Loading...
2005 11-03 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 3.2005 - . Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 3, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, Joe Guenther, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Thursday, November 3rd. We will begin with a roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Next item is the adoption of the agenda and we will take each item in order, but there are some items we are not going to talk about tonight, even some of them we have people signed up for. So, let me tell you what's going to happen. Item 4 on Kohl's Department Store we will discuss. Items 5 and 6, the McGee property, and the Carrington property -- apparently there was either a failure or improper notice about this hearing tonight and the thought is not everybody has been notified who might want to be here. We will not discuss 5 and 6 tonight. We will continue that until the 17th of this month. So, there will be no discussion on McGee or Carrington, but we will have that full discussion with everybody present November 17th. Items 7 and 8 that relate to Sunstone Subdivision we will talk about tonight. Items 9 -- thank you all. Come back again in two weeks. Items 9, 10, and 11 that relate to Ellensburg Subdivision and also 12 and 13 that relate to Estancia Subdivision, both of those subdivisions have not been reviewed by ACHD yet. The latest word they will not be reviewed and to our staff even by our December 1st meeting. So, both Ellensburg and Estancia, Items 9, 10,11, 12, 13, we will continue until our meeting of December 15th and not discuss those tonight either, other than to continue them. Then, the final thing on our agenda is Milford Creek and we will have a full hearing on that tonight. So, the items that we will discuss tonight are 4, 7, 8, and 14, 15. And if you're here for one of the others, we invite you to come back at another time. And let the record show that Commissioner Borup has joined us. We are all here. That being said, unless I hear any other objections, we will consider the agenda adopted as is. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 2 of 53 Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 4, 2005 Planning and Zoning Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes for October 3, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes for October 6, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Next item is the Consent Agenda, which consists of three sets of minutes and I have comment on two of them, but I will first ask Commissioners if they have any other comments. Moe: No comments. Rohm: No comment. Newton-Huckabay: No comment. Zaremba: Just minor typos. On the minutes for the meeting of August 4th, on page four, the first time that I am speaking, it says Zaremba, the next to the last line -- let's see. The sentence says: Of all the questions we could be asked by the county about how you -- the word printed is conserve and the correct should be can serve, two separate words, c-a-n, serve, That's the only change I have on August 4th, I have no comments for October 3rd. And I have one comment for October 6th and that is on page 82 and at the very bottom of the page there is a paragraph that I'm given credit for speaking and, in fact, I believe that was Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the very last attribution on page 82 should not be me, it should be Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Other than that, unless somebody else has additional things, I would entertain a motion to approve as amended. Newton-Huckabay; I'm sorry, what? I was just affirming that was my statement. I'm sorry . Zaremba: Did you double-check that? Newton-Huckabay: ] did. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And that was -- that was me speaking ever so eloquently. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 3 of 53 Zaremba: Yes, Very nicely said and I would gladly take credit for it, but it would -- since I made the comment afte[that, it would look like I was talking to myself. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. That does bring us to the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and before we begin let me describe our procedure a little bit for those of you who don't come very often, In every case our professional staff and the applicant have spent quite a bit of time together reviewing the subjects and going over all sorts of stuff. So, we begin each presentation with our professional staff describing where the project is, what the project is, and discussing any issues they may have with how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan or the current ordinances of the City of Meridian. They are not advocating a project, they are merely explaining how well it does or does not meet the needs of the City of Meridian. Following that the applicant has the opportunity to come up and actually be the advocate, to answer any questions that the staff has raised, or explain anything further that they feel that the Commission needs to know before we make our recommendation to the City Council. The applicant and their supporting staff are given 15 minutes to make their part of the presentation. Following that, then, it's open to the general public to make your comments, anything that we need to know or you feel needs to be said and we ask that you be concise, if you can, organize yourself and each individually we ask that you limit your remarks to about three minutes, We do make an exception to that. If there is a spokesman for a group -- and, typically, that's the president of a homeowners association or something like that, we do allow that person ten minutes and ask other people who may have signed up that are giving their time to that person, then, not to speak, but if you have signed up and just raise your hand from the audience to say that you have been spoken for. As I say, we give individuals three minutes, a spokesman ten minutes. Then, at the conclusion of that, the applicant should have been taking notes on the comments that were raised. We do give the applicant another ten minutes following all the rest of the public testimony to respond to any issues that have been raised, solve any problems that they can solve, clarify any issues for us and the staff. Then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing, deliberate, and make a recommendation to the City Council where there will be another Public Hearing on these items. We do have a handy dandy light system right here in front of us. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When the yellow comes on, please, begin to conclude. And when the red is on your time is officially up. And we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 4 of 53 do also ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone. Since it was important enough for you all to come down tonight, we want to make sure that we hear you and that you're on the record and so, please, begin your testimony by coming to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 05-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C-G zone for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore - NWC of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Zaremba: That being said, we are ready to move ahead and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-048 relating to Kohl's Department Store and we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. This application is a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot retail store located here at the northwest corner of Eagle and Ustick Roads. The red area that's outlined is the area known as Center Point Marketplace is, I believe, what they are marketing it as. It was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2004 under the name Blue Marlin. W.H. Moore Company was the applicant during the annexation and is also the developer of the total 58-acre site. So, this is the area that we are talking about. And I might just point out while we are looking at this vicinity map, that there is this small little out parcel here, which you will see in just a minute is somewhat significant in terms of some of the conditions. So, that little out parcel was not annexed last year. My understanding is ownership is in the process of changing today, but we do not have any annexation application for it still. There is a single-family residence on it, but it is zoned RUT in Ada County. So, as you can see, the surrounding area is annexed on both the east here on Eagle Road. This is the Lowe's in this corner, along with the rest of their 38-acre development there with the Smith-Brighton Corporation. All four corners have been annexed and zoned as C-G, General Commercial. To the west is Champion Park Subdivision. The area that is down here in the southeast corner of Champion Park -- as you can see it's all zoned R-8, but it did get approval for a planned development several years ago to allow a use exception there. They were approved for some office retail and, then, storage unit complex along this west boundary. However, our department has received an application to amend that planned development, so they would -- they are proposing now to remove the storage units as part of their planned development and potentially put in patio homes. But that's not an application that you have seen yet, but I just wanted to point that out, since there is a pending application there. Aerial photo shows existing conditions. This is the site plan that was submitted with their Conditional Use Permit. This area -- they are proposing a property boundary adjustment to create this parcel that's shown in dark black outline here. Today that total site that I showed on the previous slide is 58 acres with three parcels. So, this parcel boundary adjustment, if approved by the city, would create this 8.33-acre parcel. So, they would, essentially, shift the existing parcel line, which is a little further north and bring that down to create a legal parcel that would presumably be sold to Kohl's and that's the site that we are talking about tonight. The legal description that is attached to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 5 of 53 the application describes that area. As you can see, it does stop short of Eagle Road. These other pad sites are. not a part of this application tonight, nor is this parking area that's shown in white a part of this application tonight. Everything that we are talking about is shown here. We are talking about a potential future public street that would run up along the west boundary of the site. Here is an overall concept for the project and the earth just shifted a little bit, in case you're wondering. This is north now to the right side of the screen and south to the left. So, this is Eagle Road at the bottom and then -- I included this slide in here so you know that on Tuesday night of this week the City Council held a Public Hearing for an application submitted by W.H. Moore Company on the total 58 acres. That application proposed -- it was a variance. They proposed three access points onto Eagle Road. Those three access points are shown here. The first one approximately 700 feet north of Ustick and, then, the 1,300 feet and 1,700 feet. And that application was approved -- all three access points were approved by the City Council. That was, again, to Article H of the Unified Development Code, which says all future -- all access points are prohibited to state highways. I guess I'll just let you look at the minutes and see their arguments in terms of why they did that. One of the arguments that the applicant made -- excuse me -- that they made was they have a development agreement which does talk about the possibility of accessing Eagle Road. So, I put in my staff report for this tonight that that hearing was happening, as I just -- make sure you're aware of the results of that meeting. So, the -- it relates to this Conditional Use Permit for Kohl's in that -- and maybe we could ask Jonathan Seal, who is representing them tonight, to maybe just confirm if one or two or three of these access points are proposed to be constructed with the Kohl's project. That's not made clear in their application. Presumably they would -- they would have this -- one at the 700-foot mark that would access in and, then, provide access from Eagle Road into their site. But I think that would be helpful for us to get on the record tonight. The Ada County Highway District did also comment -- I should point out that the Idaho Transportation Department did already approve their -- those three access points as well. So, that was done. A signal has not been approved for -- there was a proposal to construct a signal at the approximate quarter mile. Bald Cyprus Road currently stubs in here. The Nazarene church is down at this corner. That signal has not been approved. But the Ada County Highway District, while we don't have a formal staff report acted on by their commission, their staff has recommended approval of it and they -- since most of the issues here deal with the Idaho Transportation Department, they were comfortable with your final action on this tonight. Of course, that's up to you, but they are fairly confident that the issues will be worked out, because Ustick Road is already constructed, it opened up, I believe, last week. The driveways are constructed. The intersection improvements are all made. So, there is really no pending issues with Ada County Highway District, except for the new public street that runs along the backside. So, just to clarify on where they are at. So, I wanted to touch on just a couple of our recommendations and they really all, for the most part, deal with the building elevations. The building elevation on the top is the east elevation facing Eagle Road. This middle one is the north. The second to the bottom elevation is the west elevation. And, then, the south elevation is here on the bottom. So, here is a little bit of a blowup of the front. They are