Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes I:> ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 4 of 113 their right to testimony and so it's real important that we stick to that, because we could be here forever if we didn't. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell- 5910 North Black Cat Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to start by opening up the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057 -- excuse me. I'm going to make sure I have the right notes here. We had a revisal of our agenda. Okay. For AZ 05-058, PP 05-060 and -- that's it. These both pertain to Keego Springs Subdivision and start with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs was originally on the December 15th, 2005, agenda and was continued to tonight's date to give the applicant some time to talk to the school district and work out some issues that the school district had. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat and annexation approval of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 medium density residential zone for approval of -- as submitted 201 single-family homes and nine common lots. With some revised plans that you have in front of you tonight, that has been reduced by 22 build- able lots, to a total of I want to say 176, but that math doesn't sound right. I'm going to let the applicant address those exact numbers, but I do have here that they have reduced by 22 build-able lots from the initial plat submittal. The site is located just south of Chinden on Black Cat, adjacent to a couple of recent projects, one much more recent than the other. You will remember Volterra Subdivision recently came through on both the north side of Ustick and the south side of Ustick a little bit, a large subdivision. And, then, in 2000 -- either late 2004 or early 2005 Bainbridge Subdivision also came through, which is located in the northeast area of this section. The subdivision does have quite a bit of frontage along Black Cat Road. They have proposed one entrance to the subdivision from Black Cat Road and, then, some associated stubs to streets approved with Bainbridge Subdivision and I will also get into some other requirements there. Some of the conditions staff has placed on the subdivision in the staff report -- did have a concern about the -- and I will go to a blow up here. The design of the amenities for the neighborhood. They are centrally located within the subdivision. The submitted plat does have a gazebo and barbecue area, a tot lot, and a pool and clubhouse area, which are separated by the entrance road to the subdivision from Black Cat and, then, also another street within the subdivision. Under the preliminary plat analysis item one, we have -- actually, item two. I'm sorry. We have recommended that those amenities be assembled in one location, so the area -- so that neighborhood residents don't have to cross those local streets to use those amenities. I did speak with the applicant today and they have a little bit of concern with the way that my Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 5 of 113 condition there was worded and I do support their change. The idea being that equal square footage of land -- and staff's recommendation -- I will back up a bit. Sorry. Staff's recommendation was that those two areas to the north and south of that entrance road be moved to this area here to consolidate with the pool house and clubhouse. Their proposal is to move those areas as an equal area of land, you know, keep the square footages the same when they do move those lots there and replace them with build-able lots to here. The staff report mentions that eight lots would be moved. The applicant did indicate that it would only require the removing of seven lots that would actually be lost in this area here. And that would keep equal square footages from the initial submittal and staff is supportive of that. We just -- we would like to see those -- those assembled in that area where they don't have to cross those local streets to use them. In addition, the entrance road to the subdivision does create what we would label through lots, lots that have frontages on two parallel streets. We have also - - we have recommended a condition of approval that there be a landscape lot placed along Cascada Street I believe it's called. A ten-foot landscape strip which, essentially, prevents access to that street by the lots, which double front on these two streets here. That would maintain access from these lots to these internal loop roads and improve traffic circulation through here and also maintain the continuity of the landscaping through that area. The applicant has proposed -- I don't know if we have got a landscape plan here. It doesn't look like it. They have also proposed detached sidewalks and parkways with street trees. We are supportive of the design and the design does meet the standards set forth by ordinance in terms of width of the parkway and width of the sidewalk and was also approved by ACHD. The one comment there is that they will be limited to class two trees and I have included that as a condition of approval. The submitted plat -- and this came up in the ACHD report as well. The submitted plat does not show a stub street connection to an approved stub street within Volterra Subdivision. We would echo ACHD's comments and like to see that connection made. Some discussion we will get into about the school site it sounds like may move the location of that stub. So, I think the applicant will recommend that the wording of that condition be changed and be less so towards an exact location, as more to the idea that it will connect to that stub from Volterra where ever it does end up and we are supportive of that. I think that brings us to the school site, which is why the application was continued from its first hearing, so that the applicant could talk with the school district and address their concerns of having a school site located within the subdivision. The revised plat that is on the screen -- essentially what it does is it provides a portion of the school site that the school district would require. I see Mr. Bigham is here tonight and I will let him address that a little bit more and the talks going on there. The idea being that a portion of the desired elementary school would be located within the proposed Keego Springs Subdivision and a portion would be located within the approved Volterra Subdivision. Now, negotiations, as my understanding, are ongoing with Volterra in terms of configuration -- ultimate configuration of that school site and ultimate amounts of land of that school site. As a condition in the staff report, we did ask that that -- those negotiations be solidified prior to final plat approval. The idea being that it's not -- it doesn't accomplish what the school district needs to end up with half of a school site and I don't think it accomplishes what the city needs either. So, we need to find some sort of mechanism there to insure that that school site is -- is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 6 of 113 sufficient for the school district. So, that was staff's way of handling that. I think with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Just clarification on some of your comments, so I can understand. First one on the landscape lot on Cassandra, the concern was vehicle access from those lots, is that what I understood? Wilson: It is. Yeah. Borup: Even though it's a divided, separated sidewalk with fence and landscaping along there already? Wilson: The divider certainly makes it an awkward area for vehicles to access, but as that is not -- ACHD did not classify that as a collector, so I believe there is nothing prohibiting a homeowner from accessing it without that landscape strip. Borup: That couldn't be a condition? Wilson: It could. Borup: Or maybe some extra landscaping in there -- you know, more trees or something? Wilson: Well, currently, any landscaping along there would be within the right of way. I don't know if we get any of that here from the blowup. There is not a common lot along that street. Borup: No. Right. I mean it does show landscaping on -- the landscape shows trees on the property line right now. Wilson: Yeah. It shows trees within the parkway, essentially, yeah. Borup: Right. Lined up with the -- I had some questions on -- probably never mind that. On the stub street. But Volterra and Bainbridge and the school site, how many acres was in Volterra Subdivision and Bainbridge both? Here we go. I see something from -- I'm not sure how many acres. Four hundred and twenty-nine lots in one and 728 in the other. So, maybe that partially answers that. Volterra was 728 lots. Bainbridge is 429. I mean -- right. But neither one of those -- either one of subdivisions have -- there is no school sites in there now and no city park or anything in either one of those -- -. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 7 of 113 Wilson: There are no school sites proposed within those. I don't believe any city parks. And no city parks either. In terms of acreage, you can get kind of a rough figure if you go off of -- Borup: Well, yeah, I found a letter here that shows -- a letter to you that showed the lot count. Wilson: Okay. Borup: And it was 429 and 728, compared to, what, 176 here? So, then, as I understand it, you're talking about making the off-site -- the off-site negotiations between Volterra and the school district a condition on this subdivision? Is that what I understood? I wasn't -- I didn't know when we started requiring off-site performance condition on -- by others as a condition. Wilson: Conditioning it that way moves the application forward. You could not act on it until an agreement is reached. I mean it's -- Borup: Either way, that's requiring something by an off-site third party. Wilson: Correct. That's true. Borup: Okay. I just wanted to understand what -- what that was talking about. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Baird: Before we move on, I wanted to correct the fact regarding the Bainbridge Subdivision. Although a park was not a condition of approval of that subdivision, the developer has been in negotiations with the parks department regarding the donation of a seven acre -- I believe it's seven acres. A neighborhood park site, essentially. So, it's highly likely that there will be a neighborhood park in the Bainbridge Sub. Public Neighborhood Park. Borup: Public. Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I was just curious why a school site wasn't looked at earlier in this area. Rohm: I think we will probably -- Borup: Find out? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 8 of 113 Rohm: -- receive testimony to that effect later and it's a good question. Any other questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Campbell: In Boise they make you say your name and address, is that -- okay. I'm Todd Campbell. I reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle, Idaho. I am the applicant, developer of the Keego Springs Subdivision, and we do have new site plans for you to review, showing the revision on the amenities being relocated. We are in agreement with that and we have had time to redraw those site plans. I'm going to take just a few minutes and just briefly introduce the project and, then, I'm going to defer all the technical questions to Jim Howard, our engineer, and any legal issues to Joann Butler, our legal representation. In developing the Keego Springs project, we believe that we are bringing a nice subdivision into the City of Meridian with amenities that are seen normally in more dense or higher acreage subdivisions. We are trying to include a pool for the neighborhood to use, some higher end landscaping in the entryway and throughout the subdivision, throughout the parkways with the detached sidewalks and the nice trees. Trying to create a -- kind of a boutique, if you will, style subdivision, an intimate feel than some of the -- like the grander projects that are going in around town, yet giving the homeowners within the subdivision a -- the same amenities that are in these bigger projects. We also feel that we are bringing various housing types to the project, alley loaded product, smaller lot product, as well as traditional Meridian size lots. We feel that we are compatible with the additional project that has been approved already, the Volterra and the Bainbridge Subdivisions, and we feel like this would be a good benefit to the City of Meridian. And if you have no questions, I'm going to defer now to Jim Howard and Joann Butler. Rohm: Before you step away, one of the things -- kind of -- a little bit off the subject, but to the point of your drawing that you have up there on the board. Campbell: Yes. Rohm: If you can provide that same rendition in either PDF format or a jpeg, so that we can incorporate that into our minutes, then, we don't need to retain that, but if you make that part of your presentation, then, we have to archive that as part of the testimony. So, it would be best if when you bring these projects forward if you could provide either a jpeg or a PDF format. Campbell: Okay. That is -- yeah. We can do that. You guys should have copies of the landscape plan already in your packages. This has just been slightly modified showing the school site. Nothing else has been changed on there other than that. But I will now defer to Jim Howard. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Campbell two questions, if I may, and you may very well tell me that it's one of other people that needs to answer it, but -- okay, now we got a bunch of things. I can't tell from my drawing, but I thought one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 9 of 113 things that was up on the display indicated that from the school site -- is there a pathway going between those two properties? Campbell: On this side, no. There is a little connection over to the west. Zaremba: I see over there that it touches the road, but-- Campbell: Yes. No, there is not. Zaremba: Would you be amenable to the suggestion of putting one? And I will ask the same question to Mr. Bigham when he comes up here, whether the school district would even want one, but -- Campbell: We would do that. Zaremba: -- it would seem like some connectivity -- okay. Then, my other question is -- there is a letter from ITD, dated November 18th, asking you to provide them with a traffic impact study, I guess because of your proximity to Highway 20-26. That's probably the same study that you must have prepared for ACHD, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware that ITD has asked for that. Campbell: Okay. I was not aware of that. Zaremba: Okay. Campbell: We do have that already prepared. Dan Thompson, the engineer, did that traffic study. Zaremba: Okay. Just -- I can show you the letter if you need to know where to send it Campbell: We will get her done. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Campbell: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Howard: Good evening. My name is Jim Howard with J.J. Howard Engineering and our office is located here in Meridian, 1530 East Commercial, and I, again, will defer a lot of my time to perhaps legal counsel concerning the school site. I'm not very knowledgeable on that, so I think the follow up with be the best. But I do want to cover some areas that may come up during the hearing. We had a neighborhood meeting and I noticed that primarily the people that showed up were the people that live within Rambo Sub. I believe it's four or five lots to our north. They expressed concerns of the higher density lots abutting their -- I believe they are one to 1.3 acre tracts. I believe Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page10of113 there is at least one or two representatives that will be speaking this evening concerning that. And we looked at the -- we looked at that and we -- I talked to Todd a little bit about it. There will be a six foot vinyl fence that is placed there, a privacy fence, and as we look at -- perhaps a term they may use is maybe buffering or creating larger lots along the north here. I feel like that -- I'm not sure that that's needed, because there is some natural buffering going on. As I looked at aerial photos, their homes -- the full home sites, if you go from west to east along the northern boundary there is that natural buffering. The first home is set back 164 feet from our north boundary. The second one is 192 feet. The third one is 140. And the last one -- the most easterly one is 86. So, there is -- there is a bit of buffering for their home sites by virtue of the distance they placed their home from our north boundary. I appreciated their comments. I think we learned a lot from them. They are concerned about how that entire area is going to be developed. I have looked at that entire square mile and I have kind of a drawing or I have superimposed all the preliminary plats and it's going to be a busy area. Some of the things that I would like to point out that the staff has already talked about is we concur with the staff report a hundred percent. We don't have major issues. We recognize the need for a stub street to the south and we will work with ACHD and the city to determine where the best location of that is. It's going to be based on the outcome of the school situation and that sort of thing. So, we are prepared to place a stub street where it's most useful. We also concur that equal areas -- if we move those areas that are identified as the gazebo, tot lot, pool clubhouse area, if we move those and we agree -- or we are going to move them like the city has directed us, we will move those on the basis of area. Like to correct one thing. I, perhaps, when I prepared the drawing, I called it a clubhouse. It's more properly noted as really a dressing or changing room. So, it's not going to be a clubhouse per se. So, I want to make sure that's correct, that we don't mislead you. That covers the -- I think I covered the stub street to Volterra and I think that's primarily most of it. The changes that were noted by staff we agree with and I think they are reasonable. And that includes my presentation. So, I'll stand for questioning. Rohm: Thank you. Howard: Thank you. Butler: Good evening, Commissioners. Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant -- that's in Boise. Representing the applicant. And what I provided for you there -- and a copy to Josh Wilson, is a copy of Exhibit 8, which are the conditions of approval, with the few conditions that we have tabbed here for you, showing the changes that we would ask you to make in your conditions of approval. And very simply, I will go through those. The first one on page one, 1.2.6 just would be the change that represents the correct lot numbers due to the movement of the amenities from where the original plan shows them to where the staff had recommended they be. So, that's what 1.2.6 would represent. On the next page we deal with a couple of different things, the street stub and also the school district issue. And so I will address those just briefly. 1.2.11 or 11 deals with that stub street. We will deal with this in the appropriate way. However, the way it has been requested would Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 11 of 113 conflict with a couple of things. One would be the proposed school site and it would also conflict with the ACHD offset requirements. And I may have, from a technical perspective, maybe have Mr. Howard come back and explain that as well. But we see that that does conflict with ACHD's offset requirements. Also, somebody mentioned the idea of a pathway to the school. If this winds up being a school site, it was a condition of approval for Volterra that if a school site were placed in this area, that rather than a stub street, a path would be put in. So, it really -- I think that's one of those conditions that remains to be seen how it's handled in the future, if this will be a school site, maybe this becomes a pathway. 1.2.12 and .13 deals with the school site issues and you can see that we did a couple of things. We deleted the request that the staff had for three additional lots and we also deleted or made a change to the condition in connection with the school site. The proposal that we have had -- we have been meeting with the school district, one private developer with the school district, to discuss a proposed site and we have provided or shown a site, four acres. The school district is asking for a ten acre site in this vicinity. I appreciate the fact that somebody raised the issue of how large Volterra is, how large Bainbridge is, how large Keego is. We, in fact, have 15 percent of the residential lots in here, yet we are showing that we would assist the school district with a size of site of four acres or 40 percent of the site and we are willing to do this under a couple of different scenarios. Given that we are providing 40 percent of the site, then, an additional three lots we don't think is appropriate to ask of this particular developer in this particular site. So, we -- that's why we deleted 1.2.11. With regard to the other site -- and we do appreciate the fact that staff tried to find a way to address this issue, how do we get this addressed, and they were putting the burden on us to get the negotiation done with the private developer, although we want to ask that go back to the school district school. The district has been dealing with us and we have been willing to say we will put four acres up and we ask the school district to deal with the next door developer to try to gain those other six acres. And so we have changed this condition and we ask that you look at this. We have said that the condition would read as follows: That we will hold this site over the next 12 or 13 months, that we will hold this site until the school district is able to finalize its negotiations with the adjacent property owner. But if the school district is not able to obtain a reasonable amount of acreage from the person next door -- from the owner next door, then, we would come back to the city and ask for a re-plat along the lines of our original submittal. So, we are saying that we would hold this area for the school district for the next 12 months to the earlier date, either when utilities are available or 12 months from today's date. And we think that that's a reasonable position. It puts the negotiations back with the -- correctly with the school district and the developer next door. The other changes where you have tabs in here are also a repeat of the requirement for a stub street. Both the fire department and the ACHD had this issue of a location of a particular stub street, but that was before we started talking about this school site and the condition as it reads now would conflict with that school site and conflict with ACHD's offset requirements. So, I guess what we are saying is we would delete that for now, pending a determination as to whether or not a school site ever comes into -- into fruition with successful negotiations by the school district with the adjacent property owner. I would really appreciate any questions that the Commission has and I will try to explain more where we are headed with this. Also, let me just mention also with regard to the school Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 12of113 site, I think that the Commission is very much aware that there is a recent Supreme Court ruling that has directed the legislature to deal with the funding for schools and there are several bills that are pending in the legislature right now, possibly looking at impact fees for school districts, and we'd just like to get it on the record that if it should come to pass that -- for example, school districts are -- their capital improvements and their land are paid for, because due to impact fees, we would, obviously, not want to pay twice. If it comes to pass in the future that we have to pay -- in