Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwoods Subdivision CUPCUP 04-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 29, 2004 APPLICANT Calderwood Community, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L-0 zones for Southwoods Subdivision - 2090 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments No Comment Q(j No Comment V See attached Comments See attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Jeffers from citizens Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: W0.rt1i 1< h�CiSWE;tiecrf -, eoM Staff Initials: W,0— Materials ,0rMaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Kam Bird William L.M. Nary Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree t CITY OF C,4ri�i�n Il IDAHO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIry.�ial:,:LSiTcs�yac r:�S:bY! MEMORANDUM: Hearing Date: April 29, 2004 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commissionfi •1', q 1 r ` t, From: Wendy Kirkpatrick, AICP, Associate City Planner AL APR j 6 2=60 2 Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech. ui I11t ri d ic, C E1, Uf'ic;., Re: Southwoods Subdivision • Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to L- O (Light Office) and R-15 (Medium -High Density Residential), by Calderwood Community, LLC (File No. RZ-04-004) Request for Preliminary Plat approval of a 19 Lot Subdivision on 9.47 Acres in Proposed L -O and R-15 Zones, by Calderwood Community, LLC (File No. PP -04-007) Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in the L -O and R-15 Zones, by Calderwood Community, LLC (File No. CUP -04-008). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Calderwood Community, LLC, has requested approval of a rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-15 and L -O. The applicant is requesting that 6.22 acres be rezoned to R-15 and that 3.06 acres be rezoned to L -O. The Comprehensive Plan depicts the subject property as Medium Density Residential (3 to 8 du/acre). Staff feels that the existing conditions and the proposed Consistency Matrix support the proposed zone changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Consistency Matrix on April 1, 2004. Meridian's City Council will hear the application for the matrix on April 27, 2004. The Consistency Matrix is an amendmem to the Comprehensive Plan which would allow applicants to request L -O zoning in residential areas along arterials and section line roads. If the Matrix is not approved by Council the applicant will not be able to request L -O zoning. RZ 04-004, PFP-04.007, CUP -04-008 Souihwood&U—PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 2 The applicant also requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for a Planned Development. The Planned development will allow the applicant to request reduced lot sizes and frontages for the proposed subdivision lots. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum lots sizes for the LO district to allow 5,453 square foot lots, a reduction in the 50' frontage requirement for the L -O zone, and the ability to access the L -O lots with a common drive. The Planned Development will consist of one common lot and 18 building lots including 14 office lots and 4 multi -family residential lots. Seventy-two residential units will be located on the 4 multi -family lots. The 72 residential units are a part of a senior living community which is made up of 26 independent living units, an assisted living center and an Alzheimer's Living Center. The assisted living center and Alzheimer's living center each have their own buildings. The independent living units are one and two bedroom apartments clustered into four-plexes and six-plexes. The proposed light office lots will have frontage on Meridian Road. The assisted living facility is located west of the light office lots. All proposed lots will take access off of Calderwood Drive. LOCATION & SURROUNDING USES The subject property is located at 2090 S. Meridian Road, approximately '/z mile south of the southeast intersection on Overland Road and Meridian Road. The following uses surround the subject property: North —Calderwood Drive borders the subject property to the north. The property immediately to the north of Calderwood Drive is zoned RUT (Ada County.) South — Single Family Residential, zoned R-4. A residential subdivision has been proposed for the property. East — Meridian Greens Subdivision, a residential subdivision with R-4 zoning, is located immediately to the east of the subject property West Meridian Road is located immediately west of the subject property. Bear Creek Subdivision, a residential subdivision with R-8 zoning is located west of Meridian Road. OWNER OF RECORD The owner of record is Calderwood Community, LLC, who has given consent for the applicant to submit the requested applications. RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-008 s0uffiW00 PIz.PP.cUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 3 STANDARDS FOR ZONING AMENDMENT The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment (11-15-I1): A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive plan amendment; Staff finds that the requested R-15 zoning designation is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map delineates the subject property as Medium Density Residential (up to 8 du/acre), however, a note on the map allows applicants to request a "step up" in density. The proposed development will have a density of 9.08 du/acre. The request for R-15 (up to 15 du/acre) zoning represents one "step up" from the comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density Residential. The proposed L-0 zoning is supported by the proposed Land Use Consistency Matrix Comprehensive Plan Amendment which will go to Meridian's City Council April 27, 2004. B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be re -zoned in the future; Staff finds that the proposed re -zone and accompanying development plans comply with the requested zone and staff does not anticipate that the property will be rezoned in the future. C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning; Staff finds that the applicant has submitted development plans for a Conditional Use Permit for the property. Staff fiuther finds that the proposed planned development will only be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the proposed zones. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned; Staff finds that the subject property's location on S. Meridian Road, an arterial road dictates that the area fronting Meridian Road may be rezoned to UO (with the adoption of the Consistency Matrix.) The Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential qualifies the eastern half of the subject property to request a "step up" in density to High Density Residential. The proposed four-plex and six-plex units in the proposed assisted living center are not allowed uses without R-15 (High Density Residential) zoning. E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-008 SoWhwoO&.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 4 same area; Staff finds that the proposed development is designed in a manner that will be harmonious with the intended character of the area. The proposed light office uses are appropriate for the subject property's location on an arterial road and the proposed assisted living center is compatible with the surrounding residential areas. F. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Staff finds that the requested rezone should not be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. The Commission and Council should consider all public testimony, oral and written, before making this finding. G. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such service; Staff finds that the proposed uses can be adequately served by all essential public services and facilities with the planned improvements and those mentioned within this report. Drainage will need to be retained on site. H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; Staff finds that the requested uses will not create excessive additional requirements at public costs for public facilities and services. Additionally, staff finds that the proposed rezone would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. I. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Staff finds that the proposed UO and R-15 zoning designations of the property do not inherently allow uses that will generate activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions that will be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. L Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Staff finds that the proposed vehicular approaches on Calderwood Drive will not interfere with general traffic patterns on any public streets. Please refer to the ACHD staff report, dated March 23, 2004 for a full report on traffic issues. ITD has submitted a comment letter RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-008 8wthwoo&RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 5 dated March 11, 2004 stating that on Principal Arterial Type IV intersections access is allowed only at intersections; all other approaches require special permitting. K Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. Staff finds that there are several existing mature trees on the site. Staff recommends that the applicant coordinate with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, at the Parks Dept. for a determination on whether the applicant must mitigate for any removed trees. This determination should be done prior to the next hearing on this project. L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City; Staff finds that the proposed rezone would be in the best interest of the City by permitting L- O zoning for light office development located along a Principal Arterial street and by permitting "High Density Residential" (R-15) zoning which will allow an assisted living facility. It is important that Meridian plans for an aging population; the proposed assisted living facility will be a benefit to the City of Meridian. