Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 3, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 2 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: That was somebody who was testifying. Borup: Yeah. It wasn't from the Commission. Zaremba: Okay. We will, then, identify that as unidentified audience member. I just know it wasn't me. Okay. And that's the only comment I have on the minutes. Anybody else have any comment on the minutes of February 3rd? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: None. Zaremba: I will entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes as amended. Borup: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Item 4: Item 5: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: AZ 05-001 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 156.49 acres to R-8 & L-O zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: PP 05-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 429 building lots and 35 common lots on 155.44 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from February 17, 2005: CUP 05-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 428 residential building lots, one church lot and 35 common lots located in a "mixed-use neighborhood center" designation on the Comprehensive Plan for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and I will, for those of you who don't come to these meetings very often, describe our procedure. The applicants and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together on each of the subjects that we are going to cover tonight, so we will begin with a Melidian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 3 of 89 presentation by our professional staff, who will describe where the project is and what the project is and, then, we will run through any issues that are still remaining that they haven't been able to resolve with the applicant. When they are concluded, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and testify to anything else they think we need to know about the project or to discuss the issues that our staff has raised about that subject. We allow the applicant 15 minutes to do that, including any other professional people they might have brought with them as back up. Following that is the open opportunity for the public to speak and we feel that if you felt it was important enough to come down here this evening and express your opinion, we want to make sure we hear you, so we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone. We will go down the sign-up sheet, but, then, we will also ask if anybody else has anything to say. During the time that you're speaking the applicant will make notes about what you're asking about and have an opportunity afterwards to explain or clarify anything that they can. We ask that you limit your remarks to three minutes. That's partially so with all the items on our agenda we don't end up being here until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning and we find we don't do our best thinking at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, so we want everybody to have our best thinking. So, we do ask that you limit. Also, we know a lot of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the microphone, speak up, we do need to hear you. And our recorder also needs to hear you, so that it gets recorded for the record. And we are going to try something new tonight. If you hear a ding from over in this corner, it means that the recorder is not hearing you or us and we need to correct that to make sure that everything gets recorded. At the conclusion of the public testimony, then, the applicant will have another ten minutes to address any of the issues that have been raised and discuss them and, then, the Commission will discuss and, hopefully, make a recommendation to the City Council whether we feel they should approve or deny the application. We have a handy dandy little light system. If you will keep an eye on that? When it's green you have time to talk. It will, then, flash yellow and that means please conclude within about 15 seconds and, then, the red light will come on, which is the end of your testimony and we will try and stick with that. If somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for a group and there are other people that say, yes, that's our spokesman and the other people are not going to speak and an example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, we do allow that representative of a group more than the three. Ten minutes. Up to ten minutes. If you don't need it, that's fine. And as always, anybody can step up and just say I agree with what Joe said before me and, then, if you need to add a point or two, that makes it go faster, but we know what you mean when you refer to somebody before you. That being the case, let's move forward, then. I will open the Public Hearing -- we, actually, have three related items four, five, and six on our agenda, continued Public Hearing for February 17th, AZ 05-001, PP 05-002, and CUP 05-002. These relate to Bainbridge Subdivision and I will comment that even though this is a continued Public Hearing, when it did come up on our agenda for February 17th, both the applicant and our staff asked for a delay to review some changes and we took no public testimony, so if you're here for those items, you have not missed anything, we are starting fresh tonight. And we will begin with the staff report. Melidian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 4 of 89 Canning: Chairman Zaremba and Commissioners, just a quick update on a couple things. Steve had -- and his wife had their fifth child on Monday and -- a baby boy, Jonathan Bennett and Josh and his wife J .C. had their first and second baby earlier this morning just after midnight. Zaremba: Must be twins. Canning: So -- yeah. Both four pounds. One's in ICU overnight, but, otherwise, doing well. And Craig is sick and in the hospital, but for a bit, but we expect him out soon. So, I have been demoted to an associate planner tonight. I have done rny best to get caught up on all these applications, but if you have questions, please, question me, and I will do my best. All right. This