Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 2006 P&Z Minutes ..."- . .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 60 of 92 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we folWard onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063, including all staff comments with the amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed Same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Rohm: Okay. I would now like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 and open with the staff report, please. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We move on to Bear Creek West, located generally west of Stoddard, east of Linder Road and south of Overland in south Meridian, south of the interstate. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT and R-1 in Ada County to the R-8 medium density residential zone, for preliminary plat approval of 320 single family residential lots and 34 common lots. The site is vacant agricultural land and also contains an existing residence on Linder Road. Some of the existing uses -- in this plat -- or aerial photo will be a little outdated. There is the existing Bear Creek Subdivision. It's a little bit hard to tell if that shows a house as being there or not. But there is the existing Bear Creek Subdivision that will be shown better on this vicinity map to the east. To the -- really, to the north, west, and south are a mix again of agricultural lands, a church use, some residences in platted Ada County subdivisions south of the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then some more agricultural land. Unfortunately, these are on their side, but the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 320 build-able lots. I was provided a list just before the hearing of the size of the lots, so I'll go through those. Between 5,100 square feet and 6,999 square feet there are 44 lots. Between 7,000 square feet and 8,999 square feet there are 86 lots. Between 9,000 and 10,999 square feet there are 92 lots. And above 11,000 square feet there are 98 lots. The applicant has proposed a collector road to be named West Kodiak Drive. See if I can get something that shows it a little better. Unfortunately not. Essentially, it -- the Kodiak Drive bisects a portion of the property and, then, is on the north property line of another portion of property. So, on these plats north is to the right, so Kodiak Drive connects to Linder Road and bisects the property here, comes to this point and, then, it is on the north boundary of the property. The portion of the project that Kodiak Drive is on the -- is on the boundary line with is a future middle school site. Kodiak will be a residential '.' .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 61 of 92 collector with detached sidewalks and street buffers along it. And, then, the remainder of the roads are proposed as local streets. ACHD did approve a reduced street section for one portion of the local roadways. The name of that I think is Eggers. The initial proposal did not meet the minimum fire department requirements and ACHD, I believe, did say that that was okay, as long as they did meet the fire department requirements for that reduced street section. If it was the reduced street of 29 foot, it would be the standard no parking comments per the Meridian fire department. So, this will, maybe, show it a little bit better. Okay. Now, north is up, so it may be a little easier -- little bit easier to orientate. Kodiak Drive, the residential collector that bisects a portion of the property and, then, is on the north boundary here, is indicated there. Craig, if you could move that up a little bit. That will work. That will work. There is an existing church property along the northern boundary of the site. Mentioned in the staff analysis, I believe the name is Christian Family Matters and there are representatives tonight that will speak on their behalf. They have a valid Conditional Use Permit with the City of Meridian for an indoor and outdoor church. I will maybe let them get into a little more detail exactly what they do there, but there is outdoor services with a PA system associated with those services. They are concerned about impacts on adjacent properties and concerns of home buyers in this area of the subdivision in regards to their use. They have provided a letter dated December 12 that was in part of your packet that discusses these concerns. In discussions with the applicant, they have addressed these. I didn't get anything in writing. I will let the applicant address those during their presentation, but there are some measures they have taken to mitigate those effects along that -- along that property line. From my recollection those measures are a berm with a fence on top of it, some additional landscape plantings along that property line and an increased setback from buildings -- from those houses to that property line. Also, the possibility of notifying any buyers in this portion of the subdivision that there is an existing church use with a PA on there to prevent those conflicts if you get a homeowner who buys a house there and, then, complains to the city or to the church about that PA system when it was -- it preexisted the houses. Moving south in the subdivision -- and as previously mentioned, this is Linder Road and, then, this is Stoddard Road. Stoddard Road is a half mile collector. Linder Road is currently classified as an urban collector, but it is a -- it is a section line road and with increased development in Meridian it would be anticipated that would become an arterial in future Ada County designations. The southern boundary of the property is the Ridenbaugh Canal with a subdivision in Ada County on the south side of -- I think there is a couple different subdivisions. There is Eggers Subdivision, there is Molla farm Acres, and there is also Pebble Lane Estates on the south side of the property. It's much more apparent on the full size landscape plan that the Commission has, but the applicant has proposed an open space lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal with a ten foot multi-use pathway. That multi-use pathway does connect to Linder, continued through - - through the property along the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is a small portion that the applicant does not control, it is outside of their property boundaries, where there would be a break in the path as proposed, right there in that bend in the Ridenbaugh. The path is, then, picked up again as the Ridenbaugh enters their property and they have the ability to place the multi-use path there. The idea being that they are providing the multi-use path where they can. In the future it could be completed and connected to -- I \. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 62 of 92 may need a little help here from Mike or the applicant where the multi-use path comes out of Bear Creek -- the original Bear Creek, but the idea is that in the future those could connect there and, then, continue also on the other side of Linder along the Ridenbaugh. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are, really, the church use to the north and their concerns about conflicts between their use and the proposed houses in Bear Creek West. As submitted, the subdivision -- the application before you did propose for the existing home on Linder Road to continue their access to Linder Road. We have recommended a condition of approval be that they take access from internal roads. That's consistent with ACHD's analysis of the project and it is also consistent with requirements placed on subdivisions that come before you. We do ask that they take access from internal roads. There is a Comprehensive Plan policy that specifically addresses limiting access points on collectors and arterials and the extension of that roadway to give that lot frontage and, therefore, access from that roadway would rectify that. In conjunction with that, there would, then, be the continuance of the 25-foot required landscape buffer along Linder for the majority of the project, there is, actually, a 35-foot landscape buffer shown along Linder. Only 25 would be required. It seems fairly likely that they would include the 35 there to be consistent as well, unless there is some kind of conflict with the existing house. The provided open space does meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code, with 10.3 percent of the property being dedicated to usable open space, with a -- with a pool and grassy area located in the middle adjacent to the school site. It's kind of centrally located for all the residents in the development. There were some concerns with fencing along the open spaces. The Unified Development Code requires that any solid fencing -- and I guess the applicant could clarify this as well. It's