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Rezone) The legal description submitted with the application is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission. 2. The subject property is within the Urban Services Planning Area. 3. A Development Agreement will not be necessary with this rezone. All conditions ofapproval will be made as part of the plat and conditional use permit. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINIDINGS AND REOUII2EMENTS Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Connnission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; Staff finds the subdivision to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan if the proposed Consistency Matrix is adopted by City Council. The Future Land Use map designates the property as Medium Density Residential and allows the applicant to ask for a "step-up" to High Density Residential. Existing zoning on the property is Low Density Residential (R-4.) RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-008 Southwoo&AZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 6 B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. Municipal water and sewer service is existing adjacent to the subject property. C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All required utilities are in place as constructed with previous development. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. The proposed subdivision is an infill project and utilities currently exist adjacent to the subject property. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire and police services. The applicant will be responsible for any required extensions of the utilities and for development of an irrigation system. E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that there are not any other health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that need to be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS – PRELINIINARY/FMAL PLAT All landscaping will be required per the landscape plans submitted with the application. 2. All conditions of the accompanying Conditional Use Permit application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat. 3. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from existing mains installed adjacent to the property. The applicant shall be required to extend sewer and water mains to and through the proposed development, thereby making them available to the adjacent properties. The Applicant shall coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. An additional water main tie-in to the existing main in S. Meridian Road will be necessary to provide fire flows. Cover over the sanitary sewer shall be no less that three -feet from finish grade to the top of pipe. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. GENERAL COMMENTS—PRELEMONARY PLAT RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-008 Soudwmods.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 7 1. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the subdivision name. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8. 5. Two -Hundred -Fifty and 100 -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Any streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 6. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 124-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all new off-street parking areas. All drainage water is to be maintained on-site. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department ofEnvironmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils reports to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm event. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. RZ-04-004, PP -04.007, CUP -04-008 Soutliwoods.RLPP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 8 8. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that are removed. 9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 10. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 11. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. STANDARDS FOR CONDMONAL USES The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3): A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance; Staff finds that the subject property, as depicted, is large enough to accommodate the required parking, open spaces and landscaping required by the ordinance if the Planned Development is approved. The applicant will be required to apply for Certificates of Zoning Compliance for the proposed L -O development and assisted living facility. The applicant has not submitted detailed information (aside from the subdivision plan) on the proposed L -O development. Required parking for the L -O development will be determined when the CZC's are submitted and will be based on the proposed L -O uses and the square footage of the proposed buildings. Ordinance requires one parking space per 400 s.f for professional offices and one space per 200 s.f for medical offices. The proposed assisted living center meets all parking requirements. The applicant has applied for a reduction in the minimum lot size for L -O lots, for a reduction of the frontage requirements, and for shared drive access for two of the proposed L -O lots. The applicant will provide 10% open space and construct a portion of the Regional Pathway along Ten Mile Creek as their required amenities for the Planned Development. B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; RZ04-004, PP -04.007, CUP -04.008 Soulhwoods.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 9 The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Medium Density Residential. Staff finds that application meets the Comprehensive Plan goals of providing a variety of housing types through the proposed construction of the Alzheimer's center and assisted living center; the construction of the Regional Pathway meets the goal of increasing recreational facilities in Meridian. See items A and C under Annexation and Zoning Analysis. C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the some area; Staff finds the design concept to be compatible with the intended character of the area. See item E under Annexation and Zoning Analysis, D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the surrounding property. However, the Commission and Council should consider any testimony given at the public hearings before making this finding. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fine protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item G. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and wig not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item H. G. That the proposed use wig not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of trafric, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item I. H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be RZ-04004, PP44-007, CUP -04-008 3oulhwoob.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 10 so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item J L That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item K. SPECUL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Can you think of any? I can't really think of any at the moment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The building and site improvements shall be constructed per the approved plans with all modifications required by this report. 2. All conditions of the accompanying Preliminary Plat application shall also be considered conditions of the CUP. 3. This conditional use permit shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 11- 17-4.B. 4. All parking stalls shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1 I -13. All drive aisles adjacent to parking shall be at least 25 feet wide. 5. Applicant must receive written approval from Meridian's Police Chief on the site plan for the Alzheimer's center. The plan will include fencing for the Alzheimer's center per the recommendation of the Police Chief. 6. All parking and drive aisles shall be paved for all uses, in compliance with the submitted plans. Handicap parking spaces shall be signed and striped in compliance with Federal accessibility guidelines. 7. All exterior lighting, whether attached to the building or located within the parking lot, shall be down -shielded or otherwise altered so that the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties or right-of-way. All parking lot lighting shall be in accordance with Ordinance 11- 13-4C. 8. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in this report and Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. All signage shall require separate sign RZf0"04, PP -04-007, CUP-04-ooS S0U*W00&.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 11 pertnit(s). 9. All construction and site improvements shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the adopted building and fire codes. 10. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with. Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 11. Certificate of Occupancy: All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 12. Revised Plans: Staff recommends that the plans be modified in compliance with this report and any additional conditions from the Commission and that the applicant submit 10 copies of all revised plans at least 10 days prior to the next hearing on this application. AGENCY COMMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 2. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. RZA4-004, PP4)4-007, CUP -04-008 Sou"ookRZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 12 3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 4. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal & external roadways. 5. Operational Ere hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 8. Commercial and office occupancies will require a Ere -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 300' apart. 9. The 14 commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2397 responses in the year 2003. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 10. The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities. 11. Maintain a separation of 5' fitom the building to the dumpster enclosure. 12. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex (Comment refers to both the L -O development and the assisted living center.) 13. Coordinate with Meridian's Fire Department on where to paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 14. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface. 15. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. RZA -004, PP -04007, CUP -04-008 SOu0ewoo&.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 13 POLICE DEPARTMENT The proposed development and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance opportunities of the public areas. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to discuss features that increase visibility, including but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas, front porches, and adequate nighttime lighting. The site plan and/or landscaping plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. 2. To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a stub street to the property to the south. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised plat/site plan to reflect this requirement. 3. The proposed landscaping creates a hiding spot near the Alzheimer's Center. With the final plat or Certificate of Zoning Compliance application, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that affords greater visibility of the area from public areas such as a street or parking lot. 4. The Alzheimer's Center will create residences that will be isolated from their surrounding neighbors. Such areas have an increased crime potential. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall work with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to revise the plat/site plan such that the houses/dwelling units in the general area are oriented toward one another and encourage interaction between more neighbors. The plattsite plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. (This comment refers to Alzheimer's Unit only.) 5. Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates the following: the proposed multi -family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. hi addition, any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed three feet in height if solid fencing is used. SANITARY SERVICES 1. Overhead Clearance: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has a minimum of 13 ft. clearance for service vehicle height, including power and telecommunication lines. This requirement increases to 22 ft. clearance at container service locations. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 2. Waste enclosure access: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has drive -on capability for 6 and 8 cubic yard. Containers. Allow a minimum of 60 ft. frontal clearance for such containers. (Comment refers to Block 1 only) RZ-04.004, PP -04007, CUP44.008 Soudiwoods.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/hUyor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 14 3. Waste enclosure locations: There is a concern that the enclosures are not located to minimize service vehicle backing -up requirements. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up is required. 98% of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing -up. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to issuance of the certificate ofzoning compliance. (Comment refers to Block 1 only) 4. Enclosure Numbers and or capacity: There is a concern that you have not provided enough enclosures to meet waste generation points and volumes that may be generated by the proposed development. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) Turning Radius: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has a minimum of 50 ft. turning radius. (Comment refers to Block 1 only) 6. Waste enclosure Pad: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has a concrete pad inside of all enclosures. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 7. Waste enclosure aprons: Prior to issuance of a certificate ofzoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has an 8 ft. concrete apron in front of all waste enclosures greater than 6 and 8 cubic yards.(Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 8. Waste enclosure gate locks: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has gate locks for both open and closed positions. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 9. Waste enclosure dimensions: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has a minimum of 10 ft. clearance inside of the enclosure gates with the gates in the open position. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 10. Waste enclosure bumpers or stops: Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall provide a site plan that has bumpers or stops inside of the enclosure to prevent the container from damaging enclosure walls and gates. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) 11. Waste enclosure user access: When possible, design the enclosure with an easy pedestrian access point other than the front gates. This will insure less mess in the enclosure as well as reduce gate damage. (Comment refers to both Block 1 and Block 2) RZf04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04008 Southwoo&.RZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council April 29, 2004 (Hearing Date) Page 15 12. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review ofyour proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. (Comment refers to Block 1 only) PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City ofMeridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. 2. Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. Staff recommends approval of this application with the aforementioned conditions of approval. Staff feels that the proposed L -O zoning is an appropriate use in this location on a major arterial road and that the proposed assisted living and Alzheimer's center will be an asset to the City of Meridian. RZ-04-004, PP -04-007, CUP -04-0O9 SWthwoo&RZ.PP.CUP John S. Franden, President Ada County Highway District 3775 N uave t. vvynKoop tst vice rresiaent Garden City ID 83714-6499 Susan S. Eastlake, 2nd Vice President Phone (208) 387-6100 Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner FAX (208) 387-6391 Dave Bivens, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.1d.us April 2, 2004 RECEIVED To: Calderwood Commuity, LLC 913 West River Street, Suite 300 City of Meridian Boise, Idaho 83702 Citv Clerk Office Subject: Southwoods Subdivision/MPP04-007/MRZ04-004/MCUP04-008 15 -lot commecial subdivision 2090 South Meridian Road On March 23, 2004, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and street improvements, which are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6177. Sincerel , Andrea N. Tuning Principal Development Analy Right-of-way & Development Services Planning Division CC: Plannin & p .,�l�elopment project file If ons r Ion Services Drainage Utilities Treasure Valley Engineers 5680 East Franklin Road Suite 220 Nampa, Idaho 83687 Ada County Highway District & Development Department Planning Review Division This application does not require Commission action and is approved at the staff level on Tuesday March 23, 2004. Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on Friday March 19, 2004. Please refer to the attachment for appeal guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208 -387 -6177 -phone, 208 -387 -6393 -fax, atuningna.achd. ada. id. us File Numbers: Southwoods Subdivision / MPP04-0071 MRZ04-0041 MCUP04-008 Site address: 2090 South Meridian Road Owner/Applicant: Calderwood Community, LLC 913 West River Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 Representative: Treasure Valley Engineers 5680 East Franklin Road, Suite 220 Nampa, Idaho 83687 Application Information: The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting rezone, conditional use and preliminary plat approval to construct a 15 -lot commercial subdivision on 9.47 -acres. The site is currently zoned R-4 and is proposed to be rezoned to R-8 and L -O. The site is located on the southeast corner of State Highway 69 and Calderwood Drive. Acreage: 9.47 -acres Current Zoning: R-4 Proposed Zoning: R-8 and L -O Buildable Lots: 15 -lots Common Lots: 1 -lot Vicinity Map A. Findings of Fact 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 360 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. 2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application. 4. Site Information: The site currently has one existing single-family dwelling. 5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: a. North: 1.8 -acre site with single-family dwelling and the proposed Southern Springs Subdivision b. South: 4.74 -acre site with single-family dwelling c. East: Meridian Greens Subdivision d. West: Elk Run Subdivision 6. Impacted Roadways State Highway 69 Frontage: 390 -feet Functional Street Classification: Principal Arterial Traffic count: South of Overland Road was 21,966 on 10-22-02 Level of Service: Better than C Speed limit: 55 MPH Calderwood Drive Frontage: 665 -feet Functional Street Classification: Collector Traffic count: East of Highway 69 was 800 on 10-29-02 Level of Service: Better than C Speed limit: 20 MPH 7. Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site Calderwood Drive is currently improved with 30 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Calderwood Drive is improved with a 37 -foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk to the east of the site. State Highway 69 is currently improved with five traffic lanes with NO curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. 8. Existing Right -of -Way Calderwood Drive currently has a total of 126 -feet of right-of-way (60 -feet from centerline). State Highway 69 currently has a total of 50 to 60 -feet of right-of-way (30 -feet from centerline). 9. Existing Access to the Site The site currently has an existing driveway that intersects State Highway 69 approximately 140 -feet south of Calderwood Drive. 10. Site History The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site. 11. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program The Overland Road/State Highway 69 intersection is programmed in the District's Five Year Work Program and Capital Improvements Plan to be reconstructed in the year 2007. The intersection will be reconstructed with 7 -lanes at each approach. This project is a collaborative project with the Idaho Transportation Department. B. Findings for Consideration Calderwood Drive - Collector District policy requires 70 -feet of right-of-way on collector roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of- way width allows for the construction of a 3 -lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide detached sidewalks and bike lanes. District policy 72-F1 B requires collector roadways to be constructed as a 46 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot detached (or 7 -foot attached) concrete sidewalk within 70 -feet of right- of-way with parking prohibited on both sides. District policy 72-F1A, 7202.3.2 and 7202.3.5, requires that residential collectors be constructed as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks with no front -on housing. The access restrictions for these street segments should be stated on the final plat. Unless otherwise noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage Program with District staff. Modification of Policy to Allow Calderwood to be constructed as a 36 -foot street section Calderwood Drive is classified as a collector roadway. Typically the District requires a standard collector roadway to be constructed as 46 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk within 70 -feet of right-of-way. Calderwood Drive currently carries approximately 800 vehicle trips per day. This is one of the last parcels in the area that will add vehicle trips to Calderwood Drive. Due to the fact that the traffic volumes on Calderwood Drive are not anticipated to exceed 3,000 vehicle trips per day, staff recommends that the applicant construct Calderwood Drive as one half of a 36 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. By constructing Calderwood Drive as a 36 -foot street section, the District can stripe Calderwood Drive to provide two 11 -foot travel lanes with bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. Parking will be restricted on Calderwood Drive. The applicant should install signs that restrict parking on Calderwood Drive. 2. Roadway Offsets District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 150 -feet from a residential collector roadway (measured centerline to centerline). The applicant is proposing to construct a local commercial roadway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 340 -feet east of State Highway 69. This roadway location meets District policy and should be approved with this application. 3. Street Sections District policy 7202.8 and 72-F1 B, requires roadways abutting commercial developments to be constructed as a 40 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 54 -feet of right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to construct the local commercial roadway as a 40 -foot street section as a 40 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks within 54 -feet of right-of- way. The proposed street section meets District policy and should be approved with this application. 4. Stub Streets District policy 7203.5.1 states that the street design in a proposed development shall cause no undue hardship to adjoining property. An adequate and convenient access to adjoining property for use in future development may be required. if a street ends at the development boundary, it shall meet the requirements of sub section 7205, "non -continuous streets." District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra -neighborhood circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements described in Section 7204.5, 7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150 -feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". In addition, a stub street must meet the following conditions: 1. A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain surface water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is installed. 2. The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will remain free of obstructions. The applicant is proposing to construct the commercial roadway to stub to the south property line approximately 350 -feet east of State Highway 69. This stub street will provide access to the 4.74 - acre parcel that is located directly to the south. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed stub street location. Rather than constructing a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway, the applicant is proposing to grant the District a temporary easement within the driveway that accesses the proposed commercial street. The applicant should submit a description of the easement to the ACHD Plan Review Division for review and final approval. The applicant should install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 5. Driveways District policy 72-F5, requires driveways located on collector or arterial roadways with a speed limit of 20 to align or offset a minimum of 105 -feet from any existing or proposed driveway. District policy 7207.9.3 restricts commercial driveways with daily traffic volumes over 1,000 vehicles to a maximum width of 35 -feet. Most commercial driveways will be constructed as curb -cut type facilities if located on local streets. Curb return type driveways with 15 -foot radii will be required for driveways accessing collector and arterial roadways. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 13 The applicant is proposing to construct a 20 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 210 -feet east of State Highway 69 and 105 -feet west of the proposed commercial street. This driveway location and width meets District policy and should be approved with this application. The applicant should construct the driveway with a 15 -foot curb radius (minimum). The applicant is proposing to construct a 30 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 235 -feet east of the proposed commercial street. This driveway location and width meets District policy and should be approved with this application. The applicant should construct the driveway with a 15 -foot curb radius (minimum). The applicant is proposing to construct a 25 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects the proposed commercial street approximately 250 -feet south of Calderwood Drive. This driveway location and width meets District policy and should be approved with this application. The applicant should construct the driveway with a 15 -foot curb radius (minimum). 