Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 19, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina October 19. 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 19, 2006, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba, and David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Matt Ellsworth, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It looks like we have a pretty full house tonight. Welcome all of you. At this time I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this Thursday, October 19, 2006, and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Rohm: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we are going to have one change tonight. Items No. 10 and 11, public hearings for Eastwood Subdivision, are both to be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for December 21 st, 2006. So, anybody that's here tonight to listen to or give testimony for that application, it is not going to be heard tonight. We received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance and we will not be hearing item, so that one will be stricken from the agenda. The third item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have no Consent Agenda. So, with that being said could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 2 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Before we get started tonight there is a couple of things that have changed for us as Commissioners at our last meeting -- and we are very new at this. We have got these laptop computers now that all of our information is fed to us from -- off of the ethernet and so until last meeting I didn't know what an ethernet was and many of us are kind of in that same boat. So, we are working with it now and we are trying to learn as we go and we have got some backup paperwork, but for the applications and documents online and we are working to get better at this as we go and all of this is an effort to save paper, because each of us receive about a ream of paper for each and every meeting and it gets a little bit expensive, so we are trying to move in a direction of being more cost effective. Okay. With that being said, the second thing that I'd like to talk to you about is the format of the meeting itself and what we do is we will open up a hearing and the first thing we will do is we will ask staff to give their summations of the project. Staff makes their presentation based upon ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and from that they kind of give us directions as to which way they think the project should go based upon adherents to -- do you want me to get that other speaker? Okay. The staff -- continuing. The staff, then, concludes with their comments and any questions that we might have of staff we will ask at that time. Once the staff has completed their assessment of the project, the applicant will have 15 minutes to sell the Commission on the project based upon their perception of the project. Once those two presentations have been made, it is open to the public. Generally speaking -- and it looks like it may be the case tonight -- if there is a single spokesman for a larger body, like a homeowners association, we will give that single person a ten minute window of opportunity to speak about the project, but anybody that has signed up for it has an opportunity to speak for their three minutes. All we ask is that if, in fact, somebody prior to you has made your point, it doesn't carry any additional weight to make the same point again. So, you can just stand up and say I have been spoken for and am in support of this or that comment made by previous testimony. Once all of that has been done, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to rebut any comments made and additional testimony. Once that's done, then, we will either make a motion to recommend approval or denial or there may even be a continuance based upon lack of enough information to come to a final decision. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett --- south side of Overland Road between Under Road and Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial/other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south side of Overland Road between Under Road and Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 3 of 84 Rohm: SO, with that being said, unless there is other comments that other Commissioners might want to add, I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, both related to the South Ridge Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. South Ridge Subdivision, actually, is a continued Public Hearing item. It was continued previously so we could get comments from the Ada County Highway District. We did not have them prior to the last hearing and that's, essentially, the staff report that you have before you tonight is the same one that you had at the last Public Hearing. No changes have been made at this time to the staff report. However, some changes have been made to the concept plan by the applicant and I will touch on that some more, but I did want to refresh your memory, at least, that this has been on the agenda, but no public testimony has been received so far. So, this is the first time that we are actually holding the hearing on this item. South Ridge is located on the south side of Overland Road and it takes up the entire mile between Linder and Ten Mile. The site does include 290.87 acres and there are five proposed zoning designations. There are some outparcels in here. I said it goes the entire mile. It does. There are some outparcels in here. This is one. There is another one here. There is an outparcel here. And this is also not included in the application. But pretty much it is the half mile south of Overland and the full mile between Under and Ten Mile. One hundred sixteen of the 290.87 acres are proposed for R-8 zoning, 70 acres are proposed for R-4 zoning, 51 acres are proposed for TN-R, 35 acres are proposed for TN-C, and 26 are proposed for R-2. All of this property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. Here is the aerial view of the property. To the north we have some single family homes on large parcels, agricultural parcels, also in the county. To the east are the recently approved Bear Creek West Subdivision. That received an R-8 zoning. There are also some residences right on the southeast corner of Overland and Under there. To the south are some single family homes in Val Vista, Aerial Estates, and Aspen Cove Subdivision. Those are zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. To the west are single family homes zoned R-1 in Ada County. Most those are on larger parcels, as you can tell from this aerial view. Here is a picture of the master concept plan that was originally submitted with this application. It is a little bit difficult to make out there. I guess some -- just to kind of walk you through this application tonight, it has been changed, but there -- but what hasn't changed significantly -- this is mid mile point between Under and Ten Mile, there have not been substantial changes throughout the past three or four months that we have had this application in process. This is substantially the same today as it was when the application was deemed complete in July. What has changed is this side of the plat and concept plan, the roadway configuration, based on a planning charrette that I know at least one Commissioner attended. I'm not sure how many of you had a chance to make it over to Jabil and be a part of that, but there is a plan that we are hoping to take before this board, as well as City Council for their approval, in the spring of 2007. The applicant did attend portions of that charrette, was involved with that, and did make some changes that are generally consistent with the outcome of that charrette, but this application is kind of in between the current Comprehensive Plan map and the charrette outcome and what we hope to be the future land use map as adopted this next spring. So, that's kind of the pickle that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 4 of 84 we are in now -- or the applicant's really in now, caught in between our current adopted Comprehensive Plan future land use designation and the soon to be adopted, hopefully, land use designations and roadway configurations in this area. So, that's kind of some of the background information. Let me -- have to zip through here a little bit. This one does a good job of showing the preliminary