fact, we are more than happy to pay our fair share, but we would revisit that at the time of final plat. I think that's it. I think Mr. Howard's addressed the issue with the folks up to the north and the buffering that -- the automatic buffering by virtue of how far distant their homes are from this site. So, I think the school district is probably the biggest issue. Be happy to answer any questions. Rohm: My first question is -- I want to talk about that four acres just for a moment. If I understood you correctly, if the school district's not able to negotiate with the neighbors for the other six acres, then, is it your point that you wanted to have the opportunity to go ahead and develop those four acres into usable lots if, in fact, the other six acres couldn't be obtained by the district? Is that what your plan was? Butler: That's correct. If the district can't obtain a site large enough for a school in this area, then, we would want to -- it would just -- obviously, would be just sitting there and we would want the opportunity to come back to the city and along the lines of our original plan. Rohm: Okay. All right. I thought that that's what you said, but I wanted to just ask the question. That's alii had. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Mae: In regards to the stub street to the south, as far as what you noted somewhat deleting it, are you requesting to delete the requirement for a stub street or just the location where you were anticipating it going? Butler: I think it's just location, really. It's really just the location and, then, also do we do a stub street or a pathway. Moe: I just want to make sure, because the other gentleman said they didn't have a problem with the stub street. Butler: Right. Right. Moe: As I read this, it's -- Butler: It's just the location. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 13 of 113 Moe: Okay. Butler: And maybe this is something that we need to workout with Ada County Highway District based on their offset requirements and the possible location of a school. Moe: I would anticipate that just as long as the wording within a motion reads that you were going to provide the stub street that's south into the Volterra Subdivision is what we would be looking for. That's it for me. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Butler: Thank you. Borup: I had the same question, so you took care of that. Butler: I will just reserve a few minutes for rebuttal if necessary. Thanks. Zaremba: I can't tell if Commissioner Borup is asking -- were you going to ask a question or -- Borup: No. I had the same -- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: I had the same question as -- Zaremba: I didn't hear that. I would just comment before we go on, on the impact fee, should it happen that there is a school district impact fee, my guess is that it would be crafted similar to the ACHD impact fee, where if a developer, in fact, builds a road and pays an impact fee, they can apply to get their impact fee back or some portion of it that goes along to what they spent or what they gave in right of way or something, and I would assume there would not be a double whammy somehow. Rohm: I suspect that would be the case. Mae: Mr. Chairman, could I just request -- would the applicant do me the favor and take your boards down from the ledge, so that we can kind of see the screen now? I'm getting confused every time I see it. Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to have Wendell Bigham come up. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho. Here representing Joint School District No.2. In no particular order, we appreciate the opportunity to work with Mr. Campbell to acquire a school site. This is by far the worst situation that I can think of for the school district to be in. I will explain how Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 14 of 113 we got to be where we are, as to why Bainbridge and Volterra arguably fell through the cracks. Where we stand today is Mr. Campbell representing Keego Springs has come forth with their architects and their engineers and we have worked on a site layout that's on approximately eight and a half to nine acres. Ten acres is our preferred site. We were trying to minimize the lot impact of both Volterra and to Bainbridge -- excuse me -- Keego Springs. Bainbridge really had nothing to contribute in a usable way. It was an odd piece of ground that really gave us difficult supervision area for the playground, so we terminated our discussions with them. We have a proposed layout. I have a little drawing here, but I don't see it. It just simply shows the school site. What's happening is the piece of property is none too wide given the size of our building, so I will speak to the first issue. The stub street. Right now in the absence of counsel, architect, or engineer, I'm all you have got for whatever your questions might be. The elementary school site, because it's on a small site, requires three curb cuts, primary parking lot area and, then, a bus loop in and out. So, our number of curb cuts and, then ACHD's distance limitation maybe make a pedestrian path more advantageous in terms of the number of curb cuts. As stated, we simply need to move forward with all due haste to bring Keego Springs, Volterra, and ACHD and the school district together to talk about that interconnection. The discussion as to whether or not there should be a pedestrian access into the school up in this area -- if you go back to the other drawing. This is a little out of scale. That building -- it's surrounded by parking lot and offset. We get a huge sea of parking around the front of it. The pedestrian -- can you flip back to the plat? Excellent. Pedestrian access here certainly works for these -- this area. We will be talking to Bainbridge to see if we can reinvent the wheel over here to get some pedestrian access in. If not, Bainbridge can access into here, whether or not pedestrian access should be in that vicinity or not. So, I'd like to talk to ACHD about the curb cuts, the offsets. Want me to finish up? Rohm: No. Borup: That's from the previous -- wasn't it? Rohm: Continue, please. Bigham: Thank you. We are in discussions with Volterra. We have -- we are not at the level that they have agreed to the indicated amount of property. Both parties we have not talked about price or purchase. However, the school district is desirous to proceed as soon as possible. If the condition went forward to City Council, that the school district needs to have the deal struck with Keego Springs on the acquisition of the site. We would agree to anything that brings the parties to the table quickly. We are working as fast as we can to bring Volterra to the table. We will find a way to get resolution of this. It ultimately will be a school site. In the absence of that, this square mile probably will be without an elementary school site, unless we move clear to the other side. So, to answer how things came to be the way they are, our last bond issue was in 2002. We ran out of bond money for site acquisition in early 2003. In early 2003 we started negotiations on this very piece of property with the previous land owner for the 50 acre parcel for a joint elementary and school site. We talked to them for over a year. We felt Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 15 of 113 we were in good stead to acquire that site. During that time period Bainbridge and Volterra came forward. In the name of cost effectiveness, the district is trying to look at consolidating schools into a campus so we get better utilization of the land that we have. After approval of Bainbridge and Volterra, our negotiations fell through and Mr. Campbell successfully purchased the property. Left us with a real dilemma. We still need an elementary school for this square mile. That's what triggered this whole thing was, hopefully, the ability to work with this development and Volterra. We are stilliett in a very large quandary for a middle school site in the area. We are rapidly approaching a severe overcapacity and we are looking like crazy for a middle school site in this area that's separate from this. We are also looking for a high school site. So, I think with that we are here through no fault of really anybody, but a series of circumstances. So, with that I would gladly stand and answer any questions that you have or -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm a little bit confused. This applicant, as I understand it, has four acres set aside for the school and you spoke earlier about eight and a half acres. Where is the other four and a half acres? Borup: Volterra. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, it's coming out of Volterra. Moe: Okay. Bigham: Do you want to put that magic little -- there is the southern boundary of Keego. This is the chunk from Volterra. This is my curb cut problem potentially there. A parking lot in here or a bus loop in here. So, there would arguably be four curb cuts in this vicinity and that's kind of the concern. And this is approximately four and a half -- 4.3 acres, something -- fourish acres out of Volterra. Moe: Thank you. Bigham: And this drawing was a planning drawing. The representation on the Keego Springs plat is much more accurate. Borup: Are you done? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any -- you said you're working on negotiation with Volterra. Is there an estimate on time frame? The applicant had mentioned one year. Is that more than reasonable from your view point or -- Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the one year is more than we would want. We have multiple calls in and the individual representing Volterra as the negotiating contact has been out of town. We hope to meet with them immediately and, quite frankly, I'd like all this to be over in 30 days. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 16 of 113 Borup: Okay. Bigham: So, really don't need a year in the negotiation. Certainly hope -- well, we will know if it falls apart before then. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of this testimony? Zaremba: Thank you. Bigham: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. At this time I'd like to ask Don Brown if he would like to come forward, please. Brown: Don Brown. I live at 4595 West Rambling Court. Abut on the north end of the property that's to be discussed. And I am speaking on behalf of the homeowners of the Rambo Subdivision. We are missing a couple of us. Rohm: You're speaking for a group? Brown: Yes. Rohm: Could I see a show of hands for those to whom he is speaking? Okay. Brown: Yeah. We are a relatively small subdivision. There is only four properties that do abut. We have been there for a considerable amount of time and we do have rather large acreages, as Mr. Howard did explain. And we did have the initial meeting on 10/13, as you can see from my time line, and that was the topic of our concern, is that this is a very dense subdivision and we have rather large acreages and we would like to preserve our -- not only our property values, but our property rights. We have had very open spaces -- while he was discussing the setbacks we do have of our houses. We do also have animals and which we have got them on the back of the properties which would abut directly with this proposed subdivision. And at our initial meeting Mr. Howard recommended that we ask for the buffering. So, it's something that you did recommend early on. Excuse me. And, then, following the meeting we had with Howard, we had a neighborhood meeting, we discussed all these issues, and in the process of this as well, the topic of the school came up and from that I did go in and make my -- our wishes known from the property owners to Mr. Howard, that if the school was to go into the subdivision, that we would be more than open for the school to be on the north end of the property, so that we would actually butt up against the school property. And if that was not available to us, then, we would like things adjusted so that the larger properties were put adjacent to our properties to maintain a flow and not just give the appearance of a subdivision that's kind of crammed in there, which this is a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 17 of 113 very dense subdivision. So, what we came together as a neighborhood and discussed was that we would like a landscape berm in between the properties, possibly with a fence on top, just to allow us some safety wishes between the potential property owners of Keego and ourselves, just to create a little bit more of a buffer and just so we have some continuity. It seems like we have got a lot of subdivisions going in the area, which they are just utilizing the space that they have and putting as many houses as they possibly can cram into an individual parcel as they possibly can get. And in addition to the berm just landscape, we have got rather mature trees and whatnot in our area, so we are just trying to create a feel, so that the neighborhoods blend together rather than just something that's set apart. And since we have been a rural street, we are a dead end, it's a cul-de-sac, we have no sidewalks and we do have kids that play down at the end of this cul-de-sac and one of our concerns as well is you have got all these cuts going in there and what's to keep somebody from coming down to the end of our dead end street, finding it's a dead end street and, then, having to go back out the other end. It is marked now, which it hadn't been up until this year. So, we do have children playing down there. We also have a handicapped individual in a wheelchair that occasionally goes out into the cul-de-sac. So, we have got some safety issues that we are dealing with as well. And, then, the other concern, which the traffic counts were not addressed, but with Volterra they were -- they addressed a potential for 10,000 vehicle visits down the street. Black Cat has not been widened. There are no plans, to the best of my knowledge for Chinden to be widened. The speed along the road is 50 miles an hour on Black Cat. You're pulling onto 55 on Highway 20-26. You're putting in another entrance here, there is an entrance for Volterra, you have got a potential for a lot of accidents on the road. So, aside from us seeing any plans or -- I don't know if you're privy to information that hasn't been released -- I don't think there is anything coming that shows that these roads are going to be widened, so you have got a definite problem in that area. And, then, into November we did express this again to Mr. Howard about the school district. I, then, got on the phone and talked to Mr. Bigham about the issue and he informed me of the fact that they were trying to procure some extra property down to share with Volterra, just so there wouldn't be a burden on both property owners. So, today I did go in and I talked with Mr. Howard and he's kind of expressed what was going on with the subdivision and this is the first I had heard about the vinyl fence. That's not acceptable to us as property owners. It would esthetically not blend into the neighborhood out there. It would be just a nice vinyl fence. If we could work something out where we could landscape that buffer a little bit more and, as I said, maybe put the larger lots up on the north border, we would be perfectly amenable to that. As it stands right now, we are not opposed to the subdivision, but we are opposed to this current plat. And with the school situation as well, just backing up a little bit, if your passes are not able to get this through, I have two kids, one goes to Sawtooth, they are severely overcrowded, nearly capped. Hunter was capped the day it was open. If there is not a school in here, you have got 1,336 homes that will have been approved between the three subdivisions, you're going to have a real problem and so you need to hold off on this subdivision until something absolute is done with the school. And Volterra is not in any obligation, because they have already been approved through City Council, so they are off and running. So, this is the subdivision that's going to maybe take the burden of it and, if that's the case, we would be more than willing on Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page18of113 putting a school on the north end. And so, essentially, what we are requesting is if that can be done, we would like a landscape berm with a fence and we would also like the opportunity to meet with the developer. Currently everything we have done has been proactively from our part meeting with the engineer. We have not yet met with the developer and he has not made an effort to meet with us individually. So, with that said, we hope you take this into consideration when you're making your decision. Is there any questions? Rohm: Any questions of this testimony? Thank you. Brown: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Margaret Pariko. And Joanne Bick? Oh, excuse me. It was Joanne Butler. Thank you. Let's see, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application at this time? Okay. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward. Canning: Mrs. Butler, we can put the comp plan up larger and zoom in on the piece, if you'd like us to. You want that whole section? Butler: That would be great. Zaremba: The wonders of technology. While that's getting set up, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: I would ask the applicant one question that was left hanging in the staff report. It's on a staff report page eight and it's paragraph seven. Variance for block length and setbacks. The City Council, actually, is the one to which you have to apply for the variance, except that they asked us to clarify what you are requesting for front setbacks in your variance, so that staff has a heads up. Just include that in your discussion. Butler: I'm sorry, what was the -- for Mr. Howard, what section was that in the staff report? Zaremba: It's page eight, paragraph seven. Butler: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Variance for block length and setbacks and I guess the question from staff is can you be more specific? Butler: Okay. Thank you. Anna, thank you. Okay. Just wanted to focus in on this section and the school -- and I thank Mr. Bigham for addressing this issue and just to set a little bit of a stage for this particular location, as you can see close to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 190f113 neighborhood commercial area you see the little symbol for the school, which is where the Comprehensive Plan promotes a school for this area and staff confirmed that the text for the Comprehensive Plan talks about probably the most appropriate place for a school is where you have mixed use, the neighborhood commercial areas, and so on. So, Keego Springs -- and if I might, because I don't have a pointer -- over in this area -- is a bit far from that neighborhood commercial area and from where the Comprehensive Plan would promote it with its text and with its symbol as a guidance, yet our particular property owner has stepped up to the plate and I was wrong when I said it was four acres, it's actually 4.9. So, that's about 60 percent of what the school district is saying it's looking for in about an 8.5 acre site. So, we have been more than happy to work with the school district and we are very glad to hear Mr. Bigham talk about the fact that they are working so diligently with Volterra for the remaining acreage, which, I guess, would underscore the change in the condition of approval that we have asked for to have the school district versus us as a private landowner next door to continue those negotiations. So, we are looking forward to that. I appreciate also that Mr. Bigham is saying that they would not need a year and so if I would -- although I have asked for January 2007, I would push that back to June 2006 as a little bit of incentive to get that finished, too. So, if the Commission would consider that. With regard to the area to the north -- I don't know if I can do this in a fashion that you can see the aerial photograph. I think if Mr. Howard can show this a little bit. What you had where the area -- this would be the area below, which would be the proposed Keego Springs and you can see in the Randall Acres we have some out buildings and so on. We have an equestrian area, and it looks like a corral along the area. It's -- obviously, there is -- if the neighbors truly did want to do a berm on their side of the ground for further berming or berm landscape, they could do that. I think that what you see here is a much great effect on Keego -- what will be Keego Springs than on Randall, that we have an equestrian area, out buildings, and so on right up close to -- close to the border on some of these boundaries and it probably is not appropriate to do more than the six foot privacy fence along that and I think that having just recently done that in another development, that has proven to be a very nice buffer for -- especially given what we see along the boundary. So, we would continue to suggest that that is the appropriate buffer for that area. Somebody mentioned -- and we are sorry that one of the neighbors was not able to meet with Mr. Campbell right at the neighbor meeting. There were neighborhood meetings held. I asked Mr. Campbell if he was there and he had had surgery the day before, which is why he couldn't attend. But I know that Mr. Howard has admirably carried through the details of the project with the neighbors. So, with that, unless there are other questions from the Commission, we would respectfully ask that you do recommend approval of this project with the minor changes to the conditions of approval that we have requested. Thank you. Rohm: Before you step away, they had also asked about the type of fencing that you propose here and I think your proposal calls for vinyl and -- Butler: Vinyl. Rohm: -- I'm not sure what alternative -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 20 of 113 Butler: Design? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Rohm: What your neighbors would have considered as an acceptable alternative, but -- Butler: From vinyl? Rohm: Yeah. From vinyl. Butler: I don't know and maybe they can speak to that. It sounded like they were saying berm plus fence and so I didn't get the impression that vinyl was unacceptable, I think they were asking for something greater than just -- Rohm: Just a berm in addition to the fence. Butler: Right. Rohm: Okay. Right. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Mae: Not a question of the applicant, but I thought I heard it a little differently. That's why I'm curious about -- I understood that they didn't want the vinyl fencing as well. They were looking for a different type of material. Butler: Well, possibly we need to clarify that, because I'm not sure. And also as I look at my notes, just so that the Commission is aware, a traffic analysis has been done showing the capacity of the roads is there, that was approved by ACHD. It originally was scheduled for staff level. They did it, actually, at the Commission level, so that occurred. Rohm: Just so that we can get some clarity to this, I'd like to have the previous testimony -- would you come forward, please, and let's talk about that fence in a little bit more -- Brown: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Campbell never made an attempt to meet with us. Rohm: We are talking the fence -- Brown: Okay. The fence -- we didn't hear anything about the fence until I went in today. If I wouldn't have -- if I wouldn't have specifically asked about the fence, we would have not known anything until we got here tonight. Rohm: What my question is is what fence is acceptable? Brown: We would prefer a wood fence and we would prefer it to be landscaped better than -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page21of113 Rohm: Like a cedar fence? Brown: That would be fine. Rohm: Okay. I'm not obligating the applicant to that, but