HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2003 Item Packetch 17, 2003
,6tERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 20, 2003
APPLICANT Paramount, LLC
REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for annexation and zoning of
zones to R-8. R-40, L-O and C-G zones for
~ Road and north of West McMillan Rood
i
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGA710N:
Paramount
COMMENTS
AZ 03-006
ITEM NO.
11 acres from RUT and R-1
on --west of Norfh Meridian
~~~C QJ
See attached Comments ~ ~
~t'1` 11 ,
"Ok wfth Meridian Water Department'
No Comment
"No Comment'
"We have No Objections to this Proposal"
No Comment
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Phone:
ate: ' '
Contacted: G" of Medd
seated aF Public meeMn9s shall become Properly of the City
Materials pre
~3~;~;~
MAYOR
ROBERT D. CORRIE i,
CotINC~I"1~ER$
WbLIAM L.M. NARY
KEITHBE2D crrv of :. _
TAMI"IY DE WFFRTI C.~,Q,.feri~i~n -
CI-]EERJE MCCANDLESS IUAHO
RvRAL FEtE COMbffSSIONERS r
RICxARDGREENS ~
TERRY LEIGHTON V~ ~T~ -~na.vw'~Y ~ ~
SIEVE Eulon
MFRTDIAN CITY/RURAL FIRE DEPARTME
C~
j{EN W. BOWERa
DEPUTY CHIEF - FIRE PREVENTION
JosEPx Sn.vA
DEPUTY CIm''.F -TRAINING
BILL JOHNSON
540 Fast Fcatlklln Road
Meridian, ID 83642
(208)888-1234
Fax (208) 895-0390
RECEIVED
MAR 1 2 2003
March 10, 2003 City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
TO: Mayor, City Council and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Prevention
SUBJECT: Paramourn Subdivision AZ 03-006, CUP 03-008, PP 03-004
The following will be the regwremerns and/or concerns to provrde minimum levels of fire
protection for the proposed project:
1. The project whrch cernpnsed of single family dwellings will.require afire-flow of 1,000
gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the ernire project. Fire
hydrams shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian
Water Department.
3. Final Approval of the fire hydrarn locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public
Works for plan review.
4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside.
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
6. Two poirns of access will be required for the project or portions of the project that serve
over 50 homes. This will be a concern the way the project is phased in the early stages
of development.
7. Commercial and office occupancies will re4 ect. Fire hydrants shal be p aced an
Uniform Fire Code to se~ce~C App ~ p J
average of 400' apart. endix III-A
8. Multi-family residential on the site will require a fn'e-flow of 1500 GPM plus the
amourn required by the fire sprinkler demand.
9. All access roads within the project sh Restricted parking on some streets and access
width of 20' available at all ttm ~ to maintain a clear emergency access which is
points to fire lanes may be requ
20' wide. IJFC 902.2.2.1
10. The phasing plan may require that any roadway g~t~' than~150~' in~~en~ h that is
not provided with an outlet shall be required to have a aPP
11. The proposed 1107 unit subdi osiulat~n oan 2 o res~•ide2nts at build out. hThisho~ld
would have a total estimated p P
generate an estimated 133 calls for service based on lusto ~~ o u ation Tand
commercial, schools and churches will have an unkn ~ 11 volumes. The
will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Dep uses ~ the Year 2000 and
Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2069 regPoort completed by Fire &
2251 calls for service in 2001. According to aof 2000 our requests for service
Emergency Services Consulting Group m February
ate projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010.
12. The proposed project lies on the edge of the fiver/-om~~ntseandnss intended to
Aciuevemerrt of this goal is subject to budgetary
enhance the probability of a favorable o c~me d fined as ecapital outlayLfor
Support. The budget constraints are tYP Y iven location and sufficient
facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a g
operational funds to staff the facilities.
13. It is requested that building separations be maintained P~ssb'liBuiofl firesobeing
Blocks 32, 33, 34, 35,30, 31, 36, 37 to reduce the Po Y
transmitted from house to house.
MAYOR
Robert D. Come
CCfY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tammy deWeerd
Kei[h Bvd
Cherie McCandless
William L.M. Nary
MEMORANDUM:
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
To: Mayor, City Council and Planninrg' I& YZoning Commission
From: Wendy Kirkpatrick Planner lI
David McKinnon, Planner II
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engtneenng Tech
Re: Paramount Subdivision
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 • Fax 466-0405
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 898-5500 ~ Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONRVG
DEPARTMENT
(208) 8845533 ~ FAX 88R-6854
March 20, 2003
R,ECEIVE])
MAR 1 7 2~3
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
• Annexation and Zoning of 397.11 Acres from RUT (Ada County) and R-1 to
R-8, R-40, L-O and C-G Zones, by Paramount, LLC (Fide No. AZ-03-00~.
• Preliminary Plat Approval of Seven-Hundred and Sixty Four (764) Building
Lots and Thirty-Seven (37) Other Lots on 397.11 Acres with Proposed R-8,
R-40, L-O, and C-G Zones, by Paramount, LLC (File No. PP-03-004).
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of
Seven hundred and sixty-four (764) Single Family Building Lots, seventy-
three (73) Townhouse Lots, two hundred and seventy (270) apartments, four
mixed-use areas with approximately 577,606 squaze feet of office and retail
space, and thirty-two (32) Common Lots on 392.17 Acres in proposed R-8, R-
40, L-O, and C-G Zones. The Proposed Planned Development Includes a
Request to Allow a Land Use Exception (Office/Commercial Uses in a
Proposed R-8 Zones), by Paramount, LLC (File No. CUP-03-008).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY
The applicant, Paramount LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit approval of a Planned Development consisting of 801 lots on 392.17
acres of land generally located within the square mile bordered by Chinden Blvd, Meridian,
Linder and McMillan Roads. The land is presently zoned RUT, and the applicant has requested
that upon annexation, all of the property be zoned R-8, R 40, L-O, and C-G.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 2
The applicant's preliminary plat approval request is for seven hundred and sixty-four (764)
single family detached building lots, seventy-three (73) townhouse lots, amulti-family lot (for
approximately two hundred and seventy (270) apartments), a future high school lot, a future
elementary school lot, an LDS church and seminary site and four mixed-use areas with
approximately 577,606 square feet of office and retail space, and thirty-two (32) Common Lots
on 392.17 acres. The common lots include a continuous ten foot (10') wide multi-use pathway
system, a community center with a pool, several pocket pazks, and two (2) lazge ponds in
addition to the typical landscape buffers.
The gross density of the proposed subdivision is approximately 2.8 dwelling units per acre (this
number will change when Lot 1 Block 43 is designed and re-subdivided for future residential
development). The project is a multi-phase development with at least thirteen (13) separate
phases.
The Planned Development application includes requests to allow reduced development standazds
including reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, and reduced house sizes and to
allow blocks within the subdivision to exceed length maximums (1000'+). The following is list
of the proposed standards for a variety of housing types proposed by the applicant and a list of
City (R-8) standazds for comparison:
A. Alley loaded attached single family (townhouse"):
Minimum Lot Size: 3159 squaze feet
Minimum Dwelling Size: 1,101 square feet, exclusive of the garage.