plat. So, this is the original preliminary plat and there are -- I'll call them spine roads. Most of these are collector roadways that the applicant was proposing to construct with the first phase. Now, this first detailed phase of the development generally occurred in this corner -- and I'll go into more detail about what those uses include here in just a second, but just to kind of give you the larger picture first, this is the first phase. Everything that's darker here would be the first phase, as well as the roadways that would be constructed so there would be access to the properties in the interim. This does -- serves a couple of different functions. The main thing being if there is -- the market calls for -- maybe this is a -- I can't remember what the zoning was that was proposed here, but maybe this calls for a low density residential here and this is high, well, you don't have to necessarily phase it contiguous to the next phase and work your way from east to west, you could actually jump around and phase this one and, then, that one, jump over here and kind of build it out as the market -- that's one of the reasons for having those spine roads. Another good reason is you can get all the facilities -- a major portion of facilities constructed with that first phase and you have utilities that basically serve this project as part of the first phase. So, I'll let the applicant, if he so chooses, to touch on that some more, but that's kind of the master concept plan. Now, with that there are what I call in the staff report either mega lots or mega blocks, but they are, essentially, one large lot that is going to be re- platted, again, as the market demands and as the applicant so chooses to phase those projects. So, there are -- I believe it was eight mega blocks that would be re-subdivided in the future. These lots -- there are lots that would actually be final platted and, then, submitted again for final plat -- preliminary and final plat that show detail of how lhose lots would be developed. Let me see if I have a better -- this kind of shows the overall concept for that master plan. Now, again, these mega lots or mega blocks will be reviewed in detail when each one of them come back in for their preliminary plat in the future. This really just shows a general concept of how it could be developed. Now, we do -- and the staff report does talk about tying them to, essentially, this concept, but there is some flexibility, and it has to be pretty minor. There can't be substantial changes. We would expect the final concept plan to resemble what's approved before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, again, with some flexibility built in. I will take this opportunity now to kind of go through some of the uses that are proposed, primarily focusing again on the east side of the development, because that's, really, where staff is pretty confident in our recommendation for approval of this project. It has stayed static and we have comments from ACHD regarding this side of the project and the conditions of approval, although yet not drafted in the staff report. are inferred through some of the analysis and I think the applicant has made some of those changes in some of the revisions that you will see with the other concept plan. That one actually does a better job, so I'm going to focus on -- this is the concept plan with Overland, but try not to look at that too much yet. That's the punch line. So, up in this corner we do have a public library that's proposed and an elementary school. There are some roadways -- and, again, I apologize, it is a large project, 290 plus acres. There Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 PaQe 5 of 84 are -- the roadway system also ties in here to both Under and Ten Mile around the public library and some commercial uses that are -- I think there were nine or eleven commercial lots up near Overland -- feeds into these alley-load lots. A roundabout. There are some more alley-loaded products in this block and feeds down to the collector and, then, there is some -- some R-4 lots with some R-2 lots kind of around the Ridenbaugh Canal -- in the general vicinity of the Ridenbaugh. There are also some multi-family buildings and zoning. This is, actually, the TN-C, which is a traditional neighbor center designation and this is -- or commercial designation and your traditional neighborhood residential designation along Overland Road. Those are a mixed use designation. They are shown on the concept plan. Again, some multi-family in that general vicinity, with the commercial stuff there. I will jump across now to the other side of the road. This is primarily a single family detached development, but for the -- basically at the intersection and the elementary school that's shown in this general location on the plan. The outcome of the charrette -- and I do have Matt Ellsworth from the comprehensive planning staff in the planning department is here this evening to -- I only had a chance to attend the charrette for maybe an hour on Thursday I believe it was, so I don't have the full picture of how this evolved fully. I know when I was there folks were still kicking around the idea of relocating Overland Road and it was fairly new in their minds there and this is, like I said, I think Thursday. So, we are a third, fourth day into this thing and this is a pretty major change to not only the South Ridge -- I mean huge implications for South Ridge, but also this entire area. And I'm not sure if we got it into this presentation -- we did not. The actual land use designations and roadway configurations that came out of that charrette. But this plan does generally show Overland Road doing what we thought it would, although it did -- the hand drawn plan had Overland coming in this way up, up this draw, and kind of gentler curve into Overland Road. Now, a couple of issues -- and I'm sure that the applicant will talk about this some more. There is an outparcel that that would have gone right through. So, that makes it problematic just working with another party to try to get continuous roadway through the -- through the site. So, he has dropped that down into this location. Staff is generally supportive of this proposal. However, we received this revised plan on Friday at 2:30. I have not had time to -- we did get it over to ACHD_ We did get a memo back from ACHD recognizing that there is a revised plan. However, they can't provide detailed comments in time for this hearing, essentially, is what it says and they need some more information before they can provide detailed analysis and give the city and the applicant a thumbs up on this alignment for Overland Road. In concept, they are supportive. They recognize, too, that there is a huge topographical relief here and that having Overland Road as an arterial intersects Ten Mile there as Ten Mile falls down and the same with Overland, it's not going to -- it just can't happen. It won't efficiently work. So, some alternatives have to be explored. Matt may want to touch on that a little bit more. I know they have a bigger study going on down in south Meridian, too, to look -- an arterial study, collector study, to look at alignments of some of the other arterials in this area. But, again, back to the charrette. So, this generally follows the designation of Overland Road as the outcome from the planning charrette, but we just don't have enough information for me personally to feel comfortable giving you a recommendation for approval, because we don't have detailed comments from ACHD, there is still some questions as to the implications for the opposite side of Ten Mile, a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 6 of 84 road that was shown here before and maybe these property owners were in attendance at that charrette, assumed that this roadway would be coming in this location -- well, it's moved several feet now to the south -- how does that affect the redevelopment of these properties there. We just haven't had a chance to fully grasp the implications of this change in location of Overland Road. So, what staff this afternoon finally came to the conclusion was we appreciate the applicant attending the charrette and even coming up with a new concept plan that shows this roadway alignment, I think it's a step in the right direction and I'm not trying to penalize them for showing that good faith and coming forward with this concept plan, but there still are some unanswered questions