we need to know what alternative to a vinyl fence is acceptable. Brown: We hadn't been given any other options from the developer. Rohm: I think you have answered my question. Thank you. Borup: I think probably -- I mean the vinyl fence is usually -- not usually, it's a more expensive fence. It's the type of fence you usually have in the more expensive upscale subdivisions, so -- Rohm: Absolutely. And-- Borup: -- we assumed that that was -- Rohm: -- I'm not trying to obligate the applicant to anything, but for point of clarification, at least now there is some understanding of what the neighbors would view as more acceptable. Butler: Right. And I did talk with Mr. Campbell just briefly as you were discussing. Obviously, the vinyl is a much more expensive fence, it's -- we think it's a much better look in the area. Cedar -- I guess maintenance and so on, I don't know that that's -- I appreciate that they are asking for that. I don't know that they may appreciate the maintenance and whatnot that they will have to deal with because of that. So, I would suggest that the vinyl fence is a much better alternative for the neighbors. I do appreciate that they are asking for cedar, however. Rohm: Okay. Just -- thank you. Borup: How about color? That's an option. Rohm: Yeah. Maybe a vinyl fence with a beige, as opposed to the white, and, then, you get kind of a combination of the two. Something like that. Zaremba: For the record, the applicant is nodding his head -- Rohm: Thanks-- Zaremba: -- yes. Rohm: -- Commissioner Dave. Let's see. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 22 of 113 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just get a little bit more clarification, you know, in regard to the stub street. We talked about the walking path or a stub street to the south. I heard a little bit of conflicting information and I want to get clear in my mind just exactly - - I mean are we anticipating that we will require them to put a stub street to the south, we just don't know location as of yet, or are we looking to review that in light of the school district's testimony in regards to possibly just a walking path in lieu of the stub street? Borup: Good question. Moe: Is that kind of where this is? Borup: Well, that's what I understood -- Mae: Okay. Borup: -- that the applicant said, yes, they'd do a stub street. The school district is not saying -- I'm not sure of a stub street is called for -- Moe: Okay. That's-- Borup: -- because of the school located there. Mae: Okay. Borup: And I don't think they -- we didn't have any testimony on how the road connection is between Bainbridge and Volterra. Rohm: I think that the thing that's kind of unsettling to me is -- is this school site is a major issue associated with the development of this total square mile and it seems to me that it's in the best interest of the community as a whole to insure that we have a school site within this square mile and it sounds like the school district is making great strides to procure the offsite ground to end up with an acreage that's large enough to develop an elementary school that is beneficial to all parties concerned and so along those lines if the 30 days is something that the school district thinks that they can bring this to fruition, it seems to me that it might be in everybody's best interest to rather than approve this based upon an assumption that everything is going to come together in 30 days for the school district, it seems to me that maybe the right answer is to let's give the school district that 30 days to come up with the solution and, then, bring us back and continue it until the district has an opportunity to obtain it. That seems something that would be reasonable, but that's just my thoughts. And I'm more than willing to have the applicant come forward and speak to that. Borup: I have got a question, too, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 23 of 113 Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Borup. Borup: And she can still come forward while -- Rohm: Okay. Borup: If the school district does not reach an agreement, then, what would you foresee happening then? Rohm: I hadn't thought that far ahead. Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the existence of the school in this location has an impact on where a stub street's going to go to the neighboring properties, where pathways would go, so there are some issues that -- beyond just whether there is a school or not, that we continue to hang, and I support your idea of perhaps continuing this. I think we should get it all out now, as much as we can, but continuing it until there is a resolution or an apparent resolution, even if it's not all signed and finished, that we know what direction it's going to go. Rohm: That's kind of where I'm leaning, but I'm certainly more than willing to let the applicant speak -- Butler: Commissioners, we have deferred this a couple of times. I have to say that I pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and the location of the school and the guidance that the Comprehensive Plan provides you to show you that the Comprehensive Plan guides you away from this particular property. It guides you towards property that has not yet developed at the edge of where I think Bainbridge is still the owner or the owner of Bainbridge still has school -- or has property available. And I know that the school district has said -- or Mr. Bigham has said that they are working solely with Volterra, but I'm pointing that out only because I'm saying that our client has worked diligently to put up before the city -- to do more -- honestly, more than their fair share to get this accomplished and we are glad that the school district is working diligently towards getting this done, but I think that if we take this off the table and defer it more, it takes away the incentive to get that done. Although we are willing to work very diligently with the school district, we think we have really done a great deal towards getting this done by stepping up to the plate and we think if this is -- I guess if the pressure isn't on, then, maybe it doesn't happen. And since we don't think that it's really our client's -- totally our client's issue, especially when the pupil population is about 15 percent of all of the pupil population in this square mile, that we do look to the Commission to help guide the school district to make those negotiations happen as quickly as possible and I think with you recommending this up to the Commission, obviously -- or to the Council, obviously, the school district, by the time they get to the Council, may have already gotten this done and, hopefully, they will have and maybe the Commission could encourage the school district to work hard to make that happen before we do get to the Council. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 24 of 113 Zaremba: While you're still there, I need to ask a question of staff. The subject I raised, page eight, paragraph seven, about the variance and being more specific, do you need to know that information tonight? It appears you were asking for us to get that information. Butler: We would like to know that information, but it's really essential for the variance application when it reaches Council. It does affect the subdivision as a whole, so -- Zaremba: I guess the question, then, is will you be able to supply those details at some time? Howard: We'd like to withdraw that variance. Zaremba: Okay. Howard: I stand corrected. Zaremba: Belay that statement. Howard: Yes. Excuse me. The block length is what we'd like to withdraw and the rest of it can probably stand. Zaremba: Okay. So, the setbacks are off the table, then? Howard: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Howard: I'm sorry. Zaremba: Is staff comfortable with that answer? Wilson: Let me clarify a little bit. The block length header on that discussion point in the staff report is a little bit misleading. The applicant references a block length variance on the face of their plat. They do not need a block length variance and they did not pay for a block length variance. They paid for a single variance for -- to front setbacks. So, that is the variance that's the application they have submitted. So, if they are wishing to withdraw that, then, that's the only variance. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: I'm not sure where to go from there. 1-- Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I sympathize with the applicant's desire to move this along and get it done, but I still kind of lean towards what Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 25 of 113 you expressed and what I commented on, that there are elements that need to be rethought, depending on whether the school property is there or not. If we were to continue it for one month and, then, promise that we will make the decision that night whether the school's settled or not, we at least would know how much closer the school is going to be. Rohm: That's the direction that I lean as well and, you know, just to emphasize that the school district needs to make every effort to get that resolved in the next 30 days, is in -- in the best interest of the community as a whole. That's as I see it as well. Commissioner Borup, do you have some concluding thoughts on this? Borup: Well, I definitely agree on the necessity of the school site. I mean after Mr. Bigham's testimony I understand why this happened. I was real confused why something wasn't done on some of the earlier ones. It appears that they were anticipating that they had that locked up. One of the things I was wondering is how much vacant land in the rest of this square mile. That I don't think we had any testimony on. But the real question I have is what do we gain by waiting? Is it the location of the stub street, location of the walking path, or is there something else we are concerned about? Rohm: Well, I think it's those things as well. Borup: What are the concerns, I guess is what all I'm trying to figure out. Rohm: From my perspective I think that the opportunity of procurement of additional acreage for the school site is enhanced by not acting tonight, rather than -- Borup: Additional from this application or from Volterra? Rohm: From Volterra. That's my personal opinion, but that's -- that's just my opinion. And, then, it may not be by anybody else. I think that if we were to put this off for the 30 days, it would, obviously, give the school district the 30 days that they thought that they could get this completed in and, then, we would be able to move this forward as a completed project to City Council without any hang -- anything hanging -- any hang-ups. So, that's just from my perspective. So, that's -- Borup: And that's probably the only concern I have is maybe not having a final detailed plat and so maybe the determination is how substantial of a change that would be with the stub street. From what I saw -- I didn't even see Volterra had a stub street to this property. Josh, is there -- the only thing I saw of Volterra was the one from the school district and I didn't see a stub street on that plat. Wilson: Volterra does have an approved stub street to this property and it lines up with the middle of that alley right now. Borup: Okay. It looked like that was open area or something. That wasn't -- all right. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 26 of 113 Wilson: It didn't show that stub street that -- Borup: That's going to -- Wilson: Right. On the approved Volterra plat there is -- Borup: Okay. Wilson: -- a stub street there. Borup: Okay. And at that location. All right. I don't think we heard that before, did we? Wilson: In the condition in our staff report and ACHD's staff report, the location that is specifically mentioned is 330 feet -- Borup: 330 feet. Wilson: -- that is right there at that alley. Rohm: Kind of changing the subject for just a moment, but the conditions of approval as amended by the applicant's submittal, has staff had a chance to take a look at their changes and do you have any comments on those? Wilson: I do. The 1.2.6 that refers to the amenities, staff does not have an issue with that. 1.2.11 in regards to the stub street, instead of deleting that, we would like to see some kind of reference to connecting to a stub street from Volterra. I think the location is what -- and if a stub street does, indeed, end up happening, if Volterra is reconfigured such that they do not stub to this property, then, we would support that. But if there is a stub street we would like to see it connected and I think that's, really, the important part of that. So, I wouldn't like to see it completely deleted, would like to see that just modified to reflect that. In regards to the school site and how that goes down, I think that's up to the Commission if you feel comfortable moving -- acting on it or not, with the reduced time frame that the applicant did agree to, if you feel like that is in the best interest of the city, in effect. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I think the other part of that was -- or did you address 1.2.12 on the additional lots? Rohm: I guess that one's up for discussion. Why that was in there is that if that stub street remained at the center of that alley, you have one residential lot between a street and the school site, you end up with this guy right here, and that's pretty awkward, so that's what -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 27 of 113 Borup: Is that what that was based on -- Wilson: Yes. Borup: -- the stub street would go there? Well, that makes sense and I was just looking at the -- and the other were these two, it looks like you were talking about. Wilson: It seemed to make more sense to square off the school site, instead of having also these homes that kind of awkwardly set out within the school site. Borup: But it didn't appear to me that it really affected the siting of the building or affected anything that the school needed. Wilson: I don't think so. It-- Borup: At least -- I mean we don't have a final layout, but -- Wilson: Right. It's hard to say without a final school layout. Rohm: Thank you. Well, I think we have pretty well thoroughly discussed this and at this point I'd be interested in hearing a motion either to continue or to move this project forward. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Let's see if it flies. I move that we continue AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060 to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd for the purpose of revisiting the school site and the implications of it either being there or not being there. Rohm: We have a motion. Moe Well, I'll second that. Rohm: And a second. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed same sign. Borup: Aye. Rohm: And I voted with the affirmative, so this -- Zaremba: Three to one you're saying? Rohm: Three to one. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 28 of 113 Zaremba: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And so this will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006, and for the sole purpose of discussion of the school site and the associated stub streets and pathway. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think it would help if we -- and a preliminary plat showing the stub street and how that would affect the school site and such would be helpful. Rohm: Yes, it would. Thank you. Due to the length of that application discussion, we typically wait until 9:00 o'clock to take a break, but we are going to take a short break right now for about ten minutes. So, we are adjourned until 20 minutes until 9:00. (Recess.) Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 2nd, 2006, and begin with opening the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052. All of these relating to Bienville Square Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Bienville Square Subdivision is an annexation. This portion up here. The annexation is for this