Setbacks: Front-10',
Rear-15',
Side-5' (0' interior)
Side Street-10'
Minimum Frontaee: 27'
B. Alley loaded detached single family:
Minimum Lot Size: 3,960 squaze feet
Minimum Dwelling Size: 1,101 square feet, exclusive of the gazage.
Setbacks: Front-10',
Reaz-15',
Side-5'
Side Street-10'
Minimum Frontaee: 36'
C. Standard single family residential:
Minimum Lot Size: 5,500 square feet
Minimum Dwelling_Size: 1,301 squaze feet, exclusive of the garage.
Setbacks: Front-10',
Rear-15',
Side-5'
Side Street-10'
Minimum Frontaee: 50'
Planning & Zoning Commission/Nlayor & City Council
Mazch 20, 2003
Page 3
D. City Standards for the R 8 Zone
Minimum Lot Size: 6,500 square feet (detached)
4,000squaze feet (attached)
(Townhouses are prohibited*)
Minimum Dwelling Size: 1,301 square feet (detached)
800 square feet (attached)
Setbacks: Front: 15' living area, 20' gazage (or 15' if side entry)
Rear: 15'
Side: 5'
Street side: 20'
Minimum Frontage: 65' (detached)
40'(attached)
(Townhouses are defined as three or more attached single family dwellings. Attached
Single Family Dwellings are defimed as no more than two attached single family dwellings)
In addition to the above noted reductions to the MCC the applicant is requesting the approval of
a sales trailer to be located and relocated within the development as the subdivision is
constructed.
The applicant has requested a land use exception (per MCC12-6-3) to permit office, multi-
family, townhouse and commercial uses within the proposed subdivision. The four (4) "mixed
use" lots (Lot 2 Block 1, Lot 2 block 40, Lot 2 Block 45, and Lot 57 Block 3), the townhouse lot
(Lot 3 Block 40) and the future multi-family lot (Lot 1 Block 45) combined equal approximately
71.75 acres of land, or approximately 18% of the total subdivision.
The applicant has not submitted detailed plans for the four "mixed use" lots, or for the multi-
family and townhouse lots and is requesting only conceptual approval of the aforementioned
uses at this time. The proposed "excepted" uses will require a detailed conditional use permit in
the future, prior to development.
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of the City
of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the pazcel contiguous to existing city limits.
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and essential City services are or
can be made available to the subject property.
CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD
Paramount LLC is the current property owner and they-have submitted an affidavit of legal
interest to allow the submission of subject applications.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 4
LOCATION
The property is located generally located within the square mile bordered by Chinden Blvd,
Meridian, Linder and McMillan Roads.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Rural Residential zoned RUT and Rl (Ada County)
South: Rural residential lots, zoned RUT (Ada County), proposed Cedar Springs North
subdivision, zoned R-8.
East: Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County)
West: Proposed Lochsa Falls subdivision, zoned R-4 and several rural residential properties,
zoned RUT (Ada County.)
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance I1-15-11, General Standards Appddcabde to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment"
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designations, R-8, R-4Q L-O, and C-G are in
general compliance with the effective Comprehensive Plan (`02) and the Future
Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential."
The proposed multi-family and commercial developments within the subdivision
are permissible under the excepted land use provisions of the MCC (12-6-3.) The
Comprehensive Plan also designates a community park and a school site within
the proposed subdivision boundazies. A park has not been provided by the
applicant within the project; however, the applicant has provided a 55 acre high
school site and a 10 acre elementary school site within the subdivision.
The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the subject property should have a
"Multi Use" pathway running east-west through the middle of the proposed
subdivision. Page 54 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of pathways
and states that they should be in compliance with the Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan (not yet adopted) and that the pathway should be located
"off street". The applicant has provided a pathway in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 5
Please review the Parks Department. comments concerning the need for a
community park within the subdivision
B. )3 the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
Staff finds that the proposed single family residential subdivision with
commercial and multi-family uses would be allowed within the requested zoning
designations, if accompanied with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development
D. Has there been a change io the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that the land to the east (Locsha Falls) and south (Cedar Springs North)
of the property has recently been approved for development similar to the
proposed subdivision. Staff finds that the requested zoning designations are
harmonious with recemly approved developmems in the North Meridian Area and
should be rezoned in the requested manner.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed uses (single family residential, commercial, office,
and public schools) will inevitably change the existing rural character of the
subject property. The proposed uses are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan
and Future Land Use Map.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written)
to determine whether or not the proposed uses will be disturbing or hazardous to
the existing or future neighboring uses.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 2Q, 2003
Page 6
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous, but
maybe disruptive to future or existing neighbors.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed will or can be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and services if all conditions of approval are met by the
applicant. The applicant shall be required to extend water and sanitary sewer
mains to and through the proposed development, thereby making them available
to the adjacent properties.
The applicant must meet all requirements of ACRD in order to provide adequate
facilities for the proposed and existing street system. Staff cannot recommend
approval of the proposed subdivision if the applicant does not meet ACRD
reauirements.
Please review ACHD, Police and the Fire Department's comments concerning
this subdivision for further information regarding public services and facilities
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
Staff finds that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost
for public services and facilities, if the applicant complies with the conditions of
approval for the accompanying conditional use permit and preliminary plat
applications.
I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase significantly upon
build-out of the proposed subdivision; however staff does not feel that the amount
generated will be detrimental to the public welfare of the city if all conditions of
approval are met.
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not involve uses that would create
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
surrounding area.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 7
J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the subdivision's vehicular approach off of Chinden Boulevard
will need to be aligned with the existing public street (N. Fox Run Ave.) on the
north side of Chinden Boulevard, or that it will need to be relocated elsewhere, in
accordance with ACRD and ITD comments. If the roadway cannot be re-aligned
with the existing public road, the intersection will not meet off-set requirements
and will never be considered for a traffic light. The other proposed roadways will
need to be improved in compliance with ACRD requirements in order to alleviate
interference with the existing and proposed intersections.
Please review ACRD comments concerning vehicular approaches and traffic
generation.
K Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approving the annexation and re-zone. Any existing trees larger than
4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance.
L. is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992)?
Staff finds services aze available to the site and that the inclusion of a new
elementary school and high school within the subdivision makes the annexation
of this property in the best interest of the City.
ANEXATION AND ZONING CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services aze
auailable from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
2. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing
or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13.
Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users
association (ditch owner's), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public
Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be
reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 8
3. A Development Agreement shall be entered into between the Developer and the City of
Meridian that will require, among other conditions, that all future commercial, townhouse,
and multi-family uses obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development, the
construction of the multi-use pathway, and limiting Lots 1-13, Block 32, Lots 1-12, Block
33, Lots 1-12 Block 34 and Lots 1-13, Block 35 to attached and townhouse construction only
and limiting Lots 1-13 Block 30, Lots 1-2 Block 31, Lots 1-12 Block 36, and Lots 1-13
Block 37 to one dwelling per lot.