6. State Highway 69 Meridian Road (SH 69) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. The application should contact ITD to determine what improvements and access points will be required on Meridian Road (SH 69). Other Access Calderwood Drive is classified as a collector roadway. Access to collector roadways is restricted. Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Calderwood Drive is prohibited. Notes of the access restrictions should be noted on the final plat. C. Site Specific Conditions of Approval Construct Calderwood Drive as one half of a 36 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 2. Construct a local commercial roadway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 340 -feet east of State Highway 69, as proposed. 3. Construct the local commercial roadway as a 40 -foot street section as a 40 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks within 54 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Construct the commercial roadway to stub to the south property line approximately 350 -feet east of State Highway 69, as proposed. Rather than constructing a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway, grant the District a temporary easement within the driveway that accesses the proposed commercial street. Submit a description of the easement to the ACHD Plan Review Division for review and final approval. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, 'THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 5. Construct a 20 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 210 -feet east of State Highway 69 and 105 -feet west of the proposed commercial street, as proposed. Construct the driveway with a 15 -foot curb radius (minimum). 5 6. Construct a 30 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Calderwood Drive approximately 235 -feet east of the proposed commercial street, as proposed. Construct the driveway with a 15 -foot curb radius (minimum). 7. Construct a 25 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects the proposed commercial street approximately 250 -feet south of Calderwood Drive, as proposed. Construct the driveway with a 15- - foot curb radius (minimum). 8. Comply with requirements of ITD for State Highway 69 frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334-8340. 9. Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Calderwood Drive is prohibited. Notes of the access restrictions shall be noted on the final plat. 10. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. D. Standard Conditions of Approval Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #198, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. E. Conclusions of Law The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Appeal Guidelines Request for Appeal of Staff Decision Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. E7 e C IU 00c a V, u c c i I as NVKII�IEIw a b O / f m "obb zy 0 3 a vin Oma m ''cza ba a�e ua oma cn� oms bow 0 Z 90PNWOom 9mU mm 9BNeR/D8Y wnL. NG.EY DATE DESCRIPTION CALDERWOOD COMMUNITY, LLCZ I E9�o y rsxueUe) .r sow 9� 9�p'r����r���yyy99I9��999pppqqq munow mP++ � erc IUY�QUM1IIW4I PYBLDBJUtiY PIdT I IUUA��'II''iW�'"'/1 loon F � M(2TmO0fY a9Nvmortlgp6yhavu v�wa maa _ 1.911 J'D. I.9i PI �I59�-09 B�-U9 ....n�.v.vwv®N...nem " 18 04 03:15p Robert L. Hess Ham j ?n`I �i2 .•� 'n (208] 375-9417 p.2 _ _ �-..-vu•-.o = _ Vii_-_ i� y_._;; II SPRING CREEK DEVELDPMENT FI© R.6.., L. N— A A Senlvr Llvinp CvmmenNy IIY'.jlll svulh Marfdlan ® P,n,, ,el nw m d 7U Mvddlvn. ID .�•-vss (206) 838-5745 f�a ;g r 6 L I r. I R yl nl Ham j ?n`I �i2 .•� 'n (208] 375-9417 p.2 _ _ �-..-vu•-.o = _ Vii_-_ i� y_._;; II SPRING CREEK DEVELDPMENT FI© R.6.., L. N— A A Senlvr Llvinp CvmmenNy IIY'.jlll svulh Marfdlan ® P,n,, ,el nw m d 7U Mvddlvn. ID .�•-vss (206) 838-5745 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree CITY OF ik3ri tl IDAHO LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 - Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 - Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird a• Trse,�sua� V.+>u sixes PLANNING & ZONING 90d (208) 884-5533 •Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: April 8, 2004 Transmittal Date: March 4, 2004 Hearing Date: April 15, 2004 File No.: CUP 04-008 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L -O zone for Southwoods Subdivision By: Calderwood Community, LLC Location of Property or Project: 2090 South Meridian Road David Zaremba, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) David Moe, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FPJ Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (No VAR, VAC) Michael Rohm, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keith Borup, PIZ (No VAR, VAC, FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Bill Nary, C/C Charlie Rountree, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Shaun Wardle, CIC Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney Your Concise City FAqineer Planner Parks Department Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (Fp/pp only) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/Pponly) Qwest (FP)PP only) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Department (No Fp) Ada County (Annexation only) Ada County Land Records (Fp/Pponly) Meridian Development Corporation Historical Preservation. Commission MAR 1 i 704 City OI'Aleridiari City Clerk Offlee 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE - MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 - (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 - Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 - Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird M. QOf CITY OF (1 IDAHO LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 - Fac 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 - Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: April 8, 2004 Transmittal Date: March 4, 2004 Hearing Date: April 15, 2004 File No.: CUP 04-008 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L -O zone for Southwoods Subdivision By: Location of Property or Project: LLG Meridian Road David Zaremba, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) David Moe, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (No vAR, vAc) Michael Rohm, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Bill Nary, C/C Charlie Rountree, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Shaun Wardle, C/C er Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department Fire Department Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PPONy) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP onry) Qwest (FP)PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP onry) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP Ada County (Annexation only) "' •y V' Ada County Land Records (FP/PP only) Meridian Development Corporation b j Police Department Historical Preservation Commission City Attorney Your Concise Remarks: City Engineer Intermountain Gas (FP/PPoMy) MSR - RECEIVES C11- irIERIDIAIN K'R t 0 2004 WASTEWATER DEPT. Cite Of Meridian City Clerk Office 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE - MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 - (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 - Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 - Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 16 March, 2004 William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 E CTI' MAR 2 5 201 It'a'erlLli;..:; y Clerk 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 RE: RZ 04-004 & CUP 04-008 Southwoods Subdivision Dear Will: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application for Rezone for Southwoods Subdivision. For the Conditional Use Permit Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change Application be filed for review prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Ten Mile Drain courses along the east side of this property. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Thank you, Bill Henson Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg C: Water Superintendent Rider 5 File - Office/Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 April 18, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision -71 We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. • The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. • We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. • The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood, Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. • Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood. Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. Sincerely, April 18, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision REcE.