there. So, staff is recommending tonight to the Commission that this half of the development be approved ~- essentially, I'll need you to continue it, so I can draft detailed conditions of approval, but we are recommending that this half be approved with the conditions stated in the upcoming staff report, I guess the -- we will let the rest of the Public Hearing take place and you can decide what date is appropriate for that if you so choose. I'm not prepared to go there right now anyways, based on the Public Hearing, though, maybe that may bring some clarity to a good date that we all -- oh, I guess speaking of dates, ACHD has stated to me that if they do receive some of the information mentioned in their memo dated October 18th, a revised traffic study, topography and street cross-section information for Overland Road, site distance and safety analysis and information regarding how the properties on Overland Road that are not a part of this development would have access, if you get that stuff in a timely manner -- and I'm not sure what that is, they said they could possibly have this on their November 15th plan -- their commission hearing agenda. I do not know a time frame of when that has to be. Maybe the applicant can say he's working on this stuff and he's going to have it to them by such and such date and -- but that's just to kind of give you that background that best case scenario November 15 would be ACHD commission action, hopefully, at least on an agenda. So, I wanted to also point that out. The applicant -- I did speak with them just briefly in the hall here, they are not supportive of my recommendation to only do half, they would like to see the whole thing move forward as one. I understand that, just cannot support that at this time. If this were six, seven months later, I think if we had the future land use map we may not be having this discussion, hopefully, but that's kind of where staff is at at this point. There are letters that were rolling into my office here this afternoon and the clerk's. I'll just briefly try to get those on record from the ones that we did receive. All of them will be included as part of the record for this, but we did receive one dated yesterday from Richard Bagley - -- Richard and Susan Bagley, the Majestic View Estates Homeowners and Water Users Association, dated October 11th, stamped October 13th. There are several names that are also signed on that -- I'll call petition. There is another petition from the Aspen Cove and other neighboring subdivision's homeowners, dated Tuesday, received today, with, again, several signatures from -- I'm going to guess adjacent property owners and I did get an e-mail this afternoon from a Jackie Goegoechea -- I apologize for that, but I did get an e-mail aswellthatwillalsobeincludedaspartoftherecord.So.ldid want you to know there are those that they did, for the most part, start rolling in this week. I think there was one from the previous hearing that I already had, but it's not handy right now, but rest assured it is part of the record as well. So, I feel like I have been talking forever. It is a big project. I did kind of gloss over a lot of the details that we would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 7 of 84 usually go into with other projects, so if you have any questions I am available. I hope you all had a chance to look at the staff report and really look at the plans, but I will end staff's report and stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of Caleb before we -- are you hearing me? Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Were you going to ask Matt to speak to the charrette or -- or possibly later? Hood: If that's what the Commission would like, a little more background on that. We do have some stuff on a thumb drive. I have not actually pulled that up, so it may take 30 seconds or so to actually get the displays up on the screen, but Matt is here and if you'd like he can give a synopsis of what happened there. Rohm: I'd like to hear that. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, if it's okay with you I suppose I'll jump in as to the alignment of Overland Road here and I can field specific questions as they come up. The decision to shift the road south came primarily down to two different factors. Caleb touched briefly on each of those during his report. The first was to avoid any conflict with the incoming interchange there. The existing alignment is roughly a quarter mile south of the interchange, which even -- with the existing interchange over on Meridian Road it tends to cause backups during peak hour and so that was the initial reason why we started looking at it. Caleb also mentioned that as you continue west of Ten Mile there are typographical challenges galore. You would need to cross the canal five different times to get a connection over to Black Cat. The slopes are fairly intense. So, that was really the reasoning behind dropping it further south and the reason for the location that was decided on came down to several factors once again. On the one hand -- grab a pointer here. The curve of the road we get -- get more and more intense as the connection into Ten Mile continues to drop south. So, as the road does need to function as an arterial, it made sense to keep it roughly in the vicinity that is to allow it to bypass the canal as it comes down to the east of Ten Mile and, again, not create too intense of a curve for traffic to move the desirable speed for that kind of a road. As you work further west here you get into the gravel pit, depending on where the connection comes through, and the gravel pit was identified as a potential park or open space opportunity, so we didn't want to see a major arterial running directly through the center of that. That was another reason for the chosen location of Overland as it crosses Ten Mile. We also looked at existing parcelization and impacts to homeowners. The chosen alignment did everything they could to minimize the impacts to homeowners. It runs a logical course along lot line -- along lot lines and, again, as it works its way further to the west there to connect back into the existing Overland to the west over here, it would sort of be the same situation in reverse of what we were looking at to the east, the further south it goes, the more intense that curve is going to be as it works its way back up to make that connection. So, that was really the logic behind the replacement of Overland and the chosen location for it. And specifically -- I'm not sure if you have any questions. It was a big enough project -- I guess I'd leave it open for any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 8 of 84 questions that you have at that point as to land uses or specifics about the road alignment. Rohm: I guess my first question would be is that location -- is that pretty cast in concrete or is it subject to movement 100, 200 feet north-south or how comfortable are you with this new alignment? Ellsworth: I would say it is subject to change based on a number of things, but first and foremost it would be ACHD's approval. So, until they have time to look it over and get into the nuts and bolts of the transportation system and, you know, the numbers, the angles, and so forth, it's more of a technical question on their end that would need to be answered, so I'd feel a lot more comfortable hearing from them before I said with certainty whether that's the right alignment. I think based on property owner input to the west and the discussions that were had during charrette, that this alignment made sense, but at that point we sort of turn it over to them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we move on? Okay. All right. With that -- thank you. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is James Jewett and my address 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. Before I start I guess I will need to ask for a point of clarification on what the Commission would like to do. I agree with everything staff says until they say cut my property in half for right now. So, if the Commission would like more information, then, we probably should go get that additional information for them. Uke the ACHD says, they can possibly meet on this on the 15th. Obviously, I'd like to go forward now. We have already been quite delayed yetting to this point waiting for ACHD on the original application and I was asked by the city to make these changes to more mirror the charrette and that's why I'm trying to do this, I'm trying to accommodate the city and I believe it's a good idea and I believe it's in the best interest of the public as 8 whole long term for Overland Road to be located away from that -- below the hill and too close to the interstate. So, I guess I would need first direction from the Commission, do they -- are they in a position where they can move forward or would they need that ACHD determination before they move forward, because having my project approved in half isn't going to be acceptable for me at this time. Rohm: Boy, that's a tough question, because we haven't -- first of all, we haven't heard your presentation, nor have we heard testimony from the public. But just based upon the presentation of staff, there are huge implications from the changes in Overland Road in that whole area and I can't speak to the balance of the Commission, but that's something that we are going to want to make sure we get right and I don't think that any decision that we can -- let's put it this way. For myself I can't make a conclusion without knowing as much as possible and if that includes additional information from Ada County, then, so be it. But I'm -- that's kind of where I fall at this point in time, but I can't speak for the balance of the Commission. Dave, would you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 9 of 84 Moe: Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, I don't think I have enough information entirely on the western side of this property to make any decision tonight. I'm anticipating that even in public testimony there is going to probably be some questions I have on the east side as well. So, I can guarantee you I would not see the thing going forward in my mind tonight for sure. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: My concern is ttlat this is the first time I have seen it with the changes from -- potential changes from the charrette. I suspect it's the first time a lot of people have seen it with the potential changes from the charrette and I think it does have the possible impact of changing people's opinions that they may have already expressed. written or when expressed tonight. and I do think it is because we are talking about the interchange, Overland, this area, that I do think it's important that we have all parties who are going to have a voice to have a voice and -- but I don't, myself, do not want to move half the project forward either. So, I would prefer to delay the -- and I'm sorry to say that, but delay the entire project for resolution of all these issues. These aren't small issues, as you're probably dealing with every day, and so I would like to see them resolved and have everybody get a chance to digest them. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I agree with everything said. Tonight's not the time to make a final decision. The only question, comment I may have, is on how much time we would need to look at the western half, the second half. I had the impression from Caleb that he may say, you know, eight months to a year from now, but I don't know if I understood that correctly or not. I would hope that we could do something much sooner than that as far approval of the rest of it, but I -- but, yeah, we do need a lot more information. But you have done a good job of complying with -- with charrette layouts and the overall project. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: My comment at this point before your presentation or the rest of the public testimony, would be that I very much appreciate your participation in the charrette. I very much agree with the realignment of Overland, whether it's exactly this or a hundred feet one way or the other. I have thought a long time that it needs to connect to the other piece of Overland beyond Black Cat and doing it in its current location would be very difficult. It needs to curve like this because of the terrain. My feeling is that Caleb was trying not to penalize you for being so cooperative with the city by offering that we work on half of it that is ready to go, but like the other Commissioners and as you have expressed yourself, I probably would like to discuss the whole project in its final form and, unfortunately, it does feel like that penalizes you for being cooperative. I would like -- if it is eventually to be approved, for it to be something like we are looking at as a result of the charrette. So, my feeling would be we are probably going to listen to you, listen to the public, and continue it for -- the whole thing. Continue the whole thing for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 1 0 of 84 ACHD and details on it, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be more than a month or two. Jewett: And I appreciate all your comments. I don't think they different a whole lot from mine. And I know a lot of folks have come out tonight and I know they have a lot of questions, they have a lot of concerns, and they are looking for answers and I think I can give a lot of answers, but if we are not prepared to move forward based on getting additional information, I guess we need to work that out here before we go forward, because through additional information things might change further, which will require more testimony, so -- and I don't certainly want to send somebody home after they came out, but I think we do need to have the complete picture. Now, the other problem I have is, you know, we have some Public Works agreements that I have made with Meridian Public Works that need to be facilitated and that's bringing sewer over to Ten Mile through the west half of this project. That's going to be greatly impacted by any delay, even a two week delay would greatly impact that Public Works project that's currently under design and ready to get started. And we do have a current application in front of you that does not have these changes on it that meets the Camp Plan and I don't know if something could be developed to let us go forward on that testimony on that application, with -- I'm assuming there will be a development agreement on this project, that maybe that in the development agreement we can workout that when the charrette is approved, if it's approved with ACHD's endorsement, that I would agree to change the western boundary to match the charrette_ I'm not asking for any preliminary plat, other than the mega lots on the western side. I think that that avenue would allow us to go forward. Unfortunately, we would be looking at just the first application and not this one. This one was done again per request from the planning director that I meet the planning charrette and -- and I asked specifically if I did that that I would not be delayed and I got the implication that I would not be delayed if I went down that path. Now, we are seeing significant delays on the entire project, not even half, and I do appreciate staff's comments and your comments not wanting to delay me. Truly I do appreciate that. But I think we do have to answer all of the questions and I'm prepared to answer all the questions in regards to the first application. It does meet the Camp Plan, it does have a recommendation of approval in the staff report. In fact, that's the staff report you have. And I truly don't want to be penalized for trying to be cooperative, but I think I can be cooperative in the future and still move forward tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I don't know if this would be of any assistance to the Commission, but two nights ago the City Council had another project north of the freeway in similar circumstances. The Baraya Subdivision, you probably recall, and that had originally been denied by the Council. It was reconsidered and remanded back to this Commission for its January meeting and the main reason -- in fact, the only reason the Council agreed to that was because of the charrette. They had participated and they had designed similar to what Mr. Jewett's saying, but the Council was very clear that they were not approving the project and they didn't want to approve any projects in this area until the Ten Mile charrette study was fully discussed by the Council, scheduled for Public Hearing, the public had opportunity for input and they made it clear to the applicant in that particular case that although they were remanding it back to this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 11 of 84 Commission for a January hearing date, that they didn't expect it to come back