listed in their application materials as vinyl. Usually, we don't see nonsolid fencing that's vinyl. Usually, the nonsolid fencing that's vinyl -- or the nonsolid fencing comes through as wrought iron. So, they have indicated -- they propose a six foot vinyl fence along the boundary of the Ridenbaugh Canal along that common open space lot and also on another common open space lot within the subdivision. Meridian code would limit that to a four foot fence if it was solid or six foot if open vision. Like I said, we typically don't see open vision being vinyl. If that's the case, they are proposing an open vision vinyl fence at that six feet. That would comply with code. They just do need to clarify that. So, the condition reads that the fencing on those open spaces does need to comply with Meridian City -- or with the Unified Development Code. Again, the same housekeeping as in the last report, unfortunately. In the process facts it does list that -- and process facts are on page two under item five. It does say that the subject application will constitute a conditional use. They are not applying for a conditional use, they are applying annexation and preliminary plat. There should be Items A and B that state that the application will constitute an annexation and a preliminary plat as determined by the Unified Development Code. Again, under the zoning ordinance it references the multi- family developments conditional use. There are no multi-family developments with the subdivision, it is all detached single family housing, principally permitted in the R-8 district and it does reference the multi-family again in the annexation and preliminary plat analysis, unfortunately. So, I apologize for that. I want to clean those up. The last item I will touch on is the fact that the ACHD Commission has not approved the project as of tonight's hearing. I did receive a draft staff report that I was able to base my Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 63 of 92 comments on. In the past the Commission has not acted on applications that ACHD has not approved. Because of ACHD's criteria, this application does require a Public Hearing, which will be held January 25th at the ACHD Commission. I did recommend in the staff report that this item not be acted on tonight, that it be continued to the next available date, which would be the February 2nd hearing. At that hearing we can verify that ACHD did approve the project as proposed and limit any new testimony or discussion to those ACHD hearings and the issues that may come up in that. What that does is it insures us that we don't get any surprises at the ACHD Commission that would change the layout of the subdivision or change its compliance with code and staffs findings and we get the majority of the discussion on the subdivision out of the way tonight and, then, at the next hearing we can just verify that it was approved and you can make the motion to approve the subdivision, if that's your choosing. I think with that I will turn it over to the applicant and also ask if the Commission has any questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. Zaremba: I don't, but I do, actually, have a question of the other Commissioners. As part of my package I was given a letter from Dana O. Armstrong of the Christian Family Matters church addressed to Mrs. McKay and I assume we all got that. Separately from the package, I got a lengthy letter, a well thought out letter, from a Mr. Luke S. Lance and my question is did everybody else get that? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come folWard, please. McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. We are representing the applicant on this particular project. So, I'd like to kind of go over the project to familiarize you with it. As Josh indicated, we are referring to this as Bear Creek West. As some of you know, I worked on -- did the planning for Bear Creek in the late '90s, I think it was. It seems like a long time ago. This particular project is the same development team, same planner, and we wanted to continue the same type of homes that they have in Bear Creek, providing a good mixture of different lot sizes, different home sizes. The applicant owned all of this and the school district showed interest in a middle school at this particular site, so that's what you see right here in this area. The school district has purchased that as a future middle school. It's my understanding that that school is probably about four to five years out. It will have to be in the next bond issue, according to the information that Wendell provided me. Take into consideration that -- that that middle school will generate quite a few vehicle trips per day, approximately 1,458 vehicle trips per day, we thought it was in the best interest of this particular area and our development to have a continuous collector. Stoddard is the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 64 of 92 half mile here and as you know Stoddard goes up and interconnects to Overland and, then, goes south to Victory. We connected here right in alignment with Kodiak Drive. This is one of the entrances, one of two into the primary Bear Creek portion. It comes up -- the collector would come up and intersect here at Linder. This property is unique in the fact that it has some elevation to it. The Ridenbaugh Canal is right here on our south boundary. There is I think approximately 35 feet of fall from this point here down to right in here around the collector and, then, there is about 15 feet of fall from the north portion going south down to this collector. So, we have some real good topography to work with. And in planning some property that has topography like this, we have to run perpendicular to the contours of the property, so as it's sloping this way, we are running perpendicular to that, so the lots are all rising continuously. We don't want lots on one side of the street considerably higher than lots on the other. So, that's kind of one of the driving forces of our design. I decided that a central open space that kind of -- everything flowed into was the best approach on this particular piece of property. This is about 2.85 acres. In the middle here you see a restroom facility, a pool, parking area, a little gazebo, some pedestrian pathways and play equipment. And most of the roadways focus coming into this central area and, then, there is kind of a loop collector here that would wrap around. This area here has it's -- it has one central access with a split median. It comes up here. This is the area that Josh indicated where we had a reduced right of way and that's because we had a single load only on one side of the street with this kind of pocket park here. That type of development was done in like Lexington Hills and some other developments. It creates a nice little open space. We also wanted to make sure that this was pedestrian friendly. On your Comprehensive Plan this is designated medium density residential. It also designates it for a multi-use pathway, one that goes along the Ridenbaugh connecting over to Linder, which we did delineate on our portion that adjoins the Ridenbaugh a multi-use pathway. Now, when we get over to this location here, that we couldn't continue the path on, so I took the path and I'm dropping it into the subdivision through this micro-path right here and, then, down and it would link over, people could go over to the Bear Creek Community Meridian park over here. We also went with an east-west connection. Not only do we have the pathway -- multi-use pathway here, but we have got a pathway coming across linking these pocket parks together. We have play equipment, like a tot lot here. We have one in the primary 2.85 acre park and, then, we have another one here. This particular area was more cumbersome to work with, because the collector did isolate it. The location of this collector was dictated basically by the topography and the site distance and coming in at this location seemed to be the best approach. Therefore, this particular pod is isolated from the primary Bear Creek West, but has it's own open space and that is the focus as you would enter into the development. We also placed a pedestrian pathway coming out the corner, which would, therefore, lead right into the middle school. We have one existing house, as Josh indicated, located here on Linder Road. It's an older farm house. They wanted to retain the home, retain a certain area around that home. I suspected that the staff would be a little bit upset about the direct access to Linder. We did anticipate that and so we thought about providing a driveway out the back of that cul-de-sac and that's why we kind of left it open. However, the staff does want us to bend this down to give them street frontage to take that direct lot access off Linder. We -- I did bring with me a design that does bend Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 65 of 92 that over to demonstrate to the Commission that that is feasible. As I mentioned, this is designated medium density residential. That's three to eight dwelling units per acre, as you well know. What we are proposing here is 2.74 dwelling units per acre. That's our gross density. Our net density is 3.52. So, really, our gross is just a smidge under, but our net is a little over. So, we are on the low end. As Josh indicated our lot distribution, we did provide him with a breakdown this evening. We have -- our smallest lots are located kind of right in this particular area here and I have got a nice pocket park open space lot right there and I think that's got a tot lot in it also. Yes, it does. Those lots -- our smallest one is 5,100. So, from the 5,100 to 6,999 square feet we have got about 13.35 percent of our total lots. In the 7,000 to 8,999 square foot we have 26.875 percent. In the 8,000 to 10,999 we have got 28.75. 