�`D APR 2 0 7004 CITY I' OF�ID sir We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. ■ The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. ■ We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. ■ The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. • Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. ■ As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. ■ Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. • As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. April 21, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Southwoods Subdivision i j `i` ; Cy'itR Di'A' Dear Commission Members: As homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision, we wish to express our concerns pertaining to the proposed Southwoods Subdivision development at Meridian Road and Calderwood. First of all, we completely agree with all of the points addressed in the attached letter and have signed our names to it. We have no objection to the LO plans along Meridian Road, which appear to be well addressed and nicely planned. We do, however, have enormous concern over the assisted living and Alzheimer facility plans! Developments of that type of density, and the additional traffic and safety issues which will be created because of It, have no place at that location. We urge you to consider the additional safety and traffic problems which this proposed development Is bound to create. We live on the comer of Saint Kitts and SE 3fd Way, which also intersects with Calderwood. Recently, just with residential development in our own area, as well as the new high school, our traffic has increased considerably, and every day there are numerous vehicles who use Calderwood from Meridian Rd. to "cut" the Ovedand/Meridian Rd. stoplight, and also those who "cut" from Overland down SE 3`d Way to Calderwood. The additional traffic created has caused several near accident "close calls° of which we have personally seen. Also, at peak traffic times it is already very dangerous attempting to enter or exit Meridian Road. The Meddian/Calderwood intersection currently carries traffic at 45 mph speed limit and homeowners are trying to exit or enter toward Elk Run and Bear Creek to the Wast, as well as to our Meridian Greens area and Running Brook to the East. High density development would only make this situation much worse with more and more vehicles coming through our existing subdivision. Our streets are not designed for this! Further, we wish to bring up a point that the developers originally stated. When attending the meeting with them last November, it was our understanding their plan was to have a nice development of townhomes geared toward senior living (55 and over). We believed at that time they would pursue a development of that type and had no objection to that. Nothing was mentioned about a higher density, nor an Alzheimer's Center. Now at this point in time, they have changed to something that is more of a commercial enterprise with a density and design not at all what we originally believed. It is our opinion that a nicely completed 55 years and over homeowner development, with appropriate CCRs, would be an asset. However, the developers' current plan is surely a detriment to the existing neighborhood and would seem to benefit no one other than the developer. The additional points addressed in the attached letter are very valid. We do not want to see our property values decline, nor do we want to see the safety of our neighborhood compromised. The increased density and traffic for the proposed enterprise is simply not acceptable. The values and designs of any development need to be compatible with the surrounding subdivisions. We urge you to decline the developers' request, as presented, for the assisted living and Alzheimers facility. While we are not opposed to properly developing the area in a manner consistent and compatible with the properly values and plans of the adjoining existing subdivisions, we urge you to retain the R-4 zoning, and we ask the developer to present a plan that would enhance the acreage and protect our current values — not to proceed with one that is detrimental to existing property owners and totally unsuitable for the location. Tha nk you. Witt 478 East Saint Kitts Dr. Meridian, ID 83642 kZg+t a'w e" r- Al T. Wittmuss April 18. 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission N'Icridinn City Hall >> East Idaho Ave. Mcridiun, Idaho 8.67' Commission Members: Suhjccu Southwood Subdivision AV %% 1s11 t0 voice our GUnCGIIts about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as dcsci het in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the properly now referred to as southwuod Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density or R -I5. The ('ity of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep [Foe R-4 density, as that is the density most oh the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. We do not object to the 1,-0 (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Ruud. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy hiphway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheittler's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises. eonoplctc with many tvpes of' support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, �unit()j s, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to uaintain that this der=.rcc of activity would not impact the quality of life of' the existing ncieloh�uhuod. Adverse impacts would include trarFic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Iraftic has already become a problem with the neve high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists aheady detour through Calderwood when traffic hacks up in rush 110111. Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the titture use of the ^.Izhcimcr's Lind assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as conunerciat, which these units certainly are, it would be simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different thim's to different people. It can include _younger disadvantaged families as well as the Nerdy, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change. each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity ol'a husy hiohwm F�egardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdi\ ision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighhors whose property borders the Subdivision. As previousIN stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood ,Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 5i - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. [t is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed. we have no doubt about that_ but if' Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and shrxtld consider tie desires of its citizens. The collective values ol, existing! taxpayers should take priority over the sell'interest o'f commercial developers. Sincerely, April 22, 2004. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Meridian ID 83642 Commission Members: � EWE U f Y Subject: Rezone request by Calderwood Community, LLC for Southwoods Subdivision We request that you recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request. In support of this request, we provide the following: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council originally zoned the area in question R-4. The new proposal is requesting a change to R-15, which we, as current homeowners, feel is a density too high to be compatible with the adjacent R-4 zoning. The proposed higher density would generate more traffic through the Meridian Greens Subdivision. Traffic on Calderwood has increased in the past few years due to drivers cutting through Meridian Greens to avoid rush hour traffic. Changing the R4 zoning to R-15 zoning would triple or quadruple the traffic, putting the lives of the young children who live in Meridian Greens at risk. There is a school bus stop at Calderwood and S.E. 3`d; the additional traffic would put those lives at risk (the cut through traffic does not stop at the stop sign now as it is). Trying to exit from Calderwood onto Meridian Road has become hazardous with the current traffic; this hazard would triple or quadruple if the land is changed to R-15. The proposed plan for the assisted living and Alzheimer's facility is not acceptable. This is a commercial proposal, and the land is zoned for residential. This will generate residence, guests, employees and emergency traffic through the Meridian Greens subdivision. Homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision purchased here due to the property values, low crime rates and family values. We feel the proposed development is welcoming a change in all the reasons we purchased here. This assisted living facility and the Alzheimer's facility is being proposed by the Ten Mile Creek which poses safety concerns for those living in the center. • Regarding the request to rezone the land adjacent to Meridian Road to L -O, we have no problem with this assuming that the developer is willing to place a suitable buffer surrounding the property. In conclusion, as current homeowners, we request that you recommend denial of this request to the Meridian City Council. We feel the existing R-4 zoning should remain, as the proposed rezoning request and proposed use are incompatible with the surrounding zoning and residential use. Respectfully Submitted, Craig & byn Slocum 510 E. int Kitts, Drive MeridAn ID 83642 April 18, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall "3 Fast Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision E , IVE I 71, `1 1 We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. • The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. • We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. • The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including