4. The applicant shall be required to dedicate a permanent easement, and a temporary
construction easement, through the project to Meridian road for the North Slough Sewer
Trunk after preliminary plat approval by the Meridian City Council, and prior to submittal of
the application for the final plat of Phase one.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds the subdivision to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing
supporting services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that the proposed location of the collector street on the south side of Chinden
Blvd. is a safety issue and will need to be re-aligned with the public street to the north in
order to be serviced with a traffic light in the future. The current location does not meet
off set requirements. Other than previously noted staff does not find any other health,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 9
safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that may be brought to
the Council or Commission's attention.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Interconnectivitv: The applicant has designed the subdivision with several stub-streets to provide
interconnectivity with future development on adjacent lots. Staff supports the proposed stub
streets and recommends the inclusion of additional stub-streets or access easements at the
following locations:
1. Between Lot 5-7, Block 25 extending to the south.
2. Along the southern boundary of Lot 19, Block 7, extending to the west.
4. Between Lots 32 and 33, Block 7 extending to the north.
5. Through Lot 20, Block 25 extending west
6. Through Lots 25 and 26, Block 25 extending to the south.
7. Between Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 extending to the west.
8. Provide an access easement or curb cut through Lot 1, Block 43 between Lot 1, Block
52, and Lot 1, Block 53 to the un-platted parcels directly north of Producer Street.
9. Provide an access easement or curb cut through Lot 1, Block 43, in alignment with N.
Mitchum Ave.
10. Provide an access easement or a curb cut within Lot 1, Block 26, in alignment with
the proposed driveway access on N. Studio Way.
In addition to the proposed and recommended stub-streets the applicant has provided several
pedestrian pathways within the subdivision. As mentioned above, staff supports the proposed
pathways and would recommend the addition of at least two more pathways within the center of
Block 11, between Lots 10 and 11 and a pedestrian pathway between Lots 17 and 32, Block 3.
All of these recommendations are included in site specific condition of approval number 8 below
Block Leneth: Blocks 1, 3, 7, 11, and 24 exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 feet (MCC
12-4-5). If modifications are made to block 7 through the addition of a stub street the block will
be under 1,000 feet in length. The project is a planned development and therefore a variance is
not requved for the proposed development. Staff does not object to the proposed block lengths,
nevertheless the Commission and Council should determine if the block lengths are appropriate
for the proposed development.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
Mazch 20, 2003
Page 10
Reduced Lot Requirements: The lots dimensions within the proposed subdivision are less than
those required by the current Zoning Ordinance and would not be permitted without the
applicant's request for a Planned Development. Staff does not object to the requested reduced
dimensions.
STI'E SPECIFIC CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL /PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from mains
being installed as part of the Lochsa Falls project. The applicant will be responsible for
constructing the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development,
thereby making them available to adjacent properties. The subdivision designer is
responsible for coordinating main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
This development shall be subject to latecomer fees, to reimburse those responsible for
bringing sanitary sewer and water service to the area, when and if the Latecomers Fee
Agreement is established. Latecomer's fees shall be due and payable prior to signature
on the final plat for each phase.
The applicant shall be required to dedicate a permanent easement, and a temporary
construction easement, through the project to Meridian road for the North Slough Sewer
Trunk after preliminary plat approval by the Meridian City Council, and prior to
submittal of the application for the final plat of Phase one.
2. The applicant has indicated that a pressurized irrigation system will be provided within
this development, but has not indicated who will own and maintain the system. If the
system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation
system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development
plan review process, and a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual
must be submitted prior to plan approval, and be the applicant shall be subject to
irrigation plan review fees. Please revise the plat to show how the system is going to be
served (i.e. connection to an existing system, or independent pumping facilities)
Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be
supplied by a year-round source of water. Applicant shall be required to utilize any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian
City Engineer.
3. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. A solid
fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision unless the City agrees in
writing that such a fence is not required.
4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final plat application. The detailed
landscape plan shall include a 20' landscape buffer between all residential uses bordering
the commercial/office (Village Center) uses on Block 40.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 11
S. Please revise the preliminary plat map to show how all existing irrigation/drainage
ditches are to be treated. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be
tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
6. Detached sidewalks shall be required along the emire subdivision frontages of Ustick
Road, N. Meridian Road, Chinden Boulevard, and Linder Road and adjacent to the
designated collector roadways.
A circulation pump/aerator or other means of preventing the irrigation ponds from
becoming stagnant shall be required.
8. Re-align the collector roadway on Chinden Bivd. to align with N. Fox Run to the north. If
this cannot be accomplished the plat shall be revised in accordance with new ITD and
ACHD recommendations.
9. Add stub streets in the following locations:
A. Through Lot 20, Block 25 extending to the west.
B. Along the southern boundary of Lot 19, Block 7, extending to the west.
C. Between Lots 32 and 33, Block 7 extending to the north.
D. Through Lots 25 and 26, Block 25 extending to the south.
E. Through Lots 6 and 7 Block 25, extending to the south.
F. Between Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 extending to the west.
G. Provide an access easement or curb cut through Lot 1, Block 43 and Lot 1, Block 52,
and Lot 1, Block 53 to the un-platted parcels directly north of Producer Street.
H. Provide an access easement or curb cut though Lot 1, Block 43, west of Lot 1 Block
42, lining up with N. Mitchum Avenue.
I. Provide an access easement or a curb cut within Lot 1, Block 26, in alignment with
the proposed driveway access on N. Studio Way
10. Add micro-paths in the following locations:
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 12
• In between Lots 31 and 18, Block 3,
• In between Lots 10 and 11, Block 11.
(All micro-paths shall 6e constructed in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance,
and shall be the responsibility of the developer.)
10. Revise the plat notes as follows:
•Add a note to the plat requiring any re-subdivision of this plat to be in compliance with
the most recently approved subdivision standards of the City of Meridian.
•Add a note to the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the
subdivision to no greater than four feet in height if solid sight-obscuring material is used
for fence construction.
•Add a note to the plat that states the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the
pressurized irrigation system within the development.
•Add a note to the plat regarding the ownership and maintenance of the common lots
within the subdivision.
•Add a note to the plat regarding the Right to Farm Act.
11. A revised phasing plan depicting the phasing for the retaiUoffice, townhouses, and multi-
family housing must be submitted prior to the next public hearing.
12. Phasing for the overall project may be modified by staff level approval, provided written
explanation of phasing changes are provided by the applicant and final plat approval
request of said phases are contiguous to previously approved phases.
13. Ten (10) copies of a revised plat shall be submitted to the City Clerk's Office at least ten
days prior to the next public hearing for this plat.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Written comments in response to the staff report and Conditions of Approval must be
submitted the Meridian's Planning and Zoning Department three days prior to public
hearing.
2. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
Coordinate fire hydrarn placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
4. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, play equipmern, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
Planning & Zoning Commission/Nlayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 13
signature on the final plat.
5. All pathways within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC
12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
6. A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape ordinance shall be submitted
for the subdivision with the final plat application, the landscape plan shall include the
location and design of any proposed playground equipment.
7. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC12-13-
10-8.
8. 250 and 100-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by
Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from
the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
9. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacern and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
10. Please submit up to date groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works
Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retentionbriins) must be designed
to ensure that water is retained only during 100-year storm events, and for a period of
time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1.