11,000 and up -- our biggest lots are around 25,000 square feet. We have 30.62 percent. So, 59.38 percent of the lots that you see there are 9,000 square feet and above. So, these are pretty good size. Concerning some of the other projects that have been coming through the process lately, this is very low density. Our open space total, we have got about 14 percent open space, around 16.386 acres. If you take out the buffers, the mandatory buffers we are at a little over ten percent. We anticipate this to be in five phases, most likely starting right over here and -- with phase one and, then, working our way westward. As far as the utilities, there is water here in Stoddard. There is a city well over here in Bear Creek Park. We will, according to the staff, based on their water model, have to come up to Overland Road, extend a 12 inch line, and bring it into the subdivision and, then, install a pressure relief valve in order to stabilize the pressure due to the elevation change that we have. As far as sewer, this is designated as the Black Cat Trunk. It is not our intent to get into the Bear Creek lift station. It is our understanding, based on Meridian Public Works, that they are diligently working on getting the Black Cat Trunk to the south side of 1-84, which I believe is going to be a 36 inch. So, this is, obviously, contingent upon serviceability by the Black Cat Trunk. It's stated so in our conditions of approval and recognizes that fact. As far as the fencing, I believe that the landscape architect went in and showed vinyl fencing. In speaking with Mr. Johnson, he's indicated that in the open spaces they would probably prefer wrought iron and, then, along the multi-use pathway at the Ridenbaugh it would be wrought iron. The multi-use pathway, they installed some of that with Bear Creek to the east of us and he anticipates doing the same here. Traffic. When we had our neighborhood meeting, that was one of the big questions that kept popping up, you know, what is ACHD's time line for improvements out in this area. Josh, can you put up the vicinity map, do you think? There we go. According to ACHD, what they are going to do in 2007, they will be rebuilding Overland Road from Meridian Road over to Linder and they will -- they will, basically, be creating a seven lane intersection at Meridian Road and Linder and they will be creating a three lane intersection at Stoddard here. They will be signalizing this. And, then, I believe a five lane intersection will be installed here. And some of the residents that own parcels along Overland have indicated that ACHD is in the process of that right of way acquisition at this time. ACHD seemed to feel quite confident that 2007, you know, is when it's going to happen, because it is on their priority list and appears to be funded. As far as trips per day, we are going to generate about 3,100. And, like I said, the school -- middle school at about 1,458. So, about 4,559 vehicle trips per day at total build out. And like we -- we indicate that this will be probably about Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 66 of 92 a five phase project and we would like to go on the record to allow us for some phasing flexibility based on market conditions. We feel that we have taken a lot of time working through this project. I did meet with the church -- I'm not sure what they call -- members here to the north. We walked that north boundary, talked about it, looked at their church facility, I talked to them about the functions that they have. We did receive that letter from the Christian Family Matters. I did respond to them via e-mail, which I don't believe you guys have a copy. I will provide staff with a copy of this. We indicated that we would move Elias Drive, which is this one here, south ten feet, which, therefore, would mean these lots adjoining the church would be between 150 and 155 feet in depth. We would adjust our lot lines to try to shift some lot lines east and west to -- we have got three lots that back up to them right now. We would make that two lots, versus the three. The two lots that would back up to them, would be single level, so that there would be no two -- second story, obviously, overlooking into the church facility. We indicate in our landscape plan we will construct a two foot berm with a six foot fence there to give, obviously, a little more privacy. And the developer said that they would plant some arborvitae there to try to create some type of a vegetative buffer on our side also. One of the other things that we thought was real important is that we would disclose in the purchase agreement that the church facility exists, that outdoor activities are very common there and that these activities are approved preexisting. They recognize that and should in no way be considered a nuisance. Very similar to the right to farm, just recognizing that that particular use does take place. One of the other things I'd like to mention, we have Eggers Subdivision here, one acre lots. There is Ariel Estates over here, they are five acre lots. And, then, there is some -- I think two acre lots in this particular area. And, then, there is kind of a rural lot located here. We did take great care to try to make sure that these lots were deeper, wider, were our largest lots. If you look at our plat, these particular lots are -- this depth here is about 145 feet. This is 164. This is 143. These lots are ranging -- I have got some that are 14,12,15,18,17,16 thousand square feet. And in our lot distribution, like I said, all of our largest lots are on this perimeter here, in order to, obviously, create some type of a transitioning. The smallest lots were located right here kind of in a cluster down by the collector. We would ask the Commission to approve this project. We feel it's a good project. We have received ACHD's staff report. We have nothing that we disagree with in the ACHD staff report. I did provide a letter. I apologize for the tardiness of my letter, but I had a death in my family this week and I have got a funeral to go to in the morning and so it kind of took up some time. We are pretty much in agreement with most of staff's conditions. We just mention some corrections that needed to be made mentioned -- I think Josh said the multi-family. The only thing that I found that would -- could be problematic is it talked about requiring us to install all of the sidewalk along Kodiak prior to the issuance of a building permit I think on the first phase. Stoddard, that is reasonable. And I think along Kodiak, for any portion of that collector that is part of the first phase -- if the first phase comes up to here or if it comes up and makes this loop, but I can't extend sidewalk where I don't have a roadway built. So, I think the wording on that needs to be modified. There is reference to the Ten Mile stub drain. I think they meant to say the Ridenbaugh Canal. The only other issue that I wanted to bring up was the fire department. Their condition of approval was very confusing. They talk about a 39 foot measurement and parking restriction and I don't think that is correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 67 of 92 You know, an ACHD local street is 36 back to back. They are saying anything 30 -- anything 39 foot or less requires -- and that's from face to face -- requires restricted parking. And that's not a condition that we have seen in the past. I'm not sure if those numbers have been transposed -- maybe Josh can find their memo. But that condition is not accurate. It should read anything less than a 36 back to back, which is a standard Ada County Highway District local street, then, they do restrict the parking. That's the last information that I received from Joe Silva. But not 39 face to face. Because a 36 back to back is 32 face to face. That concludes my comments. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Any questions of the applicant by the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Linder. I was interested in seeing the modification with the house on McKay: Yeah. I thought you might ask. This is the modification. Right now the cul-de- sac comes out like this. Here is the existing house located on that Lot 38, Block 5. If you stick this in here, it looks like -- not doing a very good job of holding it. It looks like that. So, what we have done, just bent the cul-de-sac down to give it frontage. Still maintaining landscaping, therefore, allowing them to take access off of a local versus Linder. Zaremba: Would you mind making a 360 with that, so, first, the staff and, then, the audience can see it? McKay: Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yes. It looks like that. The cul-de-sac at this time is shown stopping back here with a couple of flag lots off of it. This takes direct lot access. We are just taking it and bending it down. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask one more question? If that homeowner wanted -- would that be easy for them to put it into smaller lots at some point if they choose to with that design? This is an awfully big lot that at some point I can see if they sold it they would want to incorporate it more into the subdivision. McKay: They wanted to keep those approximate dimensions at this time. It's about 39,000 square feet. So, it's a little less than an acre. Newton-Huckabay: Right. McKay: If we extended that street there, they potentially could pull it in -- you know, have a driveway. I think your new ordinance allows for up to four dwelling units, single family detached, to share a driveway. So, they have like a common drive coming off there. So, yes, to answer your question it could be re-subdivided in the future without causing any detriment to traffic on Linder. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 68 of 92 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Yes. Actually, my first comment would be my sympathies to your family. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: And I appreciate your taking the time to be here tonight to do what must seem like something that's not quite as important to you as your family, but I appreciate you being here. The letter that I mentioned earlier from Luke S. Lance was addressed to us and I don't know if you ever received a copy of that. McKay: I did not, sir. Zaremba: Okay. He lists a number of things that he's concerned about. Maybe he's here tonight to repeat it when we get to public testimony. One of the things that caught my eye is on his page four, I believe it is -- and I'll read it to you. This is about home site statistics. With the proposed zoning of eight homes per acre, this will force the builder to build up to increase size and marketability. This will take away from the view easement of houses on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. And what caught my attention is the view easement. Typically, standard procedure is that nobody is guaranteed a view through their neighbor's property. Are you aware of any view easement that would encumber your property? McKay: No, sir. Not to my knowledge. Zaremba: Okay. If he's here we will ask him about that. Okay. That was it for me. McKay: One thing, I guess, I'd like to mention -- they are sitting up high, this is dropping, keep in mind. Borup: Eight to ten feet. McKay: No. Thirty-five. It's dropping 35 feet down to this point. Borup: I mean just to the road is about eight to ten feet. Just the first road. McKay: Yes. You're correct. Yes, sir. So, because they are on a high point, we are going to be below them. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Wilson: Chairman Rohm, if I could just maybe clear up that fire department comment a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 69 of 92 Borup: Please. Wilson: Believe it or not, Craig thinks that that is an accurate condition. What it's specifically referring to is dead end cul-de-sacs of between 500 and 750 feet in length, which there doesn't appear to be any in this subdivision. If I can get to the conditions of approval here real quick. Okay. So, that 3.2 is, actually, specifically, referencing dead end roads between 500 and 750 feet in length do, actually, require those dimensions, the 39 feet in width. But there don't appear to be any on this project and we think that item was probably included in error. Their standard street section comment that references the 29 feet is 3.9, which is probably the appropriate one and 3.2 should probably be stricken. Rohm: Thank you. At this time it's time for public testimony and Don Webber, would you like to come folWard, please. Before you speak, is there anybody here that is speaking for a homeowners association or are each of you speaking individually? Okay. Come on folWard. Webber: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Don Webber and I live at 1525 South Calistoga Avenue in Meridian. 83642. I'm here to speak on behalf of Christian Family Matters and, additionally, I am the owner of record of the adjacent property, the 4.3 acre property to the west of Christian Family Matters' property and that particular site is a home end site, it has a contract of sale between myself, Don Webber, and Christian Family Matters. As mentioned in the staff report, we do have some concerns about the adjacent properties to the north to our property. I should preface that with saying that we have no concerns about the project as a whole. I believe they do a very good quality job of developing. It was brought to their attention pretty recently, within the last month -- well, actually, about the last month, that we do exist there. They were unaware of that, so we got our public notice of the neighborhood meeting and we took action and at our request we did meet with Beck McKay, she came to the property, and we gave her a big scope of what do do there. We have a Conditional Use Permit that allows us an indoor and outdoor Bible fellowship use and we are a very active fellowship, so we don't limit to certain hours of the week and certain days of the week, we have many different activities, as well as working with a lot of young people. The real nuts and bolts of the issue is they -- the developer has agreed to make some concessions, we are appreciative of that. They have come some way, but I think the real meat of the issue is that we need to consider -- or asking you to consider that they make the adjacent properties right behind Christian Family Matters an open area and also consider the lots from there going west to be single stories. The reason we ask that -- and that is outlined in the letter from Christian Family Matters that you have -- that Dane Armstrong addressed. You have that in your packet. Is we are concerned that when homeowners do actually purchase the lots and build their homes and want to enjoy their quiet and peaceable enjoyment like any homeowner would, we understand that it would be disclosed to the homeowner, but bear in mind that we do have an outdoor fellowship and we do, weather permitting, most frequently we do meet outdoors. We meet at the southern part of our property, which we developed with code Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 70 of 92 requirement, landscaping and so on, where we might have 150 plus people sitting facing south. So, we have great concerns that although that's to be disclosed to property purchasers, in all practicality, when it's all said and done and, then, when the two neighbors need to live with each other, us and the neighbors across from us, that they may have real trouble with what we do there, going on at different hours and different times of the day. Of course, we are not there until late late hours. However, we are an active fellowship. So, what I'm asking the Commissioners to consider that they -- the lots directly behind, numbers 18, 19 and 20 be considered open use. Then, lots 12 through 17 be restricted to one story and, then, appropriate landscaping buffers, as they have already proposed. So, I'd ask for your consideration on that. Newton-Huckabay: Why 12 through 17 one story? Webber: Those are -- well, we are considering since we operate a lot on the south -- southern part of our property, that it may pose a conflict with two stories looking back over our lawn and looking at 150 people having an outdoor Bible fellowship. So, we are trying to think about what's best for both parties involved down the road. That's why I'm proposing that. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any other questions for this -- for Don? Zaremba: I do have a comment and, actually, it doesn't relate to the current application that's before us, but as I previously admitted, my memory is sometimes faulty, but when I saw the discussion in the letter from Dana Armstrong about it expanding into apparently what is your property or property you're selling to the church, first let me say I encourage churches, I'm happy you're there. My recollection is that when this came before us for the CUP that you're referencing, the church was already there as an existing nonconforming use in that parcel. The CUP was required to continue it as a nonconforming use and I believe there was a provision in the CUP that it either expired or voided if there was any expansion. I would ask you to get with staff. I'm just alerting you that there may be a provision that stops you from expanding. I'm not sure. Webber: May I address that, Commissioner? Zaremba: Sure. Webber: That did come up when we annexed into the city about a year and a half ago. What was advised us and we understand that if we do want to expand onto the additional parcel or do other things on the existing Christian Family Matters' property, we have to go through the process of -- the permit process and meeting any requirements to do so. So, while the adjacent property that I'm still the owner of record on is not part of Christian Family Matters' property and we operate our Conditional Use Permit on the existing property, I just thought it would be wise to forewarn the builder that we do come and go on the property, people live on both properties as residents, and we thought it would be best to propose the open area and the single story, some buffer, just landscape buffer, and when this is all said and done and we have to live Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 71 of 92 together as neighbors and the developer is long gone, that we are not going to have issues there. So, it would best for both. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Webber: Thank you. Moe: Actually, I have one question. I'm just curious. Mr. Webber, you made a statement earlier you own the property to the north from the Lots 12 through 17; is that correct? Webber: That's correct. Moe: Okay. I was just -- and you're not concerned with any of the lots to the east of your property as far as Lots 21 and beyond as far as going single story? Webber: No. I don't see that as a problem. Moe: Okay. Webber: I don't see that as a problem. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Neil Bowl. Bowl: My name is Neil Bowl, 3803 Gemini Circle, Boise, Idaho. 83709. I don't have much to add besides what Don added. We are -- I am in favor of the development. It's a good job. We do -- my concerns are the same as Don's regarding having an open area behind Christian Family Matters. That would be something we'd like you to consider. We don't want to hold up the development. We don't think -- that's not our intent. But we do see that sewer is a ways off and ACHD still needs have their say, so maybe just catch our breath and take a good look at it and not jump to any quick conclusions, but take a good look at maybe putting a common area behind there. That would be -- that's my concern. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Sandy Cisneros? Newton-Huckabay: There was a statement from the audience that she left. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Chuck Rough. Rough: My name is Chuck Rough and I'm the property owner at 2707 South Stoddard Road, which is -- borders the proposed subdivision on the -- kind of the southeast corner. I have a five acre piece of property there. I just have a couple of issues I just want to address or maybe some concerns. I'll just kind of go through them here. One is Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 72 of 92 that the trash that's developed from a subdivision of this size from the builders. From the first Bear Creek that was put in there was quite a bit of trash that gets blown around and it seems to -- some of it ends up on my property and it's kind of a constant thing trying to keep that cleaned up and I'm not sure how, if the -- this Commission can address that in any way, but I would like to just look at how -- when their construction is going on how we can address the trash that's generated from all the contractors that come in. Along those same lines is the dust and noise that's generated also. There will be a significant amount of construction that will border my property and the amount of dust that gets generated from the construction; I'd just like to see how that's going to be addressed. And, then, the property buffers, kind of review that a little bit. Need to look at the final plan that they have submitted and see what the depth of lots will be that adjoin my property and see what kind buffers that they have along there. There is some trees that -- some existing trees that border my property and the subdivision property and I'm just interested on what's going to happen to those trees. Are they going to be taken out and replaced. Since they are right on the property line, need to kind of work through that and find out what the plan is for those trees. The streetlights that are in the current Bear Creek Subdivision are fairly bright and pretty much light up my five acres across the street and if there is lights like that, I'd like to see some type of shielding to be put up, maybe to not flood those bright lights onto my property. I do have livestock. I have five acres. I do have livestock there and it would be good for the homeowners that would be purchasing property adjacent to mine to understand that I do have livestock there and that would be something that they would have to deal with. Just interested in ACHD's comments on the traffic that's going to be generated on Victory and the traffic that's going to be on Overland. Both areas right now is pretty much a mess and adding additional traffic there would just mean that -- to kind of see what their plans are. That's pretty much the comments I have and would like to see how those issues will be addressed as this development moves folWard. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: My comment to you, sir, is thank you for your organization. That's very much appreciated. Zaremba: I would make a comment, sir. Of course, the applicant will come back and answer questions as well, but I think our dust abatement and construction blowing stuff -- our ordinances have improved since Bear Creek was begun. There are rules which the applicant has to comply with, standard rules for everything, but I think they have gotten stronger since the beginning of Bear Creek. The other is there are also rules about the down-shielding of lighting, so it's not supposed to be bleeding off onto other people's property and that's not an issue for this applicant if you're talking about previously and across the street, but you could call the police department and ask to speak to the compliance officer at the police department and they will come out and take a look at the lights and see whether they are complying with the down-shielding and no bleed off. Rough: Okay. I will do that. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 73 of 92 Zaremba: And we will ask the applicant to answer the other questions. Rough: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: James Prather. Prather: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. James Prather, 2595 South Linder, Meridian. I'll make my comments brief. I appreciate the presentation tonight. I did not make the earlier meeting of a couple of months ago. It's well thought out. It's well prepared. I think they have a few perhaps lose ends that they are taking care of as shown tonight, but more specifically, I live right across the street on Linder to the west. If I can -- correct. Zaremba: In that area? Prather: One south. Right there. Zaremba: Okay. Prather: What I would like to see here -- and I do appreciate, again, the attention of the applicant taking this into consideration, but Ariel Estates is the subdivision that I live in to the west. We are five acre estates and most of us in there -- well, all of us in there have made a pretty substantial investment, along with Eggers Subdivision, which is to the south of the Ridenbaugh, most of those lots in there are between one acre and two acres. And what I would like to see -- and I won't speak for the rest of the owners, but I'm sure -- if there could be a little bit more attention paid to the transition. Eggers is probably 25 to 30 years there and Ariel Estates I think are about 12 years old. What we would like to see is perhaps those lots that were enumerated to be somewhere between -- I believe Becky said somewhere between 13 and 18 thousand square feet Just bumped up to see if we can get closer to half acre lots. The way they are now, they are just roughly maybe on an average of a quarter acre coming up to acre and five acre lots. It would be nice, since we were in here preceding this development -- and, by the way, I -- this is what I do for a living as well. That's a good development and we know it's coming and we, actually, welcome it. But it would be nice if they would revisit their position and make those abutting lots to the north of the Ridenbaugh -- just the lots that abut that up about a half an acre. And that's my comment. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Ruth Ann Green. From the audience she states that her issues have been addressed. That is everybody that signed up for this, but at this time I'd welcome anybody else to come folWard that chooses to speak. Bradshaw: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Allen Bradshaw. I live on 2730 South Linder Road and I'm south of -- of the canal as well and I would kind of reiterate what James Prather said about the transition of the lot sizes in respect to the size of the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 74 of 92 lots that have been in existence for quite a long time, that maybe they look at expanding those lots with that. That's all. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Anybodyelse? Yes. Please come folWard. Young: Good morning. My name is Jan Young. I live at 1330 Eggers Place and I own two lots in Eggers. I have been there since May of 1979 and Becky has really addressed most of the concerns I had and I do feel approval for this and I agree with what Mr. Prather also said about along the canal, the additional lots being just slightly larger. One thing I do -- would like to address is the church that's down off of Overland. Living up on -- in Eggers Subdivision I'm not really sure how that was approved for them to have the outdoor speakers, but in the summertime up all the way to Eggers you can hear the church and it is very loud. So, I think anyone buying down in that subdivision would need to be aware that you can hear it throughout the entire subdivision and all the way up to our subdivision and that's one thing I'd like address. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. I think that probably speaks to his concerns about the lots -- wanting to see them become common lots, rather than developable lots, so -- in support of what his comments were. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this at this time? Seeing none, Commission? Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff on -- I agree that the church's CUP allows the public address system, but doesn't it still need to comply with sound levels leaving the property? Aren't there some rules about that? Wilson: There is a noise ordinance. It's contained in the Meridian civil code that Mr. Nary would likely be more familiar with than I am. Our Unified Development Code specifically addresses PA systems within 100 feet of residences needing a CU. It doesn't, actually, set levels or anything else, it just kind of falls back on the civil code, which, if I remember correctly, doesn't set decibel levels either, it's fairly vague and says that it can't disturb other properties, I think. But I would defer to Mr. Nary on that. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's, actually, the criminal code that we are referring to, but under the city noise ordinance, activities on religious property are exempt. So, it wouldn't violate the city criminal code. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: All right. I think, probably, at this time it's appropriate to ask Becky to come back up and let's see what she has to say. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. I have spoken with Mr. Webber on multiple occasions and we have made what my clients thought was good faith measures trying to, obviously, buffer the church from our future residents and vice-versa. We looked at possibly putting some open space up there, but Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 75 of 92 that is the high point on this portion. This particular pod here everything is sloping to the south. So, as you well know, any storm drainage, where sub surface or surface from retention ponds, have to be in a separate common lot. So, that was one reason that they were concerned about taking the open space and moving it and that was one of the recommendations that Mr. Webber had at the time. As far as their PA system -- Rohm: Becky -- oh, I was just going to say, it sounds from the testimony that we have heard that the PA system penetrates the entire subdivision and not just the adjacent lots, so I'm not sure that you could really address that adequately without elimination of the subdivision. But, anyway, that's -- McKay: Let me try -- one thing I have noticed, sound carries over bare ground and it carries for quite a distance, depending on the weather conditions and the way the wind's blowing. My past experience, like along Interstate 84, for example, very noisy facility. Some of the residents that were in subdivisions beyond the freeway -- and I designed a subdivision between them and the freeway, I have seen them since the subdivision was built out and one thing they said was, you know what, I can't hear the freeway now. So, that was one good thing about the development going in. So, you know, the sound is going to carry, because there is nothing to block it. When you do start getting built out, we do see a reduction in the distance that sound will carry, I mean that just lays to reason. One thing I did talk to Mr. Webber about is a church facility really any different than say a high school, a middle school, elementary? I used to live by an elementary. I could hear the little kids squealing and laughing and playing, the bell ringing, I have done lots of subdivisions next to high schools, they have outdoor sports events, lights, PA systems, traffic, and noise. There are lots of things associated with that type of activity, but yet schools are able to coexist and be compatible with residential development. We see churches primarily in residential areas. This one is a little unique, that they do have it looks like more outdoor activities than the average church. Most of them are indoors, but you do have like some of the LDS churches have baseball diamonds behind them I have seen and, you know, other outdoor activities that take place. So, I don't feel that their use is not compatible with us or vice-versa. I've tried my best to, you know, come up with different ideas to buffer them. I guess I leave it up to the Commission, if they believe that the two lots behind them that are limited to single story that are 150 feet deep, that we put a berm, a fence, and landscaping, is still not enough. I leave that to the Commission to make a determination. As far as the -- Mr. Rough indicated, who lives right here, about the trash. The staff -- or the ordinances always, I think, required the perimeter fencing, which, obviously, it's supposed to catch any of the building trash that's blowing around. However, if you drive around and we have had a big windstorm, you will see that some of the trash will go up over a six foot fence. That's, obviously -- you know, that burden's upon the developer to make sure that the builders understand that they must contain their trash, they can't just leave it, you know, around to blow all over and to go off of the subject property. As far as dust and noise, the city -- for the record, the city's pretty tough on dust. I have received phone calls from the staff and said Mrs. Smith or Jones called me and says that there is dust out there and you better take care of it. We call our contractor immediately, they send water trucks out. Most contractors are very cognizant of that, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 76 of 92 they are very conscientious about trying to get their water trucks out there. If we know we have, you know, a dust issue, they are pretty sensitive about it or if we have -- one time at Redfeather Estates we had an adjoining neighbor that had asthma and so we went to great pains to try to make sure that we took care of the dust and his wife called me if there was any dust, so -- existing trees. There are some existing trees that the Commission should be aware of. You see them right here on this landscape plan. But there is some that appear to be on the common boundary and, then, there are some that are primarily on the adjoining property. What I told the gentleman that lives there, that we can, obviously, meet him out there and look at the trees. He says some of them are like those black Locusts, they are not in very good condition. We, obviously, don't want to create a hazard, if it's determined -- we could get the city forester out there to look at them, that they should be taken out, because they are not safe, that they are on their last leg or diseased, but we typically try to retain as many trees as