muses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to ity would not impact the quality of life of the existing maintain that this degree of activ neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. • Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to elderly. anf dhe difference can mean substantial. differencesrin he true population density. • As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. • Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy For neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. • As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. it is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. April 18, 2004Jl Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall ui I U, i'vi tz„�]aiy; 33 Fast Idaho Ave. 0!7 Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. • The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. • We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. • The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. • Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living” can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. ■ Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. ■ As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. it is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. April 18, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision Lir" i'viL--i-0 J, We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. ■ The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. ■ We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. ■ The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. ■ Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. ■ As stated -in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. Sincerely, Lha./ Q 1)14(Lu/'S 20 C�-S0) 8-O) 83 April 21,2004 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Southwood Subdivision Dear Commission Members: F yV'- ivliCllli!1 17'3 I wish to voice my concern over the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing that is dated April 5, 2004. I live at 1782 S. Marsh Wood Place and believe these changes would directly affect not only the neighborhoods nearby but also create traffic concerns on Calderwood and Meridian Roads. There already is increased traffic with MoutainView High School nearby. The property currently referred to as Southwood Subdivision is listed as having an R-4 density. The hearing is proposing a change to a density of R-15. According to the City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, density can only be changed one step. I would like tc believe that you would abide by your own rules. As a homeowner in Meridian, I have been saddened to see the direction the growth has taken in our city. At times, I feel there is very little planning involved. I recently was in Parker, Colorado, a booming new suburb to Denver. The planning and zoning is amazing. The first impression you get when you come into their community is one that ties beauty and family living together. (similar to how Eagle has developed) --something I think we have lost in the town of Meridian since I arrived in 1996. I would like to see the commission keep the R-4 density. I would like to see the commission adhere to the plan that was originally developed. In a previous city meeting concerning the property to the north (now zoned commercial)—concemed neighborhood members were told that the Southwood Subdivision area would never be allowed to be anything except R-4. Personally, I do not object to the L -O (light office) request adjacent to Meridian Road, but would prefer that appropriate buffers and landscaping be put into place. I am impressed with the way the "light office" property along Eagle road has been developed. I think it has been done well, and doesn't seem to interfere with the housing developments behind them. However, the proposed plans for the Altzheimer's facility and assisted living units concern me for a number of reasons. First, they are not residential property but commercial. How can a commercial property be placed on property designated as residential? In the proposed plans there are few parking places designated for these facilities. I would imagine both would have a large number of support staff and personnel who would need to park in the area, along with family and friends who would be visiting loved ones. Where would they be parking?. I also have concerns on the type of residents that would be using such facilities. I recently was in Chicago and gave a ride home to a woman who lived at an assisted living facility. She was currently in the process of moving out because of the number of young people (with problems) who were allowed to move in. There was much drug use and alcohol abuse. I think many times we think of assisted living facilities as being only for the elderly. I think in these difficult economic times, we find younger disadvantaged people who might qualify to live in such a facility—and therefore the facility might become something other than "assisted living". It also seems possible that if management were to change at such properties, they might easily be converted to rental units. In a letter written by others in our neighborhood, I just want to state again—The very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, I appeal to the commission to represent our neighborhoods to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed. I knew when I moved here that it would at some point in time, but I "believed" it would be R-4. If Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self- interest of commercial developers. Sincerely, Julianne Bokenkamp Homeowner 1782 S. Marsh Wood Place Meridian, ID 83642 (208)887-4892 April 18, 2004 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject: Southwood Subdivision ^, r L /... ., T'! C i l I VF IVB E R IDD 3.1-`,i'ti We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004. The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City- of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. • Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. • As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers. April It; 2004 Meridian Plannin" & zoning Commission Meridian C av Hall t, i;ast Idaho Ave Moiidi,m IdahoU6/2 6/2 Commission Members- �uhjcct SUlltllWOUd ,SUbdivision RECEIVE - APP 2 06 2004 y O(Meridiav:. a Clerk Ogee No,3646 P. 1 FBCF,Iv,ED APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF M EMIAN 1pLANNING & ZONING We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as Jescribed in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2604 'flue Planning & Zoning Commission originally coned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-1 density. The new proposal requests a change w a density of R IS 1 he City of Meridian l uturc Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed 011e step We sn•ongly encourage Lhe commission to abide by its uwn rules. Our clr.sirc would bo to Icoclp the R-4 density, as That is the density most of rhe homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon We do not ohjecl Io the I. -O (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home alomg such a busy highway However, even in this case, there should a sortable huflcr area around the poi metct of llro properry f loo proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable 1 it:st of all LlIeSe lit6lities arc N01 residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many Lypes of Support staff, including nurses, aures, doctors, therapists, innitors, cooks and nmintemince. alung with friends and family Jr would be difficult to maintain Ilua this degree of activity would notimpact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and Iigltring. Also, size is a lila.)of concern frallic has ahcady become a problem with the new }sigh school, and will only fret worso with the development already approved for the. property bordering+, Meridian Road turd Overland Motorists already detour through Calderwood when nalTic backs t.qr in rush hour • Altother mayor conccru with ltho proposed development is that of the future use of the Althcimcr's and assisted living units Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property, as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be, a simple step to Wimvcrl these units to rental prOporiy the term "assisted living" can mean difterent rhings to different people It can include ,younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density APR 26 '04 13:46 PAGE.01 No•3646 P, 2 As staled in the paragraph dealing with the proposed T.ighL Oifcc chant=e. cath rlifl'erem type oI litciliry should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and herween nther bacilitics, Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the )()-Milo Creek drainage and proximity of a nosy Ili phwaiv R(:PFdless of Elie type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwoud Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dost abatcrltcttt, and also request that tlrc work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to he reasonable courtcsv fisc neighhors whose property borders the Subdivision As previously stated. the vc;ry hest zoning ror the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4 I he next best would be a gated community for residents agi:d j5 years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that pruposccl by Rob Pere -r. His proposal disre.,ards the feelings and properly vahres of surroundin4g, property owners It is caticulated in a way to maximize his economic ruturn at Phe expense. o others Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represont us u, the Mayor and (::it) Council in a fair and equitable way 1-hc Property will be developed, we have no douht About dial, but if' Mcridinn is to remain a deso;ible placx: to live. de%oloPmenl Should hr orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of exisnml taxpayers should take priority over the sell-intcrest of commercial de.volopm, Sincerely APR 26 '04 13:46 PAGE. RP ii i ca Ic.I II -IJI YI April 18, 2004' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members' Subject' Southwoud Subdivision No,3646 P. 3 APR 2 6 2604 APR 2 6 2004 i ty Of i'&rihi€ i- CITY OF M]ERMIAN City Cle-k Of icr PLANNING & ZONING We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004, The Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15 The City of Meridian future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon We do not object to the 1.