I I. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that have to be removed.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
14. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 2Q 2003
Page 14
15. Applicant's engineer will be requved to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
STANDARDS FOR CONDTfIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the heazing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is lazge enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features as noted above.
B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Medium
Density Residential" with a portion of the subdivision located within a neighborhood
Center. Staff finds that the proposed residential uses are harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is being proposed as a conditional use for a planned development in order to
allow several land use exceptions in addition to the aforementioned reduced lot sizes,
reduced street frontages, and reduced setbacks. The proposed commercial, multi-family,
and office land use exceptions aze not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but
are permitted through section 12-6-3 of the Planned Development Ordinance.
The applicant is proposing just over 50 acres of retaiUoffice land use exceptions. Within
the 50 acres, the applicant estimates "approximately 577,606 square feet of office and
retail space." Conceptual approval of these uses is requested as part of this application.
The Comprehensive Plan shows "Medium Density Residential" as the future land use on
all of the 50-acre land use exception azea. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a
Neighborhood Center on Ustick Road, between Meridian Road and Linder Road.
Approximately '/a of the center is located on Paramount property, intended for higher-
density residential uses of at least 8 dwelling units per acre. The commercial node at the
heart of the Neighborhood Center is not located on Paramount property. The land use
designation within the center is Mixed Use -Neighborhood, the lowest intensity mixed
use classification, which allows for up to 10 acres and 100,000 square feet of non-
residential uses (i.e. retail and office).
In 7anuary, 2002, the Planning & Zoning Dept. completed an effort to study the economic
viability of the proposed Neighborhood Centers with Edwazd Stazkie of Urban Economic
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 15
Advisory Services. The conclusion of that study was that each square mile in the North
Meridian area "will support approximately 43,000 square feet of retail." This would
indicate a need for one [100,000 square foot] center each 2.25 square miles, or an average
of 3.3 acres of retail space per square mile. The proposed retaiUoffice land use exception
far exceeds the square footage intended for the neighborhood center adjacent to the
project.
The approval of the proposed 50 acres and 577,606 square feet of office/retail land use
exceptions will likely have the effect of rendering the commercial neighborhood center
shown on the Comprehensive Plan economically unviable. The sheer scale of the
proposed retaiUoffice land use exceptions appears to be more regional than neighborhood
in scale.
If the project is approved as a Planned Development, it will be excluded from several of
the minimum requirements of the MCC.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed residential subdivision use will be harmonious with the
intended character of the area, but will dramatically change the existing rural character of
the general vicinity, with the exception of Lochsa Falls and Cedar Springs North
subdivisions that lie adjacent to the proposed development.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will have a large impact, but not necessarily
adverse impact on other properties within the vicinity. Staff does not anticipate that the
project's overall impact will be adverse to the other properties within the general vicinity;
however, the Commission and Council should consider any testimony (written and oral)
presented at the public hearings before making this finding.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
As noted above, Staff finds that the proposed development can be adequately served by
the essential public facilities and services listed above, if the requirements of ACRD, the
Fire Department and the City are met by the applicant.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 16
welfare of the community;
Staff finds that the proposed use would not be detrimernal to the economic welfaze of the
community, nor would it create the need for any new facilities or services to be paid for
by the public that would be considered excessive.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Staff finds that there will be an increase in traffic and noise in the general vicinity if the
subdivision is approved, but that approval of the subdivision will not lead to a major
increase in smoke, fumes, glaze, odors or other disturbances that will be considered
detrimental to the welfaze of the City and the subdivision's neighbors.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
As noted above, staff finds that the proposed collector off of Chinden may create
significant interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Staff has already
recommended that this street be re-aligned with the public street to the north.
Please review the ACRD report for this project for additional information regarding this
finding. ACRD recommendations should be adopted by the Commission and Council to
avoid interference that may result for the proposed subdivision.
I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff does not find that any natural or scenic feature will be lost, damaged or destroyed
by issuance of this conditional use. Existing trees greater than 4" caliper must be retained
or mitigated for, if removed.
FINDINGS FOR USE EXCEPTIONS WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
MCC 12-6-3 "Use Exceptions" require the Commission and Council to make the following
findings in order to authorize specific uses that are not normally permitted by the use regulations
of the zone in which the development is located (no more than 20% of the gross area of the gross
project):
1. The uses permitted by the exception are strongly related to the principal use of the
development, and have the purpose of providing services or facilities useful or
complementary to the primary use.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 17
Stafffinds that the office/commercia]/high density residential located on the east, southeast
and western portion of the proposed subdivision aze related to the primary use (residential) of
the development (R-8). The office/retail uses can provide services (i.e. medical, dental,
optical etc...) and sundries (i.e. food, clothing etc...) that will be complementary to the
residents of the subdivision, and will provide employment opportunities as well. The
proposed multi-family housing will provide a mix of housing products and income levels
within the proposed subdivision
The mixing of residential uses and commercial uses will encourage the office development to
be constructed in a manner that will be pedestrian friendly in design. The proposed medium-
density housing will provide an immediate consumer base for the office/commercial
development.
The retail/office located at the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision does not connect
with the residential portion of the subdivision. This portion of the subdivision is accessible
only car for residents within the proposed subdivision. Staff does not find that this portion of
the subdivision is strongly related to the residential use proposed for the majority of the
subdivision.
2. No more than twenty percent (20°/a) of the total area of the project shall be devoted
to the uses permitted by the exception. The percentage of use exception allowed will
be determined by the Commission and Council based upon the size of the project
and intensity of the use exceptions.
Staff finds that the office/multiple-family housing/commercialuses make up 17% of the
total azea of land included in the planned development.
Staff finds that the size and intensity of the excepted uses is appropriate for this location
and size of development.
3. The development will be phased so that construction of the excepted use or uses will
be justified by construction of all or a proportionate amount of the principal or
primary use or uses.
Staff finds that the excepted uses (office and commercial) will be phased and constructed
in a manner that justifies then inclusion as part of the project's primary residential uses.
4. The uses permitted by the exception are integrated into the overall project by:
a. Being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the
primary uses.
Staff finds that the office/retaillmulti-family uses located in the southeastern portion
of the proposed subdivision are in proximity to and within convenient walking
distance for parts of the overall development. The proposed retail /office use
located in the southwest corner of the subdivision is not located in close proximity
to the residential uses within subdivision and is not within convenient walkine
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 18
distance of the residential uses within the subdivision. Staff finds that all other
office/retail/multi-family housing excepted uses are within convenient walking
distance for many of the residents within the proposed subdivision.
b. Utilizing one or more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site as
the main access to the exception site or interconnection through a system of
private roadways and/or pathways.
Staff finds that the retaiUoffice uses located in the southwest comer of the proposed
subdivision are n~accessible to residents of the proposed subdivision through a
main access or an interconnected street system.
With the exception of the retail/office uses located at the southwest corner of the
subdivision, staff finds that the site design incorporates interconnectivity though
shared vehicular access points. The applicant has provided a pathway system and an
interconnected roadway system for access to the excepted uses from the residential
uses.
c. Providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections with the primary use
site.