application is south of Chinden, between Black Cat and Ten Mile. Thank you. It's the first major development to go forward in this section. The application actually includes a portion of these two lots as well. I will talk about that a little bit more. But on the other side of the street we have Verona Subdivision and, then, you see part of Lochsa over here. There is nothing on the site right now, except this out parcel that has a residence on it. This is the proposed layout. They have what will function as a residential collector that comes from the half mile on Chinden down to Ten Mile. There is a park centrally located. They are working with the city to dedicate the park at this time. It's, I believe, seven and a quarter acres. And there is a small residential park as well. This actually shows the parks a little better. There is a proposed church site to the north of the property and, then, there is kind of an unidentified parcel at this time that's about nine acres in size and I will go through that in a little bit. The proposal also includes 389 single-family residential lots and that was at the last count. The applicant may have an update on that. There are 22 common lots and the one church lot that I proposed and, then, the one lot to be developed or redeveloped in the future. And those two lots up at the north end are proposed for L-O zoning. The remainder of the property is proposed for R-8 zoning. The density -- gross density is about 2.56 dwelling units per acre. If you take out the church lot and the -- it goes up a bit to 2.67 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the lower portion where the residences are is medium density residential and, then, there is a neighborhood center designation with a mixed-use regional commercial district on it that comes through the top portion of the property. You may have noticed at the beginning of the staff report that Craig explains the reason why that application was tabled, as we did have some concerns that the neighborhood center concept was not being met. We know that it's an issue that we need to go back to and look in the whole north Meridian area and so rather than address it with this application, that the applicant has just decided to remove those land uses and that's why you have the large property to be redeveloped and, then, the -- no development shown over here, is we intend to kind of figure that out later. This proposal allows for that to be decided later. And that's why they redrew and submitted different annexation descriptions. The applicant is requesting a planned development to allow for reduced frontage requirements and, then, block lengths that exceed 1,000 feet. The proposed amenities in exchange for those reduced standards are a 7.5 acre open space park that will potentially be dedicated to the city, the homeowners park, which is 1.37 acres and, then, on those there will be -- well, they haven't specified any tot lots, basketball courts Melidian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 5 of 89 or -- but they may provide a private community center and pool in the area and they just have asked that those be considered at a later time. They do provide, in addition to the park space, they do -- the total open space does equal ten percent, but I want to explain that a little bit, because it probably doesn't look like it from now. The applicant is not required to put street buffers on this residential collector. They have voluntarily done that. We do allow those to count toward the dedicated open space. There is an issue, though, that the annexation boundary does not go to the edge of the proposed landscaping, so we do -- Craig does address as an issue of concem that -- because we don't have control over what happens in the county, we'd like to see that annexation boundary include the landscape buffer, especially if they want it to count toward the open space. And, then, within the subdivision they are proposing a five foot parkway that separates -- they have got an extra wide street section and with that they have added a five foot parkway between the back of curb and the sidewalk and they are asking that that be included as part of their open space. They have calculated the full length of the residential roadways, they have subtracted 20 feet for each lot to account for the driveway. Staff did point that out as an option for this development and I just want to go on record tonight, though, as I'm not -- I'm willing to go with it, because that's what the staff report said, but I do want to look into it, because I'm not sure if we need to only count 50 percent of that area or the full area. But it was originally raised by staff, so I'm willing to go with that decision at this point, but may change my mind on that issue. We need to do some research -- additional research. There is -- a big issue that I think I'll let Bruce concern -- or I think I'll let Bruce address, I'm sorry. Mr. Freckleton. And that's that there is no sanitary sewer system to this area, so it cannot be served at this time, so it does raise the question of whether annexation is appropriate at this time. Staff has suggested that the applicant enter into a development agreement as part of this annexation and the contents of that right now, as proposed, would be -- we have asked the applicant to provide a legal description of the Johnson property that will become a county enclave, so that we can have that description available when we choose to annex the property. And the development agreement will also state that the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension and, then, all future uses -- again referring to the area -- particularly this parcel, that they will be subject to the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time and that all future uses on Lots 2 and 3, Block 15 -- again up here -- shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval from the city and that relates back to the mixed use regional designation from the Comp Plan does require conditional use approval for those items for anything. I'm going to now address some of the special considerations that Craig pointed out in the staff report. The first one I already