plethora of different neighbors and a huge density transition. So, everything that we were hoping for and fighting for is to maintain that harmonious transition of lot density and the flavor of home quality and property quality as laid forth by Dartmoor more than 12 or 13 years ago at least and Kingsbridge phase one just a couple years ago. So far I have become closer friends with my new neighbors to the north of me in Kingsbridge phase one and have known many folks in Dartmoor. You might also recall that I was here every single meeting that pertained to the entire development of Kingsbridge from the start all the way to the end and I want to let you know that I will be at every meeting as we continue forth. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 47 of 65 Rohm: Thank you. This next name I have not a clue what it is. It's got a bunch of -- it starts with an A and it looks like -- pardon? I'm just going to skip to the next and go from there and if at the end this individual wants to speak they aer welcome to. Ed Vanovich. And you have been spoken for? You have to come to the microphone if you're going to testify. If you're going to speak you have to be at the microphone. Newton-Huckabay: I think we have got it, Mr. Chair. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Next name. Rohm: Falon Schoenfeldt? From the audience she said, no, thank you. Matt Schoenfeldt? Schoenfeldt: My name is Matt Schoenfeldt and my address is 10617 Hawatha Drive in Boise. You know, I could reiterate what those who have gone before me have said, but I think the one thing -- or the two things that seem to be sticking out most in my mind that hasn't really been mentioned are the sort of change of open space. It was -- in your discussion you mentioned that there is this open space to nowhere on the eastern border that sort of counts to our total overall space, but wouldn't really be utilized and, then, all of the other community space has been consolidated in this one park sort of near the entrance. In the original subdivision there were a couple of open spaces and one of the amenities was a water park. Just based on the sheer number of homes in all of the phases, the current pool that we have, you know, barely supports the number of folks we have with about half of the front piece of phase one sold. Trying to accommodate all these folks with that one little pool isn't reasonable. These are things that probably would typically be addressed with the developer, but as has already been mentioned, there was one meeting, it was a courtesy and it wasn't really a discussion, so much as an informational meeting. The other thing I would like to point out is in the first phase of the subdivision there are just shy of 20 lots still remaining for sale and, you know, I'm sure it's either Ada County or the City of Meridian that's been sending letters to -- you know, you call them declarant, the developer, the owner, you know, the weeds are growing, they are not being maintained and I -- one of the concerns that I have is in developing phase two and phase three or a new subdivision is I don't want to ignore that those -- those homes up at the front are going completely -- or those lots are going completely unmaintained and at this point, you know, we would just be opening up property that would be more appealing, but not dealing with the situation in the front of the subdivision, which is really what looks like abandoned lots. Beyond that I don't know that I have anything. Are there any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Questions? Thank you, sir. John Caldwell. Point's covered. From the audience. Georgia Funkle. From the audience she said her concerns have been addressed. Mark Boer: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 48 of 65 Boer: I'm Mark Boer. I live at 3452 East Salcombe Drive in Meridian. Basically, my comments are real brief. Some of us who bought lots originally did so based on the written material based on the big sign out front that said homes starting at 500,000 and, of course, immediately everything started going down, but, you know, we were given verbal guarantees that the developer would not lower prices on the other lots ever. Wouldn't do that to the original owners. Of course he did. And I wasn't sure if I fully understood correctly what staff said earlier about the minimum requirements of 2,000 square feet. I know in the first phase they were 2,400 for single level lots and 3,000 feet for multi-level for two story lots. And so I would very much desire that those things being upheld in any further construction going forward, both in phase one, which we were concerned about the changing and in any subsequent phases. Again, primarily my position here is -- we are taking a beating on values, both with the economy, which we are not controlling here, but with the decisions made are really punishing many of us who bought originally. Thank you. Rohm: My suspicions are the home sizes are probably part of the covenants, not the zoning. The zoning doesn't -- we don't have a zone that requires a 3,000 square foot home, do we? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, minimum home size -- under the ordinance minimum home size is 1,500 square feet. But given the fact that the property has that separate settlement agreement and the city is not party to the CC&Rs or the settlement agreement, they would have to adhere to that. Rohm: And that was my point. Parsons: But, yes, but there is no minimum for home sizes for -- Rohm: That's not within the purview of the city, that's within your own restrictive covenants and so those facts, you know, are -- remain intact within your own jurisdiction, not within the jurisdiction of the city. The last name on the list is Bret Funke. Please come forward. Funke: My name is Bret Funke. I live at 3581 East Kingsbridge Drive. I wanted to address the topic of annexation, homeowner association, and annexation. So, it's been covered a little bit. I just don't know if it's been clarified. So, at this point the declarant of the original Kingsbridge phase one, as it's been discussed, he's been delinquent in maintaining the development, the pumps, irrigation have gone unmaintained. The landscaping has gone unmaintained. Homeowners have had to install their own mailboxes, which was part of his responsibility. So, my point is is that he's been delinquent of all of us responsibilities. Yet