Staff finds that the proposed retaiUoffice uses in the southwest corner of the
proposed subdivision are not provided with adequate pedestrian and bicycle
connections with the remainder of the development. Staff finds that all other
excepted uses are provided with connections that are accessible to pedestrians and
to the residential portion of the development.
d. Orienting buildings on the exception site to facilitate vehicular and/or
pedestrian access from the primary use site.
Staff finds that the proposed retail/office uses on the southwest comer of the subject
property are located in a manner that will facilitate access from existing arterial
roadways only and do not provide any interconnectivity with the rest of the
subdivision.
A detailed layout of the buildings has not been submitted with this application.
Therefore, staff is unable to make a fmding concerning the orientation of the
buildings to be developed as excepted uses.
e. Continuing architecture, landscaping, and building bulk concepts from the
primary use into the use of the exception site so they are consistent and
harmonious throughout the development.
Staff finds that the landscaping is consistent throughout the proposed development.
Architectural and building bulk concepts will need to be submitted with a new
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 2p, 2003
Page 19
detailed conditional use permits for each of the future office, commercial and multi-
family uses.
The Commission and Council may determine what, if any, azchitecturalldesign
concepts (residential and/or commercial) should be incorporated into all buildings
withia this development at this time.
5. The use(s) permitted by the exception are neighborhood or community serving in
size and character and not regional, and are not detrimental to adjacent
neighborhoods in location and character.
Staff finds that the proposed office and retail uses, when combined, equal over half
a million square feet of possible officelretail space. Staff does not believe that the
scale of the office and retail uses is appropriate to the size of the overall
development.
Staff does find that this is a very lazge subdivision with a variety of conunercial and
residential uses that fit within the MCC guidelines for excepted uses within a PD,
and that the excepted uses utilize less than the 20% of the land within the proposed
development.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Temporary Sales Trailer(sl: Staff does not object to the applicant's request for temporary sales
trailer(s) within this subdivision as long as all of the conditions of approval, listed under site
specific condition of approval number 4, below, aze met by the applicant.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Conditional Use Permitl
Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act.
3. Anew detailed Conditional Use Permit will be required prior to development of any of
the office/retail/multi-family housing within the Paramount Subdivision.
4. Temporary sales/information trailers shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The proposed subdivision is permitted to have no more than two temporary
sales trailers on-site.
b. The landscaping and irrigation (in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance)
shall be provided in the front yazd of the sales trailer shall be completed prior to
occupancy.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2003
Page 20
c. The nailer shall be skirted with material that is similar in color and material of
the rest of the trailer.
d, The applicant shall be responsible for providing adequate off sweet parking.
e. One wall sign is allowed for the temporary sales trailer. The sign shall be
limited in size to 18% of the wall area. No other signs shall be permitted.
f. A building permit for the temporary building must be obtained through
Meridian's Building Department prior to placing the nailer on a lot. A site plan
must accompany the building permit and be approved by Planning Department.
g. Sanitary sewer service and domestic water service may be requested for the
proposed use. Should shook-up be requested, an assessment for sewer and water
service will be determined during the building permit application process.
h. Applicant must provide the Public Works and Fire Departments with
information on the method of fire protection to be used for the trailer.
i. The trailer must conform with all setbacks as set forth in the Paramount
Subdivision conditional use permit and preliminary plat.
j. The timeframe for the sales and information trailer is for a period of 48 months.
If Paramount requires an extension of this permitted period, Staff recommends
they submit a status of their plans to the P&Z Department after 48 months of
operation (starting from date of occupancy). City Council must approve of any
time extension beyond 60 months via a modification of the CUP. This timeframe
will apply to a single lot, not a combination of all fixture lots for the trailer use.
k. The Applicant's request to site the same trailer under the above-stated
conditions at other locations within future Paramount phases is approved without
a CUP modification. A new Certificate of Zoning Compliance and building
permit for all future nailer locations must be submitted to the City for each future
location, but a CUP should not be required for each fixture trailer location.
The applicant shall provide cross walks at the three N. Cinema Way intersections at W.
Colbert St., W. Charlton St. and W. Paramount Drive that will provide pedestrian access
to the proposed community center.
6. Fencing adjacent to Lot 10, Blockl5, Lot 1 Block 29, Lot 1 Block 24 and Lot 1 Block 38
shall be limited to 4 feet in height if solid fencing material is used, with the allowance for
an additional 2 feet of lattice work to be placed on top of the solid fence.
A planned sign program shall be required for the commercial portions of the property.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
Mazch 20, 2003
Page 21
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the general layout of the residential portion of the proposed Paramount
Subdivision; however, the Planning and Zoning Department is concerned with the lazge volume
of commercialloffice development (577,660 squaze feet), and the lack of accessibility to the 19.2
acre retailloffice lot located in the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision.
Staff recognizes that the combined acreage of the office/retail uses is within the 20% land use
exception guidelines of the City's Planned Development Ordinance. However, the City Code
explicitly states that the excepted uses are to be strongly related to the primary use of the
proposed development, the uses should not be regional in nature, and that the uses should be
interconnected with the principal use via shazed access points or pedestrian/bicyclepaths. The
19.2 acre lot at the northeast corner of the Linder and McMillan Road intersection and the 18.6
acre lot at the northwest corner of the Meridian and McMillan Road intersection do not adhere to
the MCC's required findings for excepted uses. Staff cannot recommend approval of this portion
of the requested conditional use permit for a Manned development
Staff recommends that the public hearings for the Paramount annexation, preliminary plat and
conditional use permit be continued to allow the applicant to make several modifications to the
subdivision design prior to being recommended to Council. The modifications should include,
among others, the relocation of the collector roadway on Chinden Blvd, the addition of stub-
streets and micro-paths, and new phasing lines. The plat and CUP plans should also be modified
in compliance with the Commission's recommendations for the proposed commercial azeas.
Fifteen (15) copies of a revised plat will need to be submitted to the City Clerk's Office at least
ten (10) days prior to the next public hearing for review by the City Staff.
JOANN C. BUTLER
SANDRA L. CLAPP
KELLY M. GARRITT
MICHAEL T. SPINK
~ ~ LjL (20B) 388-7093
JBUTLER@SBO-ATTORNEYB.COM
March 20, 2003
Jill Holinka
White Peterson
5700 E. Franklin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687-8402
RE: Paramount Subdivision
SBC File No. 21592.7
Dear Jill:
~:,R 2 0 2003
CITY OF 1;~i.i;L~;~
Via facsimile 466-9405
As you are aware, the Paramount Subdivision site was not posted with notice of tonight's Planning and
Zoning Commission Public Hearing as required by Meridian City Code § 11-15-5 (A)(2). We understand
the public hearing on this matter will not be fully addressed at tonight's hearing because of this fact.
As we discussed this morning, the site will be posted as soon as possible to meet Meridian's 10-day
requirement and we will request the Public Hearing on this matter be opened this evening only for the
purpose of re-setting this matter to Apri] 3, 2003 for public testimony. By continuing the public hearing,
the City will not be burdened with additional notice requirements, including notice mailings and
publishing.
Please confnm my understanding of the procedures for this evening's hearing is correct. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance with this issue.