mentioned, it's that the landscape buffer on Broadbent Avenue is actually not included in the annexation proposal. And, then, the second one I wanted to highlight again was the -- measuring the -- the internal streets and point out the parkway there. One of the things they wanted to do was measure the -- they said all setbacks would be measured from the property line and in the event that that property line may be on the -- that the sidewalk may cross over that property line, Craig just wanted to point -- make special reference to the point that they need 20 feet as measured from the edge of sidewalk to their garage, so that there is room there to park a car and so that it's not hanging over into the sidewalk. The out parcels, the one I already -- the Johnson I already referenced, Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 6 of 89 that we are asking for a legal description of that property. Craig has noted concern that because we are only taking portions of these lots that are up here, we are kind of chipping away at what is -- the remainder will be a county property and so we are creating out parcels in the county and his concern was the development of those properties. Once this becomes city property, any development on those parcels would have to be denied annexation before they could be built on, unless it were a single family home. I mean any other type of permit does require that it come to us first. But homes could be built on that. All right. Moving on. Craig has asked for a micro-path -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Do you mean homes plural or -- Canning: Singular. Zaremba: -- one lot that would be one owner? Canning: Well, there is a couple -- yeah, I think there is three different lots up here that will be created, but-- Zaremba: So, it matches -- one will be three? Canning: Yeah. Not likely, given the value, probably, that was paid for that property, but -- let's see. In lieu of this micro-path Craig has asked for a stub street in this location and he has left a little room, he said if it -- well, I thought he had left a little room. This is a potential school site. The applicant is concerned if it is a school site, he doesn't want to have a stub street there and he would rather have the micro-path there. Similarly, Craig has asked for a stub street to this property and, again, this is a potential charter school site, so the applicant has said in both cases he's in favor of the stub street, if schools aren't going to be in those locations. I'm almost done. Okay. And that was all. The one issue I didn't mention is that the church normally on the light office would be principally a permitted use, but, again, the reasons for requiring the conditional use for that item is because the Comprehensive Plan says anything in the mixed use regional should come before you for a Conditional Use Permit. And with that I think I will turn the microphone over to Bruce Freckleton to address the sewer issues and, then, we will answer any questions. Freckleton: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the situation with the sanitary sewer is this property falls in what we call the North Black Cat Trunk service area and at this point in time our City Council has directed our staff to begin design for the lift station. They have allocated funds for that. However, they have not allocated any funds for the construction of that lift station in our current budget. If they wanted to shift some money, put another project off, that certainly is their prerogative, but at this point in time we do not have funding for construction. So, I just wanted to point that out. And so any approval of this project should be subject to that sewer system being available in that area. So, I'll leave it at that, unless you have any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 7 of 89 Zaremba: I would have a question that's kind of a follow-up to that, I think. If building the sewer is not in the budget now and it may be another year or two before it got into a budget, I'm guessing, and annexation and zoning never expires, but their preliminary plat and any CUP may potentially expire before they can do anything, am I correct in that? Freckleton: Under our current code that's correct. Zaremba: What effect does that have on the applicant? It means they have wasted their effort at the moment? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is provision for time extensions. Right now the code just has -- allows one single time extension. However, the revised code that you all are considering next Thursday does have different provisions for time extensions that could potentially be in effect at the time this needs one and that would be basically -- if you're asking for more than one time extension, we can grant one, but you also can be subject to new -- to new rules and standards that are in place. And, then, my -- I forgot to show you elevations. I'm sorry. They have submitted some proposed elevations for the property and my other associate planner reminded me that I forgot to mention that staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions from Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, yes. Anna, a couple things, did we get any indication from ACHD? I understand they had a hearing last night or the night before. Did they take any exception to this project? Canning: The applicant will have to answer that question. I'm sorry. Moe: Okay. We can do that. Then, one other question I have in regards to the -- to the park. You stated they are negotiating that the city will take over that -- that portion for a park? Canning: Yes. My understanding is that the negotiations have gone quite far, but, again, the applicant can give you a better update on that than -- Moe: My concern is is basically on the Comprehensive Plan map there is parks on both sides of this development and whatnot and in larger form, if I recall, and I know that in the past the city hasn't really wanted to take on such smaller parks to have to take care of maintenance, so I was kind of surprised when I read that in the report, so -- thank you. That's it. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. So, none of -- if we recommend approval, none of this development can even begin until -- none of the lots; correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 8 of 89 Canning: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it be a little premature to try to move this through with the other issues, such as the property to the north, if they can't begin development anyway? Canning: That's why we give you the big bucks. Newton-Huckabay: I forgot my shirt. Canning: Just for the record, the Commissioners get a shirt for their efforts up there. That's about it. And they don't even get a turkey anymore. Zaremba: We are concerned citizens that volunteer our time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question. Bruce, what is the -- what is the time line, then, as far as it going back to Council for approval for dollars to extend the sewer lines? From today until two years from now or where are we at? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, there is ongoing discussions regarding the service area. I wish I had a clear answer for you on that. I really don't. There is studies that are being done and we haven't formulated recommendations and -- we are not quite there yet, so I don't have a good answer for you. Moe: I guess the only other question I was -- what kind of distance are we speaking of connections on this? As in miles or what? Freckleton: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Freckleton: Miles. Moe: Thank you. Borup: My only thought is we were just talking about the sewer and everything; I would be interested in hearing what the applicant has to say. I'm sure that's very much in their interest and they have probably got a lot of information already. Zaremba: We are ready. If the applicant would care to come forward, please? I failed to mention, everybody, when you come to the microphone, if you would, please, begin by stating your name and address. Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I have a small Powerpoint presentation. I will give you a copy for the Clerk for the record. Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. I want to just give you a brief overview of the Bainbridge project, as Anna has already done. Go to the next slide, Melidian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 9 of 89 Anna. It's a total of 389 home sites in the current submittal, 70 acres are yet to be designed, that's the area between Chinden and the residential collector road. We are contracting with a design firm out of Seattle to do some further design work on there. You will probably see some different densities in that area and I will talk about that a little bit more. We have designed in a seven and a half acre neighborhood park, a 104- acre commons park that's back in the southwest section of the neighborhood and, then, we have the 4.4-acre church site. Here is the neighborhood park that Anna pointed out. Here is the commons park. If we could go to the next slide. I just want to point out this is a schematic -- I have had some very extensive discussions with Doug Strong, your Parks Director, and we had the Land Group come up with a preliminary design. This area right here shows an overlay of the soccer field, just so that you get an idea of the dimensions of this property. I think somebody asked the question about whether this was a small park. The city has a policy that neighborhood parks in the seven to seven and a half acres or something, they are very much interested in and Commissioner Strong has -- Director Strong has indicated that interest. There was some issue in the staff report that wasn't really brought up here, it's not a condition, but the police department expressed a concern about on-street parking. Well, we have designed in this some parking within the park area, so -- there is also the issue of tot lots and other amenities. You can see right here we have a tot lot designed in here, we also have tennis courts designed in here. As far as future amenities -- could you go back one, please, Anna? We plan on doing a community center, but it will be in this portion here north of that residential collector, so that will be coming forward in a future submittal. And, then, if you could forward one more, Anna, to the commons lot. This is not proposed to have any internal parking, that's just a small one and a half -- 1 A-acre park that would be a walk-in park for the surrounding residences. So, we don't see that as a destination park. We will have a variety of housing options. Even in this first phase we have home sites ranging from 6,600 square feet up to 18,000 square feet. We anticipate homes ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 square feet. So, we will have a variety of housing options for different income levels and all demographics. In the future preliminary plat that we will propose in that area, between Chinden and the residential collector, you will see even more variety, with the patio homes and town-homes, perhaps, in that area. So, just wanted to give you that overview for the overall project, but as Anna said, we -- I think there has to be some more debate on the concept of the neighborhood center, particularly in that location, and for those of you who weren't on the Commission at the time that that was adopted, I was pretty heavily involved in that, Commissioner Borup was on the Commission at that time, but I believe if you go back to the record, it would indicate that those neighborhood centers were allowed to be included in as a way of incentivizing, but not necessarily requiring, and that also the locations could be subject to change. So, that's just a debate we need to have at a future time and, as Anna said, we have left that area open for that discussion. We are not proposing any development in that area at the current time. Staff issues. First, I wanted to answer the question about ACHD. They did approve this yesterday at their commission hearing, their noon commission hearing. I already talked about the regional neighborhood center designation. I talked about the parking for the neighborhood park and the commons park. The stub street to Lot 3, Block 15, as Anna pointed out, we are okay with adding that, provided we