for approval or they wouldn't even consider approval until this South Ten Mile area plan has been completed. So, I understand where Mr. Jewett's coming from, I just -- for whatever that's worth. the Council has wrestled with this already a couple of times with Baraya and made a decision not to bring that forward yet. I don't know that that would be the circumstance with this one, but it certainly would be a similar situation for the Council and they mayor may not bring it further much quicker anyway. Rohrn: Ilhink, really, where this all washes out is even if you had not participated in the charrette, that's not a cast-in-concrete location and associated lots and blocks surrounding it aren't conclusive until -- until it is and I don't feel comfortable moving the project forward until we are -- we know for sure where that Overland tie to Ten Mile is going to -- where it's going to be and the specifics of it and I think that Caleb offered up a good solution in his testimony that if we take a look at the east half, even though that doesn't give your project full development, at least that gives you something to work on until we do have a -- a response from Ada County. And I can't tell you how to proceed tonight. If you want to make your presentation based upon basically the assessment of the project from the Commission that we are all uncomfortable with the west half, then, by all means we can proceed tonight with that, but I don't know that you're going to get a lot of support on the west half. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have got a question for Mr. Hood. Your statement on approving the eastern half and only at this time, what would be the procedure on that? Are you anticipating not even annexing the other half or annexing the whole property and approving the proposed road alignments, which you said would be developed with the eastern part of it or what did you have -- what were you thinking on that recommendation? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, the recommendation would be that we just annex half of the property and not annex the west half. The thinking behind that was there is also -- and we haven't talked about this. We didn't really talk about land use designations that come out of the charrette either, but -- and I'm not quite sure how much to play this up. I hear the applicant talking about, well, he wants us to analyze his original plan. I'm not quite sure which one I should talk about at this point, but I will talk about the revised plan, because it's got some land use zoning designations that aren't consistent with the plan. There is TN-C shown here. Well, there is no commercial shown anywhere in this area on the charrette map. Same with this area. Some changes in zoning have happened up here. Now, it's true that it will -- just as the future land use states, it's just a guide, it will also be a guide, but, really, all of my questions are on this side of the plat regarding roadway alignment, regarding zoning, land use, all the questions are west half. So, that's why the recommendation would be -- and what I imagine is if the Commission wants to go forward on that recommendation, the applicant doesn't have to submit revised legal descriptions for the zoning that only goes to mid mile. I mean if they don't comply with that condition, the development agreement doesn't get signed, it doesn't get annexed, and, you know, the project doesn't go forward as half. I mean it's ultimately up to him to agree to only developing half of it at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 12 of 84 this time. But the conditions would be to submit revised legal descriptions with -- like this R-8 zone, we have one legal description today that does that number or something like that, you know, so it would have to be amended to be cut off on that property line and this would be your new R-8 legal description. Things like that would have to be part of the conditions of approval if we so choose to do it that way. And it was just -- while I have the mike, I hope that answered the question, but we were trying to -- at least in my mind not delay the applicant because phase one was up in that corner and we thought you can get going, be constructing, hopefully by the time we get over there far, then, we will have the roadway alignment figured out and we can come back in and annex the rest -- the remainder half. Again, that's up to him to go whatever direction he wants to. What was envisioned -- and I don't think when we started this ~~ I'm glad that the applicant was there and participated. I don't think anyone envisioned Overland doing this and when we said we hope to not delay your project, we didn't envision Overland coming down to a half mile, essentially. So, some things maybe were said, which -- through the charrette process, just the changes were made that were so large that we just can't grasp all the changes that have happened and they are still relatively new. I mean it's three weeks -- we are three weeks out of the charrette and haven't gotten all the information. So, that's what the recommendation would be, annex one half and wait for the other half. Borup: The Comp Plan still shows the neighborhood center there, doesn't it? Hood: It does. Right at the half mile. And that's -- I guess just to follow that up, too, the east half of this project is consistent with the Comp Plan today, as well as the charrette plan. That's another reason we -- I can confidently recommend approval of this project, is because everything there is consistent with what we have adopted today and what we anticipated for future changes to the map sometime next spring. Borup: Okay. And, Mr. Cole, Mr. Jewett had mentioned bringing sewer line in from Ten Mile. Is that -- and, Mr. Jewett, your -- the Ten Mile trunk would sewer the eastern half of your property or -- Jewett: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, this property has one trunk running to it. The Black Cat Trunk runs to the north side of this property. Then, it has two separate -- two separate spurs, two separate legs of that trunk that runs down. Public Works has a significant interest in the sewer to the east going to Linder Road. The ultimate destination of the Black Cat Trunk at this time is through Mr. Jewett's property, down through Bear Creek West, and, eventually, will tie into the diversion manhole at Glacier Springs, which will leave some problems in our system. Mr. Jewett on the west of this is talking about a separate trunk that will run down approximately this location here that a future lift station in the south would discharge to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 1 g, 2006 Page 13 of 84 It's an important leg of our system, but not of our main concern right now. It's of lesser importance to us than the trunk heading east to the diversion manhole. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: I would like to comment on that. Rohm: Go ahead. Jewett: And I hope the City Attorney can confirm that I signed an agreement with the city to extend that sewer line to Ten Mile to accommodate a lift station that's supposed to be completed by April 1. So, I'm a little confused by Public Works' comment that it's not of that much importance. when I had actually signed an agreement with the city to have this Public Works project done. So, I'm a little bit confused by that. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the city -- City Council has agreed to provide sewer service to a non-farm subdivision down around Amity Road by the name of Sitter Creek. They have agreed -- they have agreed to provide sewer and water service to that -- that sewer is going to a lift station that would discharge to mains planted in this subdivision. Borup: But the comments on April 1 st, I assume, then, the city would offer an extension or -- Cole: I'm unaware of the time line of having the lift station completed by April 1 st. haven't been -- I'm not the project manager of that -- of that lift station. Borup: Definitely the normal procedure on something like -- Cole: Correct. Borup: -- to just extend it. Rohm: I before we move forward that, really, in my mind they are two separate issues. The development of the sewer system within the city, albeit that there is a collaborative process of which you participated in, ultimately our decisions from a planning and zoning are not affected by where a trunk line is. We have to make our decisions based upon what's best for the community from just that perspective, not the location of the sewer, and so -- and I don't want -- I'm not trying to undermine your concerns over agreements made. but from a -- from a planning and zoning I probably wouldn't put that in my equation as far as rendering any kind of a decision from that perspective. Mr. Nary did you -- would you have some additional comments on that? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, I don't. I mean I think you have hit it on the head. I think this Commission's responsibility is lo look at the project and how it interacts with the rest of the community and what's in the best interest of the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 14 of 84 I guess I don't see a particular issue with Mr. Jewett and being able provide that particular service or how it gets there. I think if there is a need for an extension that's something -- we can discuss that, but I don't think that's an issue for the Commission to make a decision on. Rohm: That's kind of what I'm thinking. Before we go any further I'd like to ask the city attorney another question. Given the fact that it appears as if we are probably not going to come to fruition tonight on this application, would it be your opinion that we go ahead and take all testimony full well knowing that more than likely everything is going to change or do you have some comments on that? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess what I would recommend -- I mean part of the staffs issue and some of the discussion has been around this particular design and that some of the information is new, there is some concerns about the roadway. It may be somewhat fruitless -- I recognize a lot of folks have taken the time out of their evening to come here, but it may be fruitless to take testimony on a proposal that hasn't been fully -- fully reviewed by the staff and hasn't been fully reviewed I think by a number of the people in this room. What you may want to do is ir you're going to set this over, whether it's for two weeks or four weeks or two months or whatever that is, you may want to direct the applicant have another neighborhood meeting, so that if there are questions or concerns -- there may -- and they may not be able to be answered, but if there are questions or concerns that many of those things might be able to be ironed out in a neighborhood meeting context, that would be more fruitful, then when the people come back they have more I guess focused ideas on what the issues are and some of the other ones may be resolved. Now, again, I don't know how the last neighborhood meeting for this project went and whether that's a reasonable expectation that that may get resolved that way, but that's certainly an option this Commission could have. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. And with that being said I'd ask you what your preference would be, because we C::ln take your testimony and testimony from the balance of the people here, but the bottom line is it's going to change anyway, so I'm not sure from my perspective that an extended hearing is in order, but that's kind of -- that's your call. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, I appreciate the comments. You know, if -- if you want to -- if the idea to limit it to the east side and you just desire the Commission -- to me to testify on the east side only and for -- you would only make a recommendation on the east side so directed, that's what I will do. And I will limit it to that and, then, the Commission can do what they wish with the west side. It's not my desire_ This is a project that we have worked long and hard on and that we are quite proud of and we think it should be treated as a whole. But having said that, there is so many outside issues that I have to deal with -- as some of you may be aware of, you know, the library is going forward on their bond for this site to build their building in two weeks. So, that's associated in the east side of this project. So, again, if staff and the Commission would like me to limit the testimony to the east side, then, that's what I will do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 15 of 84 Rohm: And I think that's probably in good order. The other thing that I'd like to say, too, though is because the application will change based upon the west half being omitted from the conclusions written by staff, it will be continued from tonight's hearing anyway and we won't be able to conclude this hearing tonight, it will be continued even if we take testimony on the east half. Jewett: Understood for the technical reason, but would you be to a point to recommend -- make a recommendation on those Findings? Rohm: No. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I just -- the direction I think you're going, I want my preference known here. I don't want to really, myself, go forward with a -- limit it to one side of the project and also be forcing the issue. I don't want to make a decision in a vacuum, knowing that there is information forthcoming. My preference is not to have a hearing now and have a hearing again, if we have that option. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to make that clear before you got any farther down your road of committing for the Commission. Rohm: And in some ways I support your comments there. Mr. Nary, can we just request that we continue it at this point, rather than take any testimony, or what are our options at this point? Nary: Mr. Chairman, certainly you can -- you can continue this matter if you want. What I would suggest you do is at least outline for the applicant's sake as to whal specific types of information you want to bring back and if your desire is to have a neighborhood meeting, then, to make that clear that that's going to be required by this Commission, if -- again, what specific information -- I mean Mr. Hood could probably provide some staff assistance as to what particular issues they are going to focus on in that, so that everyone knows what's -- what issues are going to be asked to come back with at your next hearing. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe staff is saying they don't want to hear the west half until the charrette's approved. I think that's what I'm hearing. They are not looking for anything on the east half, if I understand what staff is saying, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Jewett, that's the problem. So many of us don't really know exactly what the direction is, so I think rounding up, itemizing those bullet points, and setting a hearing for a date -- a date certain or in the future. I, myself that is my preference, because I think we will end up going through this again. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 16 of 84 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess the point I would like to make on that is we are going through it right now. We continued it to now, because we were waiting on information and we, actually, ended up with more questions than answers. So, therefore, I don't think we should go forward along with any of it tonight, until we are able to find out what we are going to do on the west side and, then, go from there. Rohm: Did you want to keep the project all together, then? Mae: Yes, I do. Newton-Huckabay: As do I. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Just one comment. The application as originally submitted -- the only -- the platting is taking place on the east side. Everything on the west side are those mega lots with just roadways. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that's huge. I mean you're vesting them with zoning and -- Borup: Right. Hood: -- street layout and that, essentially, is the development. Even though they are one mega block, you're approving R-8 zoning, they can go in and put in 8,000 square foot lots from here over to Ten Mile forever and there is really nothing -- that's what the zoning would allow, if you approve the whole thing. And that mayor may not be consistent with the charrette outcome. And that's why staff didn't recommend denial. I mean with Baraya we would say wait six months and come back with us. We don't think that's fair to the applicant and we said here is a compromise, half of this works. Borup: And that was the point I was trying to make, that the half -- and nothing's changing to any degree on that eastern half. Even when we see everything, nothing's going to be different in that area. We are going to be looking at the same street layout, same -- same platting and everything. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to weigh in on your position on east half, west half, as a whole? How do you view this project? Zaremba: There are a couple of struggles that I have here. It is so much to the benefit of Meridian to have applicants come in with large projects, such as this. There are so many benefits that Meridian could beat out of the developer on a bigger project than on a smaller project, that I don't want to do anything that discourages either Mr. Jewett or other developers from bringing large projects. We are suggesting that we break this project up into two parts. I like the idea of having big projects. Again, I say the difficulty I have is on the one hand I appreciate the willingness to cooperate in the realignment of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 17 of 84 Overland and I feel there is some suffering going on from the delay that that causes. I would like to see the whole project. I probably would suggest continuance. I could just as easily focus only on the east half. That's no help at all. Borup: But well said. Rohm: Thank you. Actually, I -- from that I think that the primary issue from a staff perspective is the zoning that is being proposed by the developer, based upon unplatted large parcels, and -- and I think that the audience as a whole is a little bit nervous about us granting permission to rezone without having any feel for what that configuration is going to be, other than from the large parcel perspective and I think Caleb offered a solution that both meets the majority of the people here's concerns and gives the applicant an opportunity to move forward with the east half. And so it would be my opinion that even though there are always benefits to large projects as a whole, I still think that this particular one we are probably better to split it into east and west. And so -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you making a decision? Rohm: No. No. No. Everybody is voicing their opinion here and that's just mine. Newton-Huckabay: Okay_ I thought you were making a second time. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, we still need to -- Mr. Jewett, would you like to proceed with your testimony or would you like to have us continue it until a date certain? Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I agree with every comment that every Commissioner's made here. That's how confused and on the fence I am on this. I want to move forward on the east side. I do believe it should be heard as a complete project, because there is merits to the complete project. So, I will do what this Commission wants me to do and I hear two different comments coming out of the Commission. I would gladly go forward on the east side, so long as everybody recognizes it's the east side. I would gladly go forward on the whole thing. I would gladly agree to a -- you know, a tabling, as long as it was a timely tabling, just maybe just beyond the ACHD hearing on the matter. But I don't know if that clears up all the matters in its entirety, because the charrette has more issues than just the realignment of Overland Road. So, I would like to move forward. I'm prepared to move forward. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we go any further, Caleb, would you like to give him a laundry list of things that he would need to address before we hear this project again? Hood: Depending on what the project is defined as. If the project is defined as the east half -- they are detailed in the staff report. I mean there is some analysis and they aren't in condition form, but our concerns really aren't that major. I mean there is some minor tweaks to like alley visibility -- I think one of those has even already been made. There are not a lot significant changes to that side of the project and I think staff could come Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 1 g, 2006 Page 18 of 84 back with recommended conditions and findings for approval on that half in a fairly quick time frame. Without going through the staff report page by page and listing those out -- really, they are quite minor. There is some talk about a -- the multi-use pathway along the Ridenbaugh and some things like that, but bigger picture things -- I mean there is definitely bigger items than the issues that are listed in the staff report with this one. So, if you want -- again, if you want a recommendation on the project as a whole, that's going to take some more time, because I would need ACHD comments for one. The other, again -- it sounds kind of repetitive. We are going around in -- I, too, agree with everyone's point of view. Il's flat easy. But, you know, the Council hasn't adopted the charrette. It's not adopted yet. But pressing forward with a plan that may be outdated in six months doesn't make sense either. So, I'm really -- it's at your -- I have made my -- my staff report and Jim I'm sure has went through it and I think we can come -- we can agree on those conditions anyways. I mean there is -- really, there is no substantial change to that side of the plat. There are some development agreement provisions for some of the TN-C and TN-R that's along Overland Road. You know, it talks about a connection between the two and some things like that, but I haven't heard any negative feedback at least from his end of the land group on not being able to comply with some of those conditions. So, with that I don't have anything else to add. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: One, I know you have said this, Mr. Hood. When is the ACHD planning to meet on the revised discussion? Hood: And maybe the applicant can clarify a little bit, too. I talked Lori Den Hartog today and she said if they had all of this stuff by a certain day -- and I don't know when it is and this is where I'm going to need Jim's help -- they could potentially get them on the 15th of November, if that's a Wednesday, the 15th of November ACHD commission. Now, it's a night meeting, so that neighbors can attend, too, if that's the case. I don't know when that drop dead line is, so Jim may be able to help you out with that. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the -- ACHD sent me a list of five items they wanted to be able to make a complete review of the application that's up on the screen there. I got my traffic engineer in the room tonight and three of those items have to come from him and he is committed to get them to ACHD by Tuesday, which was what their requirement was to meet that 15th. Of course, that is not promised or cast in stone, but they are saying if we get it to them by Tuesday that they will endeavor to have it heard on November 15th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- thank you for that. I would add a comment that ACHD was also a pretty heavy participant in the charrette. For those of you that don't know what a charrette is -- I don't know what it means either, but the result is that it's a four or five day long intense meeting on a specific subject where you hear from, essentially, all stake holders and anybody that has an opinion and hopefully you come out at the end Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 19 of 84 of four or five days with an area plan that otherwise might take months and months and months. So, where the name charrette came from I don't know, but it's -- it's a very intense planning process that condenses what might take six months or so into four or five days, gets everybody involved that could want to be involved, and that's what happened. Anyhow, ACHD was a big participant in that and I believe they are on board with the realignment of Overland specifically, but I don't believe that they will need to have a very long discussion about what Mr. Jewett is going to present to them, but I would suggest that we right now continue this to our first meeting in December, which would be like the week after that and it's, what, a month and a half from now? Rohm: Okay. With that being said -- Moe: Excuse me. But staff isn't going to be ready at that time or would they? Zaremba: Well, it would give them two weeks after the ACHD meeting. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: On the 15th. Rohm: Okay. What I'd like to, Commissioner Zaremba, is somebody to make a motion of continuance with specifying whether it's a continuance for the east half, the whole, or make that specific in your motion to continue and, then, we will vote on it based on that and, then, everybody will know exactly what we will be hearing at the date of continuance. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I got one question on the definition of the east half. Are we talking the whole entire east part of the property or those areas that are shown with preliminary plats? Rohm: I believe it's everything -- Borup: In the original -- I'm talking about the original preliminary plat from the original application. Because those are just -- right there. Yes. Is that what we are talking about, the east half, the platted area and the mega lots or just the platted ones? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission, when I say east half, I am talking taking the half mile section line, because that is today -- there is a parcel break -- we aren't creating any legal split or anything in the county by taking parts of this parcel and parts of that parcel and annexing something. Mr. Jewett owns or his LLC or whatever owns 80 acres due west. It makes a nice clean break right on the mid mile section. So, when I say that half, I'm literally talking half mile on that property line, nothing else over there. Now, just a point of clarification. Everything here is part of the preliminary plat. Everything is being platted, included the road shown, all the lots. They are mega lots. They don't really look like lots, but everything is part of the preliminary plat here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 20 of 84 Borup: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, to the regularly scheduled meeling of December 7th, 2006, and we need to get instructions to the applicant of -- to have another neighborhood meeting? Rohm: If that's in your motion. Newton-Huckabay: To hold another neighborhood meeting, receive comments from ACHD, and what was the other -- was that -- Zaremba: Basically, we are looking for the new configurations. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Yes. That includes a new configuration. Zaremba: I would second that. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Just as a point of clarification. So, the entire project, not just -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. The entire project. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: All 290.87 acres. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 7th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Hood: Mr. Chair? Point of clarification. Because part of your motion was to have comments from ACHD. By chance, if we aren't on, what's the protocol there. I mean we will have an agenda. I would hate for these folks that have maybe come twice already to come a third time to be continued for a fourth time. What are we going to do if we don't have those comments from ACHD two weeks before and I'm not able to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 21 of 84 incorporate those or we don't have them at all into a revised staff report. How would you like me to proceed in that instance, should we cross that bridge? I hope we don't. Newton-Huckabay: My opinion is that the balance of this Commission wants to see the comments from ACHD and most likely the public does, as well as the applicant. So, I would -- unfortunately, in the process of doing it right that may require all of us to have to show up again -- or possibly again. So, unfortunately, that may be the case, but -- Borup: If ACHD does not hear it on the 15th, when would be their next date? Do we know? Hood: Mr. Chair, I know they usually don't meet the 22nd, because they are eating bird, so they don't meet that next Werlnesday. I don't know if they have one -- is there a last -- so, it would be the 29th -- it may be December before their next meeting and they wanted to have it on a night meeting, is my understanding, so neighbors could attend. They only have one night meeting a month. I'm not sure when that is in December, I don't have their schedule memorized, but usually it's towards the latter part of the month, usually the last Wednesday of the month. So, now we are talking Christmastime. It could get ugly if they don't make the 15th I guess is what I'm trying to say. Borup: A lot of incentive to make the 15th. Rohm: We don't have any control over that, so the thing that I would I like to say to each of you that came in to listen to this tonight is thank you for your time and I want you to know that we try very hard to take your -- even though you didn't testify, I believe most of the people here were anxious to see us get more information before we made any decision and thank you all for coming in. Hood: I may add, too, for those of you in the audience, I'm going to get a ton of phone calls, but to save you a trip, go ahead and call our department, call the clerk's office that Thursday, see if we have ACHD comments, see if the hearing's going to be held. We can save you a trip down here, potentially, if it's not on the agenda. So. give us a call and we can -- we can touch base and I can even answer maybe a couple questions while the other hearing is going on, but can't get out of hand, because we do have a hearing to -- the question was can we put it on the website. We may be able to. It's going to be on the agenda, so I can't say that it's going to be continued or not, because that's up to this body. What we could potentially put on the website is we have received the ACHD's comments on this project and staff has received them, something to that effect. We can try to do that. Zaremba: I think the applicant has said he will do everything he can to be ready for their 15th meeting. So, I would anticipate it's going to move forward. Rohm: I believe so, too. Thank you all for coming in. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 22 of 84 Jewett: And thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. Rohm: You bet. Just due to the nature -- we are going to take a 15 minute break here and continue it at 8:35. (Recess. ) Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 06-009 Request for a Rezone of .57 acres from an 1- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vicki Garton - 435 W. Broadway Avenue: Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to continue our regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by -- okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 06-009, request for a rezone of .57 acres from an I-L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a rezone for the property located at 435 West Broadway Avenue. The applicant has requested this property be rezoned from the I-L, light industrial, to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district. The subject property is generally located on the south side of West Broadway Avenue, west of West 4th Street, adjacent to the railroad tracks. The vicinity map on the overhead here highlights the property here in blue. The site is a residential property that contains an existing single family home and associated out building. To the east and west of the property are single family homes zoned I-L. To the north are single family homes zoned R-15. The property abuts the railroad tracks on the south. South of the railroad tracks is industrial property zoned I-L. This property and other neighboring properties to the east and west were originally developed as residential properties, but were rezoned at some point supposedly for industrial redevelopment that never occurred. The applicant would like to rezone the property so that the existing residence can be considered a conforming use in the zone for financing purposes, as most financial institutions will not finance a nonconforming use or property, because if the structure is significantly damaged it cannot be rebuilt. The only issue highlighted in the staff report for the Commission is that the applicant needs to submit a legal description and associated documents stamped and signed by a professional land surveyor that meet the city's and State Tax Commission's requirements prior to Council approval of the rezone ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of their requested rezone from I-L to R-8 as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, actually, I do have one. I agree with the reason for changing the zoning, but it was my understanding when the Old Town zone was established that we would not go out and force people to change their zoning, but if and when they asked for any change, the change would be to Old Town, and I -- and that would still