Sincerely,
7oAnn C. Butler
JCB: sg
cc: Dave McKinnon, via facsimile
Mike Wardle, via facsimile
251 E. FRONT STREET
SUITE 200
P.O. Box 839
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
208-388-1000
208-388-1001 IF)
W W W.SBC-ATTORNEYS.COM
.... ~v.. ~wr-~. vu:rr LV .L4 LGr 04 OOW
W~-JITB PIETERSON
WIiIZE, PEiBRSON, MORROW, G1C3ltA,Y, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A.
IDZViw Daaus
nn~RC~nF15tx~t
wan
F
CR78AY
1R ATTORNEYS ni Lnw _
GTNYONPnRTCntTHE3DA!!0C
- UmiSSO~e4.Nrc
Am.wn.P6lsRSmu
.
.
.
r.wranuva•
lut S
liot¢vn:n 5700 E. PTC.ycq,Ea RD., StRtE 2
Nnnte0. fONi083687 ~y
'
^•.rjE
p ~D EWCa s. P~cros
.
D. SaM16L 1otS~eav
waTaaNn
*+
TEL (208)dliG•92M t~DAROS
.
wmt7naT F. NTamTs Fax (208j 46Tida05 MAR 2 Q ~ N180`4E ~~ "m ~'
~Ns> edmitad in OR
David McKinnon
Meridian Planning & Zoning Depattrnent
660 E. Watertower Iane
Meridian, ID 83642
Ite: Paramount Subdivision
Dear David:
City Of Meridian "nlwWmitted'mwA
City Clerk Office
March 19, 2003
['L4 FASIMiIL.E' ~'RANSMISSIDN
It is my understanding based upon our telephone conversation this mornang that notice
was not properly posted upon the applicable property for the Meridian Platnung and Zoning
Commission's March 20s' hearings oonceming the proposed Paramount Subdivision (Items AZ
03-308, PP 03-004 and CUP 03-008).
Meridian City Code §11-15-5 (A)(2) requires that prior to such hearing before the
Plaraiittg & Zoning Commission, the Applicant is required to post notice of hearing upon the
property under consideration one week prior to the hearing date. Further, Idaho Code §b7-
6512(b)mandates that similar notice be posted,
if it is the detenaaination of the City of Meridian that notice was not properly posted one
week prior to the March 20a` hearing, it would be my advice to postpone nay and ail publio
hearings concerning the Paramount application until such time as the aforementioned code
sections are fully complied with. It is my understanding that the Applicant will be notified of this
by your office. If you have any question or commern, please contact me.
Sincerely, /~/~
cc:
Meridian City Cterk
Nicholas 1;.. Wollea
Associate Attorney, City of Meridian
7. i~ ahH~ Q(MhGghRl17.L : XH-I Nf1CN71 arl a 1141M: fTT ~r ~ ~ t sn. ar~rn nay • orv ~~ T a
Lb d:Jt7d `aUDD77DCr7L V LD : L J ~b ~ b L 'vt1W
WH[TE PETERSON
WH1rE, PergRSON, MORROW, GIGRAX, RosslwaN, NYE & ROSSMA,N, P.A.
xBVru Dmnrs
JUCD Ja5tu lOSnmt A'PIt1RNEr5 n7I,Aw GtQiA4fORJER x NrE
wb. F. GAMY. b CNVYON PARR AT THE NANO CtxtER P1lQ.LPA. FFIER6(AI
T. G1Y Na.Lnta • 5700 L• FluNxt.w RD.. StnTe 200 ERten s. PIaL16ts
Ja1 E. HOLNIM Nnx+F0. NANO 83687 Ewe 5. RoasMAv
D SnMVat JmWSON
TEI. (2081466.9272 T~mD A Rossww
TBRRarAa R
WPoiE°
WaJy,~,q 14gtaow
Wn,t~r., F, N1C{I01.5• Pa~c (208146G-4405 .
Nicxans t.. wa.i.ti,+
•aso samitma in oR
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Dstet March 19, 2003
To: Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
Fax No.: 888-4218
)Prom: Nicholas L. Wollen/da
Phone: 208-466-9272
No. of Pagea: 2 x (rncluding crrver.TheetJ
COMMENTS: Paramount Subdivision
Please see attached letter dated March 19, 2003 from Nicholas L. Wollen.
•• AW edmimd in wA
This facsimile transmission (and/or the documents awompaaying it) may contain w~'idential
information belonging to the leader which is protected by the ATTORNEY-CI.]El`iT l?]tIVA.,EGE. This
ioforJnation is intended only far the use of the iadividual or entity named above. If you are not the
imended recipiem, you are hereby ratified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of atJy
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. if you have received this
transmission in error, phrase immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documems.
If you do not receive all pages, please call bonny @ 118 as soon as possible at (208) 46C+-9272.
The original of this faxed document will not be sent unle~ requested by the recipient
7 iT ~~1H;1 Ql1t7hQQtrANi:)<Ha Nf7C?lal7.i ~I fHM:fIT 7S:/.T G'.11. Rti>=(1 (1G7.'oN a'lT~
Memorandum
Meridian Police Department
March 19, 2003
TO: Dave McKinnon and Wendy Kirkpatrick
FROM: Capt. Bill Musser
~ECEIVEI)
MAR 192003
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
p}Z Nt~.
Ma~e.~ 20, 2cU~
~+euvLS I1, 12,13
CC: Chief Worley
RE: Review and Recommendations for AZ 03-006, PP 03-004 & CPU 03-008
Requests for Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat Request & Conditional Use Permit
Application by Paramount, LLC for the proposed Paramount Subdivision. Hearing Date:
03!2012003
Location of Project: Bound by Chinden Blvd, North Meridian Rd, McMillan Rd, and Linder Rd.
I have reviewed the three requests noted above regarding the proposed Paramount Subdivision, and I
have the following recommendations from the Meridian Police Department:
~ Traffic Concerns: The traffic concerns I raised in the proposed Lochsa Subdivision
development (see attached) are still valid in regard to this Subdivision plan. Especially given
the proximity of a proposed high school lot adjacent to Linder Rd. between McMillan and
Chinden. The major rural highways providing the egress and access need to be updated and
improved to meet urban standards as part of this development now -not later. This is also
consistent with the precepts outlined in the 2002 Meridian Comp Plan (Goal II, Objective A;
Goal III, Objective B: 2; and Goal IV, Objective A). The issue of transportation and
roadways in particular is a strong Community Concern as noted in Section B of Chapter VI
of the 2002 Comp Plan. The Police Department recommends not approving the applications
at this time.