in all of the CC&Rs he owns all of the class B voting rights, which until the last lot is sold in Kingsbridge phase one he represents and speaks for the homeowners association. He has all the voting rights until that last lot is sold. As such he can make the decision as to whether Kingsbridge phase two can annex into phase one or not. What I'd like to point out is that all the homeowners here have taken over his responsibilities -- effective responsibilities -- de facto responsibilities Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 49 of 65 in taking care of the subdivision and what I would like to lay out there as an idea for the Commissioners is that the people here who are in Kingsbridge phase one should be seen as the de facto homeowners association and should be allowed to make the decision to allow Kingsbridge phase two to be annexed into phase one. So, although the declarant has all of the legal rights, these people are taking care of the subdivision, he has forfeited -- to me he has forfeited all of his rights and should not be seen as the sole decision maker for whether Kingsbridge phase two is annexed into phase one. And that's all I had to say. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. That concludes the list of people that have signed up, but anyone else -- please come forward. Schultz: Keith Schultz. I live at 3490 East Salcombe Drive and I apologize that I didn't get here until after 7:00 and get on the list, but thank you for hearing me. Most of our concerns have been addressed. We have put together a committee just to survive. Obviously, if you will check with your code enforcement you will see that there are major felonious defaults that the declarant has done. We have got young kids mowing common ground. I don't know what happens if there is an accident, who is responsible legally if they are hurt, while we just tried to maintain and not have a fire hazard. Those are concerns that I have. But my main point is that I was not invited. I live on the Salcombe, right on Kingsbridge, and I understand there is going to be a city street. Well, I was told -- I wanted a privacy fence. We have got open gates. I mean at least if we had a privacy fence all of that traffic would be somewhat deferred. But we have open gates and so all of that traffic is going to come through Kingsbridge, because they are landlocked. They either go through Kingsbridge, the main drag, which is I guess now going to be a city street. So, 124 homes, some of those going through the Dartmoor, but, obviously, if we abide by that policy and reduce that, then, Kingsbridge becomes a highway by our home and with that we have sound concerns. Small children and those type of things. I think that the Commission needs to take, you know, and look at. You're looking at a lot of homes that are landlocked coming through two -- or egress areas and all that traffic is coming through there. So, enough said with that. The other thing that I would like to stipulate concerning the pool, 125 homes, there are eight parking spots and one handicap. Something is not going to work. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Schultz: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Schultz, it's always been a public road through there where -- and there has always been homes -- a hundred and some odd homes planned in there where -- I guess I can't understand your objections to the homes being built when they have always been planned to have homes built there. Are you saying King -- Kingsbridge is a public street. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 50 of 65 Schultz: Right. Well, I thought I heard something different tonight.. I'm sorry. I might have misunderstood. Newton-Huckabay: No. I mean it's a public street and any home built in phase two or three of Kingsbridge is entitled to use it. Schultz: Okay. Then, I take that back. My only concern is that that's a very long stretch and we already have people speeding up that road right now. It's a long stretch from Eagle on that main drag and, obviously, we can -- you know, with stop signs and things like that, but with small children it's a concern, so -- Rohm: Okay. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one other question. Do we have an aerial view of Kingsbridge, one with the proposed phases two and three? Rohm: I believe we do. Well, maybe not. Canning: Chairman, while there is a lull in the conversation, there is one other young woman that wanted to testify here on the end. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Yes. Please come forward. Paternoster: I'm Lisa Paternoster. I lived at 3260 East Salcombe Drive. I think that they did address most of the stuff. My concern -- I'd just want to make sure this part. But is the amenities, of course, and that big open dog park, water -- I mean not water, but just grass area, I do have three little kids and the pool is really nice and part of me wanting to buy in that subdivision was the extra amenities that I could take my own kids to. And I think in that what I really want you guys to consider, because sometimes, you know, because you don't live there it's not as personal, maybe, but we don't necessarily have a lot of people -- we don't feel like we have a lot of rights to be able to protect our investment and the things are important to us. We feel like it's completely out of our hands and so I guess I just want to ask you guys to think about that when you're trying to decide what to do. Rohm: Thank you very much. Paternoster: Thank you. Rohm: So, is this the only map or -- that you have that ties phase one to the development of phase two and, then, the road configuration here is the old configuration, is it not? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 51 of 65 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Yes. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Marshall: That's the really old one. That's not the same as the one we saw. Rohm: Right. Basically, this -- Kingsbridge goes all the way through the subdivision in the old proposal. Marshall: Right. But the old proposal -- there is a more colorful version of the old proposal for marketing purposes that actually the layout is a little bit different than this. It's close to that, but it's a little different than that as well. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, are you getting what you want? Newton-Huckabay: No, not exactly, but I think we need to finish the public hearing and there are a lot of issues on the table and we just have to sort through which are the ones, as a Commission, that we can have an impact on and be very clear as a Commission on those that we can't, because I don't want to tell anyone in this audience that I have authority in a situation where I don't or we don't and I want to be very clear on that, because this is pretty sticky and it -- I was just -- I just went -- when I saw Kingsbridge coming up again and -- because it was very sticky before. So, we have got to be really careful to stick to the issues that we, as the Planning and Zoning Commission, can address and, unfortunately, there are a lot of these issues, folks, that we are not going to be able to address and are going to have to be pursued through some other method and I'm not saying that because I want to get out of some, you know, duty that I have as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner, but I also don't want to mislead anybody that we have authority that we don't have and I'm very concerned about that, because you do have a lot of issues and I don't want to invalidate any of them. So, please, bear with us through that if you can. Rohm: I think that was very well said. At this point I'm going to invite the applicant to come back up and offer his response and we will see where we go from there. Densmer: Thank you, Members of the Commission. My name is Jason Densmer, I'm an engineer with The Land Group and we have been working with Scott Noriyuki and the developer on replanning the Kingsbridge project to comply with the current requirements that we find ourselves under. Just to frame the discussion, I know that Bill had mentioned this during his presentation, but I think it would help -- be helpful to a lot of the neighbors, particularly, to discuss why the project can to be constructed as it was originally envisioned and as the first pre-plat was approved. The reason for those aren't in our control. I mean there are certainly economic factors at play, but they are not the reason that the pre-plat can't go forward as it was when it expired. As you know, you adopted new zoning requirements and I believe it was 2006, which was. after this pre- plat was approved in 2005. Your new requirements don't have an R-3 zoning. The old Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 52 of 65 zoning that was applied to this project R-3, allowed lot sizes of 8,000 square feet. Am correct? Canning: No. Densmer: No? What was the -- what was the R-3 zone? Canning. Chairman Rohm, would you like me to answer that question? Rohm: Absolutely. Canning: Okay. Chairman and Commissioners, my recollection is that the R-3 had a 10,000 square foot minimum, but this project came through on the tail end and we always anticipated it would have an R-2 zoning, it just wasn't official. But it was planned for R-2 zoning, but I didn't think it was -- I know was more than eight, because R-4 is 8,000 square foot minimum. So, it was 10 or 12 at that point. Densmer: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. The reality is, though, that the lots within Kingsbridge, as it was approved previously, don't meet the current dimensional standards. The current requirement is 12,000 square feet and there were lots approved previously that don't meet it. So, it was simply impossible for us to request re-approval of the original design and move forward under the expectations that were in place in 2005. So, trying to make, you know, lemonade out of some lemons here, we went back to the drafting boards, if we had them -- we went to the computers instead and more or less worked within the constraints that we have in front of us. We already had streets stubbed into this property from Kingsbridge one. We could, obviously, change those. We had a settlement agreement in place with the neighbors that had been worked through after a long effort, obviously. And we wanted to make sure that those agreements were respected and honored and so those really governed the design around the perimeter of the property. We worked very hard to make sure that we didn't increase lot density. We didn't -- you know, someone -- a neighbor who previously had agreed to have a lot or two for three adjacent to them previously had the same number of lots adjacent to them under the new plan, but the three large size lots on the east are one indication of that. If you were to look at the colored marketing board that was presented earlier you will see that there was actually seven lots along the south property line previously and under the redesign we were able to reduce that to six. The same quantity of lots exist on the north property line as were previously there. And in conditions where we had provided common area landscaping buffers between the project and neighbors, like along the east property line, those were maintained exactly as they had been promised to those neighbors in the past. So, working with a static condition on the west property line and the intent to maintain static conditions on all the other property lines, we worked inside of that envelope to recreate the project under the current dimensional standards and are, honestly, quite proud of the redesign and what it was able to accomplish with so many constraints. Overall there are no more lots proposed now than were what were previously approved. Seventeen -- or, I'm sorry, 72 buildable lots originally, 72 buildable lots today. The total quantity of open space that Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 53 of 65 was within this phase alone, not even taking into consideration the amenities and the open space that were provided in phase one, this redesign maintains exactly the same amount of open space that was previously approved, so we were able to effectively just reshuffle the square footage that was inside of the lots, so we were able to increase the lots that were deficient, get everything into compliance, maintain the overall open space consistent with the previous approval, maintain the total lot count, which translates to density, exactly the same as it was and still maintain those commitments to the perimeter lot owners. As we were doing that we did consider traffic flow and how the revisions to the street network that were necessary to accomplish that might affect people who had commitments under the settlement