don't do a charter school in that area. If we do do a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 10 of 89 charter school, we don't think a stub street there is appropriate, so we would like to have that to be a conditional condition. Is that right? Okay. And also the stub street into the 45-acre Christensen property. I know that the school district has been talking to the Christensen's, interested. in acquiring that site for a middle school site and so if the area back there is ball fields or whatever that they put in with their middle school site, we don't think that a stub street is appropriate for that area and we would, instead, do a micro-path connection to that area. Let's see. Anna addressed the landscape buffer on the north side of the residential collector. We can expand our annexation area, if you prefer to include that area, so that the landscape buffer would be within city limits. The sewer that Bruce has mentioned -- I have been in quite a few discussions with City Council, they did authorize the design of that sewer line. I believe the intent is to move forward with that. It's not unlike some other developments that have been approved subject to sewer availability, so for that -- us, that's not a real issue and I, actually, think it helps the city in designing it's sewer line, so that it knows street layouts and so forth, so they can prepare for that. In fact, that line will have to connect further to the east to eventually serve -- is it Silverleaf project, Bruce? Yeah. So, I think it's helpful to know these road alignments, so that they can factor that into their design, which Bruce mentioned has already been contracted for. Let's see. Other than that, we are comfortable with the conditions. We appreciate the recommendation for approval and I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Did ACHD make an opinion on the two stub streets, whether they should be stub streets or micro-paths? Turnbull: They were not required by ACHD. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman -- it sounds like that you're comfortable with the sewer situation. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: To proceed ahead? Turnbull: Yes. Borup: There may be some ambiguity there. Turnbull: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. Turnbull: That's it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 11 of 89 Zaremba: Yeah. For the moment. Tumbull: Okay. Zaremba: This would be the opportunity for testimony from the public, if you have opinions on these subjects. We have a sign-up sheet for Items 4, 5 and 6, all of which have nobody signed up. So, if I don't see anybody waving their hand or moving toward the microphone -- okay. Apparently those of you that are here are not for this subject. So, that means the applicant doesn't need to respond to any of your questions. Commissioners? Canning: Chairman? Chairman? Zaremba: Where is that voice coming from? Sorry, Lord. Canning: If the Commission wishes to approve this application, the two items I have noticed that need to be referenced in the motion would the annexation boundary with regard to the landscape and the stub streets. I believe all the other conditions of approval are okay as is. Zaremba: Let me finish Director Canning's thought first, though. The two items that you mentioned, do those need to be part of the development agreement on page 11? I guess -- Canning: I believe the schools and stub streets; the issue was brought up with the preliminary plat application. The annexation boundary probably needs to be with the -- well, it could be -- it could be the preliminary plat also. I don't know that they are worthy of a development agreement condition. They are probably okay just in the preliminary plat. Zaremba: So, if we add those to site specific conditions, that, actually, would end up being on page 17. Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I do have a question for the applicant. Please enlighten me. I -- why do you want -- what is the value of moving forward with a project, full well knowing that it can't move forward until the sewer is developed and you have no concrete date when that may come to fruition? I mean help me with this. Turnbull: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Rohm, I have had some extensive discussions with Brad Watson, the director of Public Works, with Charlie Rountree, Commissioner in charge of the -- the liaison to the Public Works Department. City Council did direct Public Works Department to go out and get this project designed. We Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 12 of 89 believe it's with the anticipation of getting that project constructed in the near future. Obviously, they had set their budget already for the year, so as Bruce Freckleton mentioned, they don't have it in the budget this year, but that, you know, the new budget year starts in another six or seven months, so we believe that this project will move forward. So, it will take some time between getting approval and, going forward and getting our construction plans drawn, and those kinds of things. So, we don't think it's premature. In fact, I think you will find that you have approved other projects between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road without the sewer there, contingent upon that North Trunk sewer line being constructed. It's not any different than -- Rohm: Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to it, I just -- I was just curious, but thank you. Turnbull: Okay. Zaremba: My summary would be you're aware of the risk and you're willing to take that risk; is that -- Turnbull: Absolutely true. I have already taken it. Rohm: Thank you. Canning: Chairman? I have a little more information for you. On page 15, site specific condition number two, that's the one that we have made to be modified to say like a -- something to the effect that in the event the 45 acre parcel and Lot 3 are developed to schools, stub streets would not be required and, then, we would have the micro-path required, but-- Zaremba: He offered a micro-path. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Which he's already proposing, but-- Canning: Well, he's not proposing a micro-path to the -- Lot 3. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: And, then, the -- having the boundary of the subdivision -- could be a preliminary plat condition. It's discussed in the preliminary plat section, so -- Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, any further discussion? Then are we prepared to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I think so. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 4, and 6. Melidlan Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 13 of 89 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Any discussion or thoughts to be presented? Newton-Huckabay: I just would have preferred to see the whole project, given that there is no urgency with the sewer, other than I would think having your development at the beginning of the sewer design will probably help design the sewer, I agree with that completely. Are the issues of the property to the north so complex that they couldn't have been resolved and put all this together? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is a long-standing point to which Mr. Turnbull and I have agreed to disagree and we have looked through the minutes and I think it's a case of -- I don't see the flexibility that he sees and so we have agreed that we will all get together and discuss this, but it needs to be part of a larger conversation, because of some other issues. One was when Paramount went in, it was such a large planned development that it was able, through the use exception, to really modify the nature of the commercial uses that were originally envisioned for the area and it has and will have an effect on the surrounding mile section and so that's one thing that we feel we really need to look at. And, then, just different access requirements from ITD, different things that have happened through the development of a lot of the north Meridian area, we feel we really need to look at the remaining parcels quite closely and consider what the appropriate uses are. In addition to the fact that we have had an annexation request from the property from the north side of Chinden and that -- so, we -- there is a lot of issues we need to look at that were beyond the scope of this one and we thought that the discussion on the north part of this would be an important part for that discussion as well. So, we wanted to do it altogether. Newton-Huckabay: You did want to do it altogether, but -- Canning: On the north part. I think that the southern part is fine to consider on its own. I just -- we were just primarily concerned about the uses along Chinden and -- Rohm: So, possibly by delaying that we will make better decisions down the road? Canning: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Good. Newton-Huckabay: That's the only question I had. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 140f89 Zaremba: Just to clarify for me, is it your assumption that whatever is decided on the currently blank parcels would not affect what happens on what we have before us? Canning: No. I think -- well, I think what you have before you is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will integrate well with -- the way that Broadbent Avenue is designed there provides an automatic transition to whatever may be on the other side of that street, so I think that that, as designed, we can -- we can do pretty much anything up there and -- and should have a fine development. Zaremba: Commissioners, you need to talk through the microphone. What we say needs to be on the record. Newton-Huckabay: They were trying to decide who was going to make the motion. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. That means that I will entertain a motion. Borup: Okay. We are still in discussion, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure maybe some of the things -- was it -- and am I accurate stating that the applicant agreed on the landscape easement north of Broadbent would be included in this annexation? Zaremba: They would -- Borup: Their landscape easement would be included? Zaremba: Yeah. Canning: It's a lot. It would be a lot. Borup: It would be a lot. Okay. A landscape lot shall be included as part of the annexation? Would that be correct wording? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. That was the only question I had, Zaremba: Are you volunteering to make the motion? Commissioner Borup? Borup: I'm just seeing how many motions we had here. I don't think we have anything affecting the first one on an annexation, do we? Moe: No. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-001, request for annexation and zoning of 156.49 acres, with the staff report of -- for hearing date March 3rd, 2005, with -- as written in the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 3, 2005 Page 150f89 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-002, request for preliminary plat for the same hearing date of March 3rd, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: Under site specific conditions, preliminary plat, page 15, paragraph two, where it talks about in lieu of the micro-path, a stub street to the 45 acre potential school parcel to the west shall be provided if the property does not become a school site. And, then, the next sentence, provide a stub street to the north through Block 15, unless that property becomes a school site. Does that need to be clarified anymore than that? I don't know. Zaremba: I understood that. Borup: Okay. And, then, on page 16, part of paragraph five, it discusses the landscaping on the north of Broadbent Way, they do not lie within the preliminary plat. I'd like to add either at the end of that bullet point or the end of that paragraph, that the landscaping lot for the landscaping on the north side of Broadbent shall be included in this application. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: You have got one more. Zaremba: Oh, Commissioner Borup, you're -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project of the March 3rd date, to include all staff comments of the staff memo, dated March 1st. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries as well. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.