•5 Future School Growth: The proposed Paramount development includes a lot for a high
school. It is understood that this would be a Meridian School District item and a separate
developmem plan would be needed from the district. However, the current location would
need to have a double access for public safety approaches. A direct access on Linder Rd. is
recommended along with engineering for left turn access and egress. Considering the
breadth of the development proposal the road way accesses need to be considered at this
early stage, not later. The 2002 Meridian Comp Plan addresses the need for prior planning
and the issue of transportation and roadways in particular is a strong Community Concern as
noted in Section B of Chapter VI of the 2002 Comp Plan. The Police Depargnent
recommends not approving the applications at this time as a preliminary plan for the High
School ingress and egress along with a commitmem from ACHD for such needs to be a part
of this development plan,
Memorandum
Meridian Police Department
March 19, 2003
ra Law Enforcement/Pubtic Safety Assessment
Response times for law enforcement personnel will be stretched. This is a strong
consideration as officers will only be responding to the proposed development for
theft related reports initially. Construction sites tend to have numerous thefts
associated with the development, especially when located on the fiinge of the City as
the proposed Paramount developme~ is. Tltis will result in the pulling away of
resources from the other develop areas stretching response times in excess of five (5)
minutes for emergencies.
The distance away from the currently developed core area of the City of Meridian
will impact the response of officers assigned to area I as this development is over two
miles out of the current core. Area I officers curremly cover from west of Main St. to
west of Blackcat Rd and from north of Victory Rd. to north of Ustick Rd. The
current core coverage is approximately twelve (12) square miles. Current staffing
levels put only two (2) officers in area I when staff ng is optimum. The only options
available for response to or from the north end developmems are going to be along
the existing rural highways -Meridian, Linder, Tee-mile or Locust Grove roads. All
of these roadways present problems for traffic flow at peak periods in the early
morning, after school, and when commuters return in the early evening. The current
heavy traffic at these times already impacts police response to serious and emergency
calls resulting in response times in excess of 5 minutes.
The addition of the proposed Paramount development will exacerbate current
conditions as police staffing is just now starting to approach levels consistent with a
population base of forty-thousand spread over an area of 28 to 30 square miles. The
Paramount development proposal coupled with developme~s already approved, such
as Bridge Tower and Lochsa in the north end and Tuscany in the south will corrtinue
to stretch staffing and increase our ability to respond in a timely manner across the
City. Overall projections for the increase in population, given the currem approved
developments coupled with Patamoum, will conservatively double our current city
population of over 40,000 to an estimated 80,000. Granted this is projected to be over
the next ten (10) to fifteen (15) years, but this department and the City has yet to fill
the personnel, equipment, and tax infrastructures needed to keep pace with such
growth. This is a concern of note within the 2002 Meridian Comp Plan in Chapter
VII, Section C: 1 Land Use under the Urban Service Planning Area, wherein "... it is
recognized that some devetopment may precede the ability of the City, on its own, to
extend services for such development "
The 2002 Meridian Comp Plan specifically notes the City will ensure that facilities
Memorandum
Meridian Police Department
March 19, 2003
keep up with growth (Chapter 1V, Goal I, Objective A) and attempt to infill as much
as possible before extending services (Chapter V, Goal I, Objective A: 3 and Chapter
VII, Goal 1V, Objective C). While the Council has ah•eady approved other
developments such as lochsa in the north and Tuscany in the south, the addition of
further developments in the outs regions of the impact azea will exceed cwrem
police staffing levels. Public safety will be affected if large developmems corninue
to be approved as they have in the past. The Meridian Police Departmem
recommends not approving the applications at this time because staffing levels need
to increase to accommodate other large developments first. To do otherwise would
impact public safety.
As a plan of action in regards to staffing it is recommended future staffing be directed
at accommodating at least one (1) officer for every fow square miles of area in tenvs
of coverage and to help reduce response times within the City. Current coverage is at
1.5 officers for 12 square miles. However, there are currently 5 positions in process
of being filled that will drop the area coverage to 1 officer for 6 squaze miles.
2. The development plan calls for a number of single family residemial dwellings that
are "alley-loaded" attached and arranged in blocks of up to fow units or detached. In
reviewing the current p}an the development proposal as diagramed would be contrary
to the precepts of crime prevemion through environmental design (OPTED). The
current proposal places the garage and vehicular access at the rear of the proposed
residences via the alley. As such the alley lacks the element of "guardian" presence
that is it lacks a sense of openness and ownership intrinsic to front positioned garages
adjacent to public roadways. "Guardian" presence can be described as the perception
you are being watched -that yow actions can be seen by others or have the distinct
potential to be; in planning terms it may be known as indefensible space. The
proposed alley access dwellings have the overall effect of reducing "guardian"
presence. As such, this part of the Paramount proposal would increase the likelihood
of crime victimization to those purchasing and living in these `alley-loaded" units.
Additionally, alley-ways are problematic in regards to traffic. They also tend to
present themselves as an attractive nuisance in that they draw children, who teiul to
play in them. Alleys usually prohibit, by the nature of the construction, cleaz vision of
the alley way by residents and other passersby and lighting is often reduced or not
maintained over time. All of which lends itself to increasing the available
opportunity for theft or other crime.
The police department strongly recommends to the Council to not approve this
section of the development proposal unless it is redesigned in such a manner as to
Meiaorandura
Meridian Police Department
March 19, 2003
lessen the potemial crime impact inherent in the current design.
3. The proposed but yet to be designed section adj acem to the south east of the "alley
loaded" dwellings is set for what appears to be 270 apartments with a density rating
of 1 t3unitslacre. This portion of the proposal couple with the "alley-loaded" housing
is very problematic in terms of lending design and occupancy to the potemial for
property crime. Perhaps the best approach would be to extend the potential for town
homes in the area so the overall impact of high density related housing is lessened.
The proposed current mix will become problematic overtime and it will lend itself to
an increased potential in crime, which is contrary to providing for public safety.
Wlrile the 2002 Meridian Comp Plan in Chapter VII does set multiple objectives
under Goal 1V for:
• the adoption of land use designations which allow for housing opportunities for
all income levels (Objective C: Acion 9);
• supports a variety of reside~ial categories for the purpose of providing the City
with a range of affordable housing opportunities (Objective C: Action 10); and
• provides for a wide variety of housing types and choices between ownership and
rental dwelling units for all irtwme groups in a variety of locations suitable for
residential development (Objective A:
Action 4).
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter VII provides for an assessmem of law
enforcement needs (Goal III, Objective A: Action 4). In the Paramount proposal
applications we fmd the current design to be lacking in crime preventative elements,
especially in the south east portion of the proposed development plan. The Meridian
Police Department recommends the applications not be approved as currently
submitted in the current plans.
/ • {r_
MAYOR ~-"""" ~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT
r ~' ' ,~~ .~ (208) 288Q499 • Fax 2N8-1501
- Robrrt D. Corric r,
cirv of ~nl.': PARKS do RECREATION
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 4`"• (208 N88-3579 • Fax 89NSi01
Tammy dcWcerd ~, PUBLIC WORKS
eri~icn =~ ~~
IDAHO / (-OS) 898-5500 •Fax NN7-12)7
William L. M. Nary T /~
,yF ~/ BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Cherie McCandless (208) 887-22 ~ I • Fax 887- ~ 297
Keith Bird ~ ~~ PLANNING AND ZONNG
(208) SN4-5533 • Fax 888-6834
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: will Berg, coy clerk, by: March
Transmittal Date: February 6, 2003
File No.:
Request:
By:
AZ 03-006
2003
Hearing Date: March 20, 2003
Annexation and Zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 to R-8. R-40. L-O
and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision
Location of Property or ProjeG: west of North Meridian Road and
David Zeremba, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
- Jerry Centers, P2 (NO vaR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No vAR, vac, FP)
'.Michael Rohm, P2 (No vAR, vac, FP)
Keith BofUp, P2 (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Robert Corrie, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Tammy deWeerd, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Cherie McCandless, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanftary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department Your COnI
City Attorney
City Engineer
Clty Planner
Parks Department
RECEIVED
FEB 1 2 2003
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FPiPPonty)
Ada County Highway District
Community Planning Assoc.