possible and the ordinance states that we must. We have to mitigate, obviously, any trees that we take out that are existing. Street lights. The shoe box lights should be -- you know, they should be shining downward. Sometimes they get tipped a little bit and they will shine on adjacent properties. I did out at Bridgetower have an adjoining neighbor call once and say it's shining in my bedroom. We sent an electrician out, they adjusted the little shield, and they said, hey, that worked great. So, maybe that's what needs to be done out here at Bear Creek. I'm not sure what the situation is. But, obviously, there are ways to try to relieve that problem. As far as just livestock, the right to farm, obviously, we would be willing to put that on the plat, that's a state law, if we have any agricultural that surround us, we, obviously, have to recognize those and respect those and any subsequent owners have to do the same. Traffic. I went through ACHD's plans for the improvement out in this area. I mean this area is planned for, funded, it's within next year. We did do a traffic study. Washington Group International did our traffic study, they went and did counts, looked all the surrounding intersections. We had them go beyond what -- just the Overland and Linder, we had them go further out and look at what's happening out there and look at the impact. They did a very thorough job. Ada County Highway District has incorporated all of those comments into their staff report that we received. We will be installing left turn bays, right turn bays on Linder, sidewalk along Linder. We will be donating the right of way to Ada County Highway District along Linder, 48 feet from center line. Along Stoddard that will be free right of way there, because it's designated as a collector. We will be building curb, gutter, sidewalk, half of, I think it is, a 46 foot section. And, then, obviously, the addition of the collector at our expense will be accommodating traffic moving in between this half mile. Not very often that the projects have a continuous collector. I like them. I'm an advocate for them. In this instance I think it's going to work real well with this school. So, we feel that, you know, all the traffic issues have been answered. As far as Ariel Estates and Eggers Estates, we did -- we did look at those lots and I'm sensitive to the rural lots. In fact, I did Ariel Estates. Last five acre lot subdivision I did before they required dry line sewers within the Meridian's area of impact. If we look at an aerial photo -- and I can submit this for the record. As you can see, I had them go beyond our project, which shows the location of the homes. To give you the scale of this, this is one inch equals 200 feet. So, some of these homes -- I think the closest one I found along this Eggers boundary here was about 160 feet from the closest point of their home to the rear lot line. That Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 77 of 92 would not be to -- you know, the home would be further away, but to the rear lot line. This particular gentleman talked about the impact on him. From his home over to this lot line I think is 235 feet. So, that kind of gives you an idea of the separation that we have. In looking at our distribution of lots, I brought this just to kind of demonstrate to the Commission that we did -- we did go through a logical process in determining our lot sizes. Everything you see in blue are our largest lots. Everything in pink is the next largest. Then, it goes down to the orange. The yellow are smallest. And pink are second. Yeah. No. The pink -- I'm sorry. It goes blue, pink, orange, yellow. Got it reversed. So, as you can see, all along Eggers and wrapping around there to Linder from the existing home, everything is blue. Over here we have some pinks. But we -- you know, these lots are pretty good size. They are not half acre, but I've got some that are 19,000, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 12 -- I mean they vary. I try to keep them wider and deeper than any of the other lots that I had. So, I think I have made an effort. I think that's all that I have. I think I have went through my list. Does the Commission have any other questions, comments? We would like to move folWard, if possible. I don't think with the large collector and our vehicle trips generated that we violate any ACHD policies. In fact, their staff report indicated that we are in compliance. And we meet and exceed their requirements. Moe: Becky, you made comment in regards to the lots right behind the church -- McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: -- being single story. McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: And I didn't hear you comment at all on Lots 12 through 17, possibly making those single-story. McKay: From-- Moe: From Linder over. McKay: From here over? Moe: Yes. McKay: The applicant doesn't agree. Moe: Thank you. McKay: I guess that burden is on the Commission to determine if that is necessary. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Becky, I was just wondering what you expect build out to be on this, approximately, because the sewer is not there yet. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 78 of 92 McKay: Fall 2007 and that is the best optimistic that I'm hearing from staff. I mean Mike may correct me. I know they are pushing hard to get it across the interstate. There is a need for it. All your trunks are at capacity or over capacity south of 1-84, so I know this has been a priority and it's even popped up higher on the priority list. We accept the fact that we may have to wait. We had hoped to get the first phase on this year. That was our hope. We think this will probably be, you know, a five phase project. Typically, projects run one to two phases a year, roughly. So, build out, you know, could be three to five years, depending on market conditions and, obviously, availability of the sewer. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: I, actually, have a couple of questions, if I may. And, actually, the first one is probably directed at staff, Mr. Cole, but while you're here, what is the mechanism for -- enforcing is not the right word, but making sure that sewer is available to enough homes? Is it the certificate of zoning compliance or certificate of occupancy, that they can't get until their sewer -- or am I making that up? Cole: Commissioner Zaremba, they are not allowed to build in any lots in this subdivision until the Black Cat -- Zaremba: So, they can't break ground. Cole: No. Zaremba: Okay. Cole: They could move a little dirt around if they wanted to, but until -- to answer the earlier question, the Black Cat Trunk is planned to be on the south side of the interstate in '06. From that point it's still roughly a half to three quarters of a mile away from Mrs. McKay's development. There is an application pending that would bring it to her front door. Depending on how fast that developer builds his sewer out, it's conceivable she could have sewer by '07, but that's a very -- McKay: Optimistic. Cole: -- optimistic expectation. Thank you, Mrs. McKay. Zaremba: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, you have heard that and you're aware of it and you probably knew that before I did. McKay: Yes, sir. We are aware of that and, obviously, we realize we may have to file a time extension on the preliminary plat in the event that there are any setbacks. The Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 79 of 92 staff has been very diligent and has not allowed us to start any subdivisions, that is the infrastructure, until that trunk was on its way. That's been pretty much a standard. They don't take any chances that somebody builds something that has no connection to a trunk. Zaremba: Okay. Great. The other question that I have is in regards to the police department requirement that you have objected to and this is something that Ada County Highway District, I'm sure, will be considering and that's that you consider traffic calming on West Kodiak to slow the speeds and stuff. My guess is that one of the methods that ACHD has presented to us as being traffic calming is a meandering street, which, to me, you appear to have been. I don't see any real straight-aways. McKay: No, sir. Zaremba: And I'm not sure that we have the authority to change a police department requirement, but I guess you're assuming ACHD is going to go along with your design. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we received the same comment on Volterra, because we have a continuous collector that in that instance ran from one arterial -- Ten Mile to Black Cat, another arterial. I think what the police chief -- I think he thinks it's like a local street for front-on housing. There is no front-on housing along the collector. A collector can carry up to 8,000 vehicle trips a day, because it doesn't impact anybody's home, because it's not in front of their home, unlike the local street that we restrict to less than 1,000 vehicle trips. People do go faster on the collectors. We do our best to try to give them a meander, not make them a straight shot, as, Commissioner Zaremba, you indicated. One thing we did do here is on the landscape plan we do show some pedestrian crossings, like some stamped pavers. That does -- that does make them slow down. It just kind of -- for some reason they will reduce their speed when you designate crosswalks. Also, you know, that would be a school zone. So, you will have, you know, some type of restricted speeds during the school hours. They usually have the little flashers and so forth. I don't see that as a problem. On Volterra Ada County Highway District just kind of shook their head and said this is a collector, not a local. If it was a local and you're trying to put this many vehicle trips on it, you would have a problem. You wouldn't meet their policies. But we meet all of ACHD's policies. Zaremba: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Before we proceed with this, I'd like to just make a comment that because we do not have the report from the Ada County Highway District to include in our deliberations, I think that the testimony that we have received tonight from the audience and rebuttal from the applicant is all in good order and I think this has been a healthy discussion. What I would like to see us do -- we can't make a decision tonight, because we do not have that report from the highway district. What I'd like to see us do Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 80 of 92 is just stop the discussion at this point in time, move to continue until the following February 2nd meeting and only take testimony associated with the Ada County Highway District report period at that next meeting and there is no sense in making any additional deliberations tonight and we will just conclude it with the Ada County Highway District report that we will receive between now and February 2nd. Any comments? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly agree with that, that the testimony should be limited to the ACHD report, but I also think there is some merits to discuss an issue when it's fresh in our minds. Not that we would be making -- necessarily making a motion, but in my mind it would be good to maybe discuss some of the issues that's been discussed while it's still fresh, rather than -- Rohm: And I guess -- Borup: -- weeks from now. Rohm: And I don't have a problem with that. I was hoping that we could get through this and open the last item on the agenda, but I'm open to hearing comments from each Commissioner associated with testimony currently received. Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend that we go ahead -- we stay until we open the last item on the agenda, but I do agree that we should discuss this one, if we want to make the changes. Even if it is after midnight, that we -- Borup: The time to have made that decision was earlier in the evening, maybe, and moved things along then. Newton-Huckabay: But I mean it's only -- because 19 and 20 are continued. Borup: I only have two comments and I don't know how many the others have. Zaremba: Yeah. I was going to say anticipating that this discussion may be fairly brief; I think I've had most of my answers -- my questions answered. I would like to hear Commissioner Borup's concern, but I also feel the following two issues, one of which hasn't been noticed and we are going to continue that one anyhow, will probably also go fairly quickly and I would be amenable to starting it even if it happens after midnight. Rohm: Fair enough. I can live with that. Commissioner Borup, you're on. Borup: Okay. I only, really, had a couple of notes. I mean I had a lot of notes, but two that may be open for discussion. One was perhaps a transition on the southern part of the subdivision. I got to look at things on what we have looked at historically and I think there is very good transition here. These are large lots compared to what we normally see against same size neighboring subdivisions, so I don't have any concern about that and I think they have done a good job of some real -- real large almost estate size lots, I guess maybe small estate. And the other is the property to the north. Not just on this, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 81 of 92 but I have always been opposed to limiting two story houses. I have never really felt that it really makes any sense. It shouldn't be a factor in my mind. I've seen it done in others and you go back and look at it attelWards and some of the single story homes are -- have got the same height as the two story. One of these -- so I don't know that -- and the taller homes there is going to be bigger blocking away. I don't see -- if you leave an open area there, that's going to just funnel the noise through there. So, I would not be in favor of having any limitation on heights. You know, if the developers want to do that to a couple of them, I guess, that's -- you know, that's up to them, but that's my feeling. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, I think they are well thought out statements and in support of those, the distance from lot line to adjacent existing structures is pretty significant and I don't think they'd even be able -- from the horizon I don't think they'd even see the two story homes. Borup: Well, that's what's really different in this one is the topography. It's something we are normally not looking at either. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Newton-Huckabay: Slopes up? Borup: Yeah. Or slopes down. The canal is the high point. Newton-Huckabay: But isn't the property somewhat bowl shaped? It slopes down and, then, goes back up? Borup: Right. Yeah. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts that you'd like to share? Zaremba: Nothing to add. I agree with what Commissioner Borup just added and I have previously said or asked everything that I care to do. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no additional comments. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Ditto. Rohm: All right. I think we have done with comments. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 0 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 82 of 92 Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: I'm sorry. Wilson: Sorry to interrupt. The applicant did indicate that she's out of town the 2nd, so if you could choose the 16th or if that agenda is full, maybe one after that. Borup: The 16th is probably better. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Thank you. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing for AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064, both relating to Bear Creek West Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006, for the sole purpose of considering action taken by ACHD and making a decision that night. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 05-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C-N zone for Young America Early Care and Education Center by Young American Early Care and Education Center - 1525 Leigh Field Drive: Rohm: Okay. We have got three minutes to spare. At this time I'd like to open up the Public Hearing on CUP 05-056 associated with Young America Early Care and Education Center and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a Conditional Use Permit for a child care center for up to 100 kids. The existing child care -- or the proposed child care center is located within an existing building, approximately 5,100 square feet. It is on a .5 acre lot -- a little over half an acre lot within Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.8, so the subdivision you heard earlier is this property right there and, then, there is the triangle that their street came up. We are just back to the east a little bit. The applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor play area within -- on this lot, approximately 1,200 square feet. Let me see if I have a little better -- it shows it a little bit better. It will be in this general vicinity, fenced off -- I'll get to the fencing here in a second, but it has about 1,200 square feet. And there are 31 parking stalls within this lot. There are other parking within the area today. There is a cross-access agreement currently in place for the subdivision, so if they do get some overflow traffic, there are some other parking available currently in the general vicinity. This property is currently zoned C-N, which is a neighborhood business district. Just a couple of the conditions, I guess, to quickly run through the staff report. Staff is recommending that the hours of