agreement. If you were to look at the grander scheme -- and I wish that we did have an exhibit that kind of showed the aerial with the new layout superimposed on it, you will see that -- maybe -- can I use this? Do I know how this works or -- you will see that there was a great focus at this area of the property where we connect into phase one. That's exactly the area where residents in this new area might be inclined to use the street network out through Dartmoor, rather than using the internal street of Kingsbridge and so we were somewhat helped in that design by the alignment of the street there, but you will see there is a major wobble in the street and we were pleased to be able to maintain that for one reason, it provides traffic calming, so traffic going eastbound on -- I'm sorry -- westbound on that street towards Dartmoor would be automatically slowed down, because you simply can navigate that curve at any kind of speed. Plus as you go into phase one from here this street immediately takes a 90 degree turn, that street alignment really makes that direction to exit the project to Eagle Road undesirable, you know, the science of traffic engineering and, basically, chaos theory, you're trying to predict what bees are going to do in a swarm, is difficult. But we feel that the number of lots under the original design that would have been inclined to exit to Eagle Road through Dartmoor versus the number of lots inclined to exit through Dartmoor under this design is, if anything, reduced, not increased. In my opinion, virtually all of the lots in the redesigned phase two and three are going to funnel towards Kingsbridge Drive and exit out the collector road designed to handle higher volumes of traffic. It was specifically built that way through phase one in response to the traffic studies that were prepared it that time. As you know, collector roads have wider street sections, they have landscape setback buffers, they don't allow parking on the streets, they are for the function of keeping traffic out of the neighborhood. So, with that said I wanted to be able to speak at least to some of the technical issues of the redesign and the reasons that we have come to the point where we are to help clarify in your minds kind of how did we get here, what did we consider during the design. I hope that that kind of dialogue has been helpful. If you have questions I would be happy to answer them and I know that scott wants to come back and talk about some of the other topics that have come up. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one question. I was curious about your choice to move the bulk of the green space into the -- where you have moved into in the subdivision and I mean I understand you put like a basketball court or sport court on there, which is a nice amenity. But it seems very sterile to look at your preliminary plat, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 54 of 65 if you will, and I think that's what's been a little off putting. So, I'm just curious about your -- Densmer: I think the landscape -- I think the landscape plan presents a little bit better than this, which is really intended to, you know, demonstrate the lot dimensions and -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Densmer: -- how big the lots are. You can see on the landscape plan -- and I know that it was flashed up one of the exhibits that staff used to talk about pathways, that -- there we go. We have really tried to bring all of the open space together. As I mentioned, it's the same quantity -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Densmer: -- it's just what we feel is more usable. Previously Kingsbridge Drive looped through the project as a collector the whole way and it actually bisected -- the major common area was into pieces, one on the north side of the street and one on the south side. By reducing the -- or kind of sucking back that Kingsbridge Drive to the west we were able to pull all that common area together and accommodate a sport field, essentially. It's large enough for -- that's a half size of an MLS soccer field, so it's not by any means a small area, it's -- it's going to be great, honestly, for the neighborhood to have that kind of sports field amenity. I know that some of the testimony earlier today was about families and kids and some of the work that it sounds like the kids are doing actually on behalf of the homeowners association, but also, you know, what they're going to -- you know, where they have places to play and whatnot. As a parent I know that my kid, you know, I want a place for him to throw a ball and Iwant -- you know, not just open space that burns and trees and more passive open space, but active open space where kind of -- this kind of amenity would be appropriate. Newton-Huckabay: So, your approach was you would intended to make more active open space? Densmer: Right. It was intentional to bring the open space into one place at the center of the community where it can be used by everybody. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I may ask a question here. How much of the background of the original design were you aware of when you started this design? Densmer: I won't say that I knew it all, but I tried to educate myself as much as possible. Marshall: Okay. I'm just wondering why we threw -- pretty much threw the entire other design out, rather than trying to adjust it to meet the newer needs and I understand Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 55 of 65 you're trying to possibly fit in some more lots or -- but, again, that was one that had gone through a lot of work and pleased a lot of people and, to be honest, it sounds like those people were kind of shut out and we just behind a closed door did this again and, to be honest, the other design with the roads is a much more organic feel. This is more traditional, straight lots and, to be honest, I'm not real fond of cul-de-sacs and all, but I'd love to live on one, but they dump -- everybody's traffic comes in front of my house, because I'm always the guy down the street that the cul-de-sac drive in front of. I have to admit, the old design was a pretty nice compromise I thought and I'm just wondering why we threw the entire design out and did this. Densmer: I think it comes back to those original constraints that we were working in and an attempt not to increase lots at all, because that's really not where we ended up, but at least to maintain the value of the previous approval. Marshall: I'm still lost. If we didn't increase lots what the heck did we do? Densmer: We increased the size of a lot of lots that were previously deficient. I don't remember the statistics, but I would assume, just from looking at it, that probably greater than 25 percent of the lots in the earlier approval simply wouldn't meet current dimensional standards. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, under the previous ordinance it met the ordinance -- Marshall: I understand. Newton-Huckabay: -- but it doesn't now and a lot of those interior lots were less than the 10,000 feet -- whatever that square foot requirement was -- Marshall: What I'm saying if you have got the exact same number of lots, we didn't pick up a whole lot there. And I mean the other design could have been tweaked differently. I'm sorry. I teach design, so I know it could have. But that's just me. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not disagreeing with you that it could be done differently, but I don't think that you can penalize somebody for wanting to meet -- to change it to meet code. Marshall: My point was that the old design met a lot of other people's needs and that rather than completely throwing it out, that could have been tweaked and tried to maintain that as much as possible to have met code. But, yes, it needed to be changed. I understand that to meet the new code. But it could have been changed without throwing the original design out, in my opinion, but -- Rohm: Do you have anymore questions of this portion of the applicant? Marshall: I don't. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 56 of 65 Rohm: Thank you. Densmer: You're welcome. Thank you. Rohm: And your partner wanted to come back up, is that -- Densmer: Yes. Mr. Noriyuki will speak to you now. Thank you. Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki again. 3106 Ridgeway Drive, Boise. I wanted to touch on the design. We have been working on this project for several months now. I personally worked on upwards of 15 design concepts on AutoCAD, just simply working within the current constraints. The primary issue that drove the design change was, of course, we talk about this R-3 versus R-2 and the dimensional standards. The primary criteria that drove the new design is that in the R-2 we have got a minimum of an 80 foot wide lot and it cannot go below 80 feet unless you're in a cul-de-sac or on a 90 degree angle. Whereas with the R-3 you were allowed a substantially reduced front lot width. That's why you see the original design with a lot of pie shape and it allows for more than organic. Believe me, if we could just pick up immediately and go with that and not have to spend a lot of time with design, we would have seriously considered that. However, via two pre-apps with the city, review of the code, we didn't have the option, quite frankly. Regarding the open space, I appreciate what you're saying where there was maybe a couple of -- in essence, the original design had three different open spaces where we -- predominate open spaces where we are proposing to two. Each one of them were usable. The other one's got some amenities in there as well. My contemplation was several developments -- and it's an opinion, but I see several developments where just purely to satisfy code you get this excessive amount of here is my token barbecue pit, here is my token bench, here is my token little open space that's really motivated to work with the design, but they're not usable. Our thought was this is a place that you can go play ball with your son. You can go run around. There is -- there is a pathway around it. It's -- it's usable. So, that was kind of the intent on that. So, enough with that, unless you have any specific questions on design or the technical items. I thought I would try to cut my way through the HOA and the annexation and phase one. Incredibly difficult. We have no control over phase one. We have no ownership in any of the lots and it's really unfortunate for the folks here. But, technically, I have no control at this point. They have no control. We have -- I had breached the conversation with them during the neighborhood meeting of this issue and it's very difficult for me, because legally i cannot negotiate with them, because they are not declarants, they are on the Board of Directors, they're not within the articles of incorporation. So, legally, I cannot. enter into any kind of a negotiation with them and it's also difficult to talk about HOA responsibilities and common lot maintenance, because they have no legal authority or ownership of those common lots or those amenities. So, it becomes really problematic. Naturally, we are of the opinion that by coming in and the developer being sound in this market and doing very very well compared to most folks, we think that we would be a good addition. However, I understand and appreciate that potentially they collectively would not want us to be in there. You know, that can be Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 57 of 65 worked around. There can always be a Kingsbridge Estates something else that is a completely different HOA owned and operated and maintained separately. The project as we have it stands alone on its own legs from an open space standpoint, from a code standpoint. I was very adamant while we designed this to ensure that, so that I had that flexibility knowing that there was a lot of problems in phase one. You know, we have the same concern. My concern is if we annex in what kind of issues are we picking up and are we going to have to carry the bill to, quite frankly, maintain this where they have a deficiency. So, I'm not sure how to work that out at this point either. I think, really, what that comes down to is just discussions between -- I think initially the current Board of Directors, the current developer, although he's defunct, and, then, in some fashion if they and the declarant work together that they can gain some legal control, then, we can get to the table and talk, but at this point I'm not trying to not appreciate their concerns, but until there is a legal authority and they have a right we don't -- we can't cut a deal. Rohm: Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question and it's just - is not related to what he was talking about, but noticing the open space there and it looks like it could be a soccer field are something, it's a large area right -- is there parking around there somewhere? Noriyuki: No sir. O'Brien: No parking at all? Noriyuki: Huh-uh. O'Brien: So, people have to walk from -- Noriyuki: yeah. We figured that -- well, of course, there is on-street parking, which is -- did Ijust kill that? Oh. Mind you, all of these lots are 80 feet wide, so your driveway is going to be 20 feet, you're going to have 60 feet -- upwards of 120 feet between driveways, so that on-street parking opportunities within this portion of the subdivision is going to be substantial. O'Brien: No handicap? Is there handicapped anywhere? Noriyuki: No. We have not proposed any of --any of that. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Noriyuki: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 58 of 65 Marshall: Question of staff. Rohm: Please. Go ahead. Marshall: So, can you fill me in on this 80 foot wide requirement? Canning: Chairman and Commissioners, the -- let me back up a little bit and I think what they're struggling with is not so much that it was R-3 zoning, but that it was done as the PD, I believe. Is that correct? It was a PDA. And as Chairman Rohm and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may remember, what that PD allowed for was a deviation from the lot -- the dimensional standards of the zone. So, that's why they were able to have varying dimensional standards. We only had six lots in the city that were zoned R-3 and that's why we combined it and went to an R-2, but we used the same dimensional standards for the R-2 that were in place for the R-3. So, it wasn't any impact to the existing R-3 folks. What it did, though, is because their previous plat lapsed they were no longer able to take advantage of what used to be called planned development. Now, we do have other mechanisms that -- you know, there is always more than one way to process an application, so there is something called a planned unit development that is similar to the planned development. The criteria for entering into that are a different standard, but this could apply. And the other possibility would be a rezone to allow for a reduced lot frontage. So, the 80 feet is a required lot frontage, I believe. I don't have it memorized. I always have to look up stuff, but I trust that that's what it is. And you have to have that much frontage unless you're on a cul- de-sac or going around a corner. Marshall: Unless you're on a cul-de-sac. That's why the flags. Got you. That's why the cul-de-sacs. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that comment. Any other questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Okay. Before we close the public hearing, let's just poll the Commission and see where we are at. Commissioner O'Brien, would you like to start? Do you have some thoughts on this? O'Brien: Oh, I think it's a darn shame to have to end up like it is, to be honest with you. I agree with the -- call it a static design, but it's so boxy. It's unfortunate that there wasn't something they could do, like a -- Commissioner Marshall mentioned, something that you can do to make it a little bit more -- have more character to the design, but I just -- it's unfortunate, but I don't know which direction. I'm going to go with this thing, but I'll wait until the public hearing is closed I think. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 59 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I really need to get my head around the issues that are on the table that we can address here and whether or not this is a phase or not a phase of the existing Kingsbridge Subdivision is not an issue for the Commission. That's correct? The layout of the subdivision and the change in the road pattern, we can address that. Whether the new buyer of the property is required to honor some or all of the settlement agreement, that's out of our jurisdiction. We can do anything with that. The issues with declarant of the homeowners association are issues we can't address. The walkway on the eastern boundary -- or was that just an open space, the open green space? Marshall: That's the question. Newton-Huckabay: That was the 30 feet on the eastern boundary. So, we can address that. There was some comment very early on about in the phase one of Kingsbridge that there's no pathway to connect to, but that's off site, so we can't address that. The pathway, apparently, was never built on the -- on the north. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Because there is a DA that you do have the ability to address off site conditions. Newton-Huckabay: So, we could -- we can address the incomplete pathways in phase one? Canning: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The pathways on the south, that's already been addressed by the irrigation. There's nothing we can do there. Correct? We have no recourse as a Commission. Rohm: I don't believe so. Newton-Huckabay: It's a question, folks. It's not -- Canning: Chairman and Commissioners, as the testimony was presented it appears to have been resolved. However, it's a new day. You could -- you can certainly ask -- would suggest that if you ask you leave a little wiggle room in case they are unable to accomplish that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's see. I have another note here. Mrs. Collins made a comment that the Kingsbridge phase two and three are still being marketed with the old plat. That's -- I'm going to -- I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's not the current applicant's, so, unfortunately, we can't address that. Let's see. The change in open space, which in this case isn't necessarily changed to quantity, but a change to position, we can address that. You had some concerns with the parking lot? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 60 of 65 O'Brien: Parking at all around the open space. There is no handicapped, there is no parking, except -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you live in a subdivision that has an open space? Do you live in a subdivision that has an open space? O'Brien: No. No, but I -- they have open space in the subdivision just below me that -- around apark that has parking specifically for that area, as well as handicapped parking. Tuscany. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. O'Brien: Just across Eagle Road from them. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. 1 know where Tuscany is at. Okay. Minimum house size. That's an issue we can't -- we can't address. So, what I've got here is we need to discuss whether or not we agree with the layout of the new subdivision with the change in the road pattern. We need to talk about the 30 foot easement on the eastern boundary. We need to talk about off site improvements of the incomplete pathways. Discussion of whether or not we would like to continue to see efforts on the southern pathway and how we feel about the configuration of the open space. Rohm: I think you have summarized that pretty well. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on PP 10-007. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PP 10-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR EYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair. I think, personally, if the applicant had taken the time to sit down and listen to the constituents that -- the stakeholders, rather than just informing them of what he was doing, if he had taken the time and listened to the background and everything that had gone into it, that this could have been -- he could have had support from these people. They want this subdivision finished. They want it done right. A lot of effort went into this. Now I know it doesn't meet code. And if he had listened to them and taken those concerns and come to the city and sat down with the city and said, hey, we really can't -- this doesn't meet the codes. What can we do here? Because a lot of work has gone into this and all of these constituents have agreed on this. This is in the city's best interest. What can we do to have done this right? I think the city would have said, well, maybe just a rezone or something like that. I think they would have sat down and listen to you. I don't think they would have thrown it out. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 61 of 65 Newton-Huckabay: Why don't you ask. Marshall: Well, because we closed the public hearing. Newton-Huckabay: No. I'm talking about the staff. Marshall: I'm just saying Ithink -- I'm not -- you know, personally I have seen a track record here of informational meetings, not fact gathering and information -- and that bothers me. Ithink developers need to go out and learn from the stakeholders around them and try to incorporate their needs into your project. That's important. We need to work together as a community to meet everybody's needs and you end up with a much better project. You know, to be honest, I think something -- I understand the layout now. Geometrically I understand that there is an 80 foot width I wasn't considering and -- yeah. Understand why it goes that way. But I mean we could have done something different, because that other --the other organic flow is far superior to this. I understand why it's like this now. It makes perfect sense. But I don't like it. I don't like it as well. think it does dump out more traffic up top. Not considerably more, but enough to be concerning to the people that are living along that street. Ithink we're kind of doing a disservice to all the people around it that -- that really have been excluded from this now and I'm not happy with it. Rohm: So, Commissioner Marshall, are you in favor of denial or continuing it and allowing the developer to go back and see if they can work out some of the differences with the neighboring property owners? Which way do you lean on that? Marshall: It's going to take considerable work. I would be willing to go another chance and continue it, but it's going to be some time out. There is -- to me there is a lot of work that needs to be done, a lot of bridge mending needs to be done with a lot of constituents. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, how do you -- I appreciate you summarizing the issues at hand and I think you nailed it pretty well. How do you feel about moving this project forward? Do you think we could continue it and get any value out of that or do you think we should just act on it as the application currently exist? And I'll ask you the same thing Commissioner O'Brien. Newton-Huckabay: i think I'm prepared to act on it as it exists. I'm not as unhappy with -- with the design of the subdivision itself or the redesigned, if you will. I feel like it -- with elevations that they have proposed, I -- and the adherence to the perimeter commitments that they made in the original development, I think it's going to get -- gets the spirit of it and I actually five in a subdivision that has the obligatory bench and barbecue pit and no place to go throw a ball or pitch your golf balls or wherever and so I do appreciate the larger -- the larger space and I appreciate the fact, given that this will be a separate division from Kingsbridge one most likely, it's close enough there that people will be able to use it, irregardless of which subdivision they live in. So, I don't have a huge problem with that. On-street parking that -- at a neighborhood park. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 62 of 65 could go either way on that one. There is a lot of places to park in the subdivision -- on the street and parking on the street isn't necessarily against the law. I would like to see that the -- the applicant complete all of the off site pathways that are not complete at this time that they're going to be stubbing into. I would like to see continuous to pursue the southern pathway that was in the original plan and if my memory serves me right, the neighbor on the eastern boundary was very very much set on this 30 feet. Rohm: I think that's -- I think that's why it's there. Newton-Huckabay: And so I would say leave it at this point if it was agreed upon. So, that's where I stand. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I have really mixed feelings on this. I appreciate both entities, the applicant and the homeowner folks in phase one and Dartmoor. I'm really torn, because I -- and I'm a homeowner, too, I can appreciate when things may affect of the property values that I -- that I reside in or have and it's really a tough one. I agree with a lot of the things that Commissioner Marshall said and I just don't understand why things cannot be worked out better than where they are, but we are not obligated to do that and the applicant isn't obligated, as he mentioned. He says he's, basically, in control of the destiny of what happens here. He's compliant as far as the area goes. The traffic studies have been done. That portion of -- if I had any concerns it's really a nonissue. The concerns Ihave -- I mentioned is I think there should be some kind of a parking area for people using the open space. it's a big area and you're going to get a lot of usage and not having the -- an area for disabled people that have to take their wheelchairs or walk a great distance just to get to the park to watch their grandkids play or their children play and I think there should be some kind of an area there for that -- for that purpose. So, having said all that I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay on where we are at right now. It's -- I think that that's where I'm at. That's all I have. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think a lot of these outstanding issues that we cannot address until the city makes a decision on where we stand, I think it's going to be hard to solve some of them. I may be off base here -- Rohm: The application before us tonight complies with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. I personally think that you folks all still have your settlement agreement that works in your favor that you can still call upon, that just isn't within our purview to include any commitment to that at all, but you still have it. And as far as things like the size of the homes, if your restrictive covenants and your CC&Rs stipulate certain things, then, that's between you folks and the development -- developers. We can't address any of those things. So, what we can address are the things that fall within the UDC and -- and our Comprehensive Plan and I think Commissioner Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 63 of 65 Newton-Huckabay has done a very good job of identifying those and if, in fact, we can put a motion together that will protect the interests of all of you to the level that we can in terms of making sure that the developers adhere to the spirit of what the intent was, that's the best that we can do and, then, you folks will need to work through the issues with the developers as you see them pertaining to the settlement agreement itself. So, that's the conclusion of my comments and with that being said, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay are you prepared to make a motion? Newton-Huckabay: No, but I can get there. There was one other issue that we didn't address, actually, that I had highlighted here. The applicant had asked for -- when we talked about the development agreement, they want it to be modified, discussed removing the 25 foot rear setback on the southern boundary line of the property with the original perimeter property owners associated with the settlement agreement. We feel that this condition was intended for property owners along the north and east along the southern property line by the Ten Mile feeder canal and the associated 60 foot easement, as well as the 30 foot rear setbacks established for residents on the south side and a 15 foot standard setback within Kingsbridge. I think I will leave the development agreement as suggested by city staff and if you feel compelled enough you can pursue it outside of everything else we have on our table. Bill, I'm going to ask you just to help me fill in here. You were leaving the 30 foot easement on the eastern boundary in the staff report or you were changing it? You were asking for landscaping. Parsons: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I was asking for there the 30 foot easement to comply with the landscape ordinance. Newton-Huckabay: Comply with the landscape ordinance. Marshall: Just require the walkway through there. Newton-Huckabay: But there is a -- some kind of a drain that you can't put a walkway. Is that correct? What was -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, staff has added the provision for the pathway. You can certainly strike that from the condition if you'd like. Rohm: On the east line? Parsons: On the east line. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I think leaving -that's leaving the 30 foot easement meeting the landscape ordinance, I think that's a fair compromise. Did you include the off site pathway in -- or do I need to include that as an addition in Kingsbridge one? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 64 of 65 Newton-Huckabay, in the staff report I kept it flexible. I made a provision -- the way it's written in the staff report it states if the Boise project control board will allow the pathway within that easement that the applicant would comply with the masters pathways plan. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's on the southern border. Parsons: Oh. I'm sorry. Are you referring to the -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm referring to the pathway that didn't connect on the northern and, then, there is also one somewhere mid -- the one -- Marshall: The one on the canal. Newton-Huckabay: On the canal. Marshall: The company is saying they would not allow that, because that's their access road. That pathway is going to have to go back up through Kingsbridge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And you're covering -- right after the Boise Project Control Board, you're also covering completing the outside amenity of the pathway, so we are covered there. Parsons: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Oh, goodness. Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to recommend approval to the City Council a file number PP 10-007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 18, 2010, with no modifications to the staff report. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 10-007, to conclude the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Marshall: Aye. Rohm: Okay. Three in favor and one against. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: That concludes this hearing tonight. Could I get one more motion? Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2010 Page 65 of 65 Marshall: Second. Rohm: -- seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVE ~I ~~ I ~ L ~-'. MIC AEL ROHM - ~'iAIR N DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~~~ ~2kJ~~ . ~~~ ~~, JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~,~~ j G H P ~ ~'. fir, 'ti G ql ~_. ~ i4f •, ~. y ~ ~; ~~~~ d ~ ~. ~, ~ oy ~Sr ~S~• ~o ~"~A-TY , ~pQ