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian brig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Pawer Co. (FPrPP Dory)
U.S. West (FPrPP ~~ty)
Intermountain Gas (FPrPP Dory)
Bureau of Reclamation (FPiPP only)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (AnnexaUononty)
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation Commission
Remarks: oK w,~fA rrl~..-,d~'a.,,
City of Meridian
33 EAST IDAHO • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 City Clerk Offioe
(208) 885-4433 • Fax (208) 887.4813 City Clerk Of'fce Fax (208) 888-4218 Human Resources Fax (208) 288-I l93
CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
•• DISTRICT
HEALTH Environmental Health Divisi°a,ECEI~TED
DEPARTMENT
FEB 14 2003
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
/ Final /Short Plat
Return to:
^ Boise
^ Eagle
_ ~artlen City
Meridian
^ Kuna
- ^ACZ
- ^ Star
~1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data conceming the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics
^ or bedrockfrom original grade ^ other
^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
^ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
^ central sewage ^ communitysewagesystem ^ communiiywaterwell
^ interim sewage ^ central water
^ individual sewage ^ individualwater
^ 9. The fallowing plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Duality:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
^ sewage dry lines ^ central water
^ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
013. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimmingpoolsorspas
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
^ 14.
^ child care center
Reviewed By:~'/~~ ~~d~lr~-[[i[
Review Sheet
coHO e~oc i~c
RECEDED
FEB 2 0 ~vt~3
City of Meridian.
City Cleer~k Office
I{~7~ CL II~~i7 "/rllLl~~.~Ld~L L/G4~ZLCir`
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208463-0092
February 13, 2003
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
--
N~erid~,315 x'3842 - _ -
Re: AZ 03-006 Annexation and Zoning for proposed Paramount Subdivision
Dear Convnissioners:
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above-mentioned
application as it is out of our District.
Sinc~~e~~re~~ly/~~I- ~_,_--~
Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IltRIGATION DISTRICT
BH/dll
Cc: File -Shop
File -Office
Water Superintendent
APPRORIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
NRR-13-2003 01:05P FROrI:Sanitary 5eruices. I 208-888-5052
•I`'
tit>YOR
ltohrn U Cauim
CIT1' COL'~CtI.lICMtiCRS
Tammy dcwvwrJ
tl'il6am L V1. Nary
ChiriC 11CC:111111CF5
I:ruh Ii1rJ
LLC
LCG \L nFC>RT,IICNT
f:Otll'.3R-^_J1Y) • Fae !XS_]T01
(`UN SSK-7i7n . r,, xVS )S01
roeuc \N)Rl:c
1_oal s~)s-ssou -ra. s- I tin
nIIILDING nEl?~\ILTlIES'I'
l'_tl8) %H'-]'_ I I • Mon M,r• I, ; _q i
YL>~';~INIi >NU LU~IV(i
1x161 s~~.))i> • Foe 6~6-oRl
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission. please submit your comments and recommentlallons to Mefidlan Clly Clerk's Office
Attn: will eery. City Clerk, by: March 13, 2003
Transmittal Dale: February 8, 2gQ3
File No.: AZ 03-006
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 39
sy:
Location
.l
~"a ,
I:ITV np I~Yau~~l
C~eri~ian f`f ~ ~`~.
i•
InnHa ),
~~ /
i
Hearing oats: March 20, 2003
7.11 acres from
Paramount Sub
or Projed: west of
and north
to
David Zaremba, P!Z {NO vAR, vac, FP)
Jerty Centers, PIZ (No VAR. VAC. FP)
Leslie Mathes, P2 (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Michael Rohm, P2 (NO VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (NO VAR, VAC, Fp)
Robert Come, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Tammy deWeerd, CfC
KeRh Blyd, C1C
Cherie McCandless, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
_~Sanitary Service (NO vAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Depanment
City Attorney
City Engineer
Cdy Planner
Parks Department
Meridian School District (NC FP)
Mefidien POSI Office (FPiPP OrNy)
Ada County Higtnvay Dislrid
Community Planning Assoc.
Central Dlslrid Heaflh
Nampa Meridian brig. Distrid
Settlers Irtigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FP/PPOMy)
U.S. West. (FPrPP Only)
IntemrountainGes (FP/PPonly)
Bureau of Reclamation (rPraP Dory)
Idaho Transportation Department {NO FP)
Ada County (Annexa0'an Dory)
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation Commission
RECEIVED
MAR 172003
C ~.Cler~k O
33 PAST IDAHO • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888.4433 • Fan (208)887A813 • Chy Clalk Olrvt Fan (2081888.4218 • Human Resnurcas P'ax (21381 2R8•I19)
MAR 13 '03 13:14 208-888-5052 PAGE.06
TO: Meridian Clerk P:6~7
MAYOR
Robert D. Conic
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tammy dcWcerd
William L. M. Nary
Cherie McCandless
Keilh Bird
•I ..
- i
yyv~
n. ti'-v ,.
(:ITY OF j,~~l~ ; 1
";
eri~i~nJ =~ ~;-
IDAHO ~~
~ j
F
•~ V
sixcE
', 190A
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
('_O3) 23ft-2499 • Fax 33&2501
PARKS Sc RECREATION
('_OR RSR-3579 • Fax 398-jj01
Pli13LlC WORKS
t'_OR) 393-jj00 •Fax 337-1297.
6UILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 337-2211 • Fax 3R7-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
(^_03) 3315533 • Fax RRR-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: will Berg, City Clerk, by: March 13, 2003
Transmittal Date: February 6, 2003 Hearing Date: March 20, 2003
File No.: AZ 03-006
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 to R-8, R-40, L-O
and C-G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision
By: Paramount, LLC
Location of Property or Project: west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road
David Zeremba, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Jerry Centers, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P2 (NO VAR, VAC. FPJ
Michael Rohm, P2 (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith BOfUp, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Robert Come, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Tammy deWeerd, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Cherie McCandless, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
City Engineer
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FPiPP Doty)
Ada County Highway District
Community Planning Assoc.
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP Dory)
U.S. West (FP/PP oMy)
Intermountain Gas (FPiPPoMy)
Bureau of Reclamation (FPiPP ~~ty)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (AnnexatlonoMy)
City Planner
Parks Department RECEIVED
FEB 1 4 1003
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
RE°E`~D
CITY ®F MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 8364ZASTEWATER DEPT.
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk OfFice Fax (208) 888-4218 Human Resources Fax (208) 288-1193
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
RECEZ"ED
MAR 2 0 2003
CITY OF iVIERIDIAv
DATE March 20, 2003
PROJECT NUMBER AZ 03-006
PROJECT NAME Paramount Subdivision
NAME FOR AGAINST