-0 (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. it is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer arca arotutd the perimeter of the property The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, ,janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and larnily. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not. impact the quality of life of the existing neighborbood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. 'traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which those units certainly are, it would he a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term "assisted living" can mean different things to dif'f'erent people It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial diflerences in the true population density RPR 26 '04 13:4? Pfaf,F_ M No,H46 P 4 As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of the 10 -Mile Creek dreinage and proximity of a busy highway. Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4 The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding properly owners It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about dial, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers Sincerely, 6--l``-- h4 RPR 26 '04 13:47 PQrW Re No -3646 P, 5 April 18, 2004 _1 'i t "'"" :'.' CFEIVED Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissionAPR 6 2fI''I APR 2 6 2004 Meridian City Rall CITY OF ME' "6,N 33 East Idaho Ave. ;i ti Of Mer'adiaa; 1 I1-ke NG&ZONING Meridian, Idaho 83672 J a clerk Of'Sce Commission Members- Subject- Southwood Subdivision We wish to voice our concerns about the proposed development of Southwood Subdivision as described in the notice of hearing dated April 5, 2004, fhe Planning & Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15 The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map, states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. We do not object to the L -O (Light Office) request fbr the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alrheimces facility is unacceptable First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they arc commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family, It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major, concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour Another major concern with the. proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would he a simple step to convert these units to rental property, The term "assisted living" can mean different things to different people It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. RPR 26 '04 13:47 PAGE. PF No•3646 P. 6 ■ As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable butler zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patients should be considered because of - the 10 -Mile Greek drainage and proximity of a busy highway ■ Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to he reasonable cuurtesv for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would he that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. Tho property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of ics citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self interest of commercial developers RPR 26 '04 1348 PAGE . 06 .1 . - .. V V T 1 1- U V I III April 18, 2004_ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83672 Commission Members: Subject; Southwood Subdivision t.:-, 2 6 200", lar Nl rid No -3646 P. 7 RB°E1V:E.D APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF 11ZEItI U P.AnmM�a & zoxli„ We wish to voice our concernsabout the proposed development of Southwood Subdivis described in the notice of hearing ion as dated April 5, 2004.. The Planning &,Zoning Commission originally zoned the property now referred to as Southwood Subdivision as R-4 density. The new proposal requests a change to a density of R-15. The City of Meridian Future Land Use Map,states that a density can only be changed one step. We strongly encourage the 'commission to abide by its own rules. Our desire would be to keep the R-4 density, as that is the density most of the homeowners based their decision to purchase their homes upon. We do not object to the L-0 (Light Office) request for the property adjacent to Meridian Road. It is highly unlikely anyone would want to build a home along such a busy highway. However, even in this case, there should a suitable buffer area around the perimeter of the property. The proposed plan for assisted living units and an Alzheimer's facility is unacceptable. First of all these facilities are NOT residential property; they are commercial enterprises, complete with many types of support staff, including nurses, aides, doctors, therapists, janitors, cooks and maintenance, along with friends and family. It would be difficult to maintain that this degree of activity would not impact the quality of life of the existing neighborhood. Adverse impacts would include traffic, noise and lighting. Also, size is a major concern. Traffic has already become a problem with the new high school, and will only get worse with the development already approved for the property bordering Meridian Road and Overland. Motorists already detour through Calderwood when traffic backs up in rush hour. Another major concern with the proposed development is that of the future use of the Alzheimer's and assisted living units. Once a precedent has been establishing zoning the property as commercial, which these units certainly are, it would be a simple step to convert these units to rental property. The term ,assisted living,. can mean different things to different people. It can include younger disadvantaged families as well as the elderly, and the difference can mean substantial differences in the true population density. RPR 26 '04 13:48 PREF. 71? - v " I l - V I I IVI NO.3646 P. 8 As stated in the paragraph dealing with the proposed Light Office change, each different type of facility should have suitable buffer zones between adjacent homes and between other facilities. Also, the safety of Alzheimer patiems should be considered because of the l 0 -Mile Creek drainage and proximity of a busy highway. • Regardless of the type of development that is ultimately approved for Southwood Subdivision, we request strict rules for noise and dust abatement, and also request that the work site be maintained in an orderly fashion. This seems to be reasonable courtesy for neighbors whose property borders the Subdivision. As previously stated, the very best zoning for the proposed Southwood Subdivision continues to be R-4. The next best would be a gated community for residents aged 55 - years and older. The worst possible use of the property would be that proposed by Rob Perez. His proposal disregards the feelings and property values of surrounding property owners. It is calculated in a way to maximize his economic return at the expense of others. Therefore, we appeal to the commission to represent us to the Mayor and City Council in a fair and equitable way. The property will be developed, we have no doubt about that, but if Meridian is to remain a desirable place to live, development should be orderly and should consider the desires of its"'citizens. The collective values of existing taxpayers should take priority over the self-interest of commercial developers.. not, W, 721 RPR 26 '04 1348 PAGE. W MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 29, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Update on Mussell Comer. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE April 29, 2004 ITEM # 15 PROJECT NUMBER CUP 04-008 PROJECT NAME Southwoods Subdivision �Ob TV W CQlzCl&J cLAC� MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Calderwood Community, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L-0 zones for Southwoods Subdivision - 2090 South Meridian Road - Renoticed to April 29, 2004 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.