proposing several different types of materials on the front. The Unified Development Code, as you -- if you read the staff report, noted that we now have some Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 6 of 53 design standards for buildings in our Unified Development Code for certain areas. An entryway corridor is one _of those areas where we now require some building design standards. Ustick Road and Eagle Road are both identified as entryway corridors. Since Eagle Road -- in their concept potentially this building would not be really that visible from Eagle Road -- if you remember there was a row of multi-tenants across Eagle Road. But Ustick is also an entryway corridor and so this building is subject to the new design standards. Some of the standards talk about a mix of materials and coloring, having the 30 percent glass and awnings on the front facade, which they do have two primary entrances with some awnings here. It looks like it's taking a little bit of time to bring in this south elevation or maybe it's just blank. There we go. So, this is the south elevation facing Ustick Road and on page eight of the staff report I talk about a couple of issues here. One is the modulation and projections. We feel that that -- for the most part this does comply. The goal being to avoid just a solid blank wall that doesn't have any variation to it. Twenty percent of the wall is required to be some kind of projection or modulation. If you calculate this cornice type feature on the corner and, then, this sign, as well as the three other columns that are shown here and you add up those distances, they do make up more than 20 percent of that elevation. So, we felt that that complied. Now, on the -- just the elevation above that, up here is the -- let's see. Am I reading that right? This is -- yeah. This is the -- this would be the elevation facing the new street on the west boundary and this is where a little bit of your interpretation is going to come into play, whether or not you want to apply the design standards. The code does talk about public streets and having elevations that face public streets comply. There is -- we were recommending that they -- that they increase the distance here. They only show these four columns currently. Or, I'm sorry, I think -- yeah, there is one at the corner and, then, there is two in the center and, then, one here at the southwest corner of the building. So, we are recommending that they modify that. Going onto the roofline, the Commission should determine tonight if one recess is adequate. What the ordinance talks about is having a variation, you know, in the roofline. As you can see, this is a mezzanine area on the back of the building that does increase. This is higher -- I was told by the architect it's for internal storage. And, then, it does drop down and, then, the -- this projection feature also, then, bumps up. It's not actually the roofline. This is a feature that is constructed separate from the foundation and is just sort of almost mounted to the outside of the wall. So, it's not technically part of the roof, but the question is do you want to view that as a modulation in the roofline. So, if you look at this from Ustick Road it could appear that way and I think there is some room for interpretation and asking the Commission to address that. There are no roofline recesses on the west elevation, which, again, this one facing the new street. I'm sorry. This one up here. So, it's generally straight across. And so we are recommending that that be amended and they can accomplish that with parapets, which is that piece of the architecture that's above the roof, but extends above and kind of provides screening for the equipment -- HV AC equipment and whatnot. So, it could accomplish that roof line by just not necessarily modifying the roof structure itself, but the parapet, so -- let's see. A couple other points. The ordinance also calls for exterior building walls to have a mixture of color and materials. We had recommended that they pull in another type of material from the front facade. This is actually a porcelain type material here. We had suggested that that material or that color be brought around to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 7 of 53 one of the other elevations to kind of bring some unity there. So, I think on that -- I'll stop with the elevation comments. There is -- I will go back to the site plan and talk about just a couple of changes there. We are recommending that along this sidewalk from Ustick Road, that there be a connection to the front sidewalk here. Also, that the center aisle of the parking lot provide an eight foot wide walking pathway that is the full length of their parking lot to provide for pedestrian movement in the parking lot. Ada County Highway District did recommend -- I think the plan that you probably received in your packets had a driveway curb cut right here. So, as soon as you come in -- which, again, this is potential -- or is planned to be a signal at this new road. It does not have a name yet, but -- and that is as reflected here been closed, just so you -- in case you were confused by your plan, if you noticed that, that is closed. So, all future traffic will have to come clear up to this point before being able to access the site. So, that will help -- that will help protect potential traffic conflicts there. So, all of our site specific conditions are shown in Exhibit F. The land use buffer, which, as I mentioned, this is that out parcel in my beginning comments. This is that out parcel that has not been annexed. It is residential. The ordinance does require a buffer between land uses if you have commercial adjacent to residential. Since this is designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and since we have been told that that is to be annexed as commercial, we felt that just having a ten-foot wide street buffer on both sides is adequate for that. Now, as you go north you have Champion Park that will for the future be adjacent, but under this application Champion Park is not contiguous, because their site plan actually stops short. So, we are not requiring with this application a buffer along that side. They are proposing to stop their street improvements right at this point. So, it would not extend north with this project. We did -- I had a conversation with Jonathan Seal earlier, who mentioned that while they didn't submit any written comments, verbally he told me that they are in general agreement with all of our conditions. So, unless you have any questions I will stop with staff comments there. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Brad, in regards to the back road, is that -- when is that to be completed and who is doing that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that would be -- the portion that I just pointed out would be improved as a 40 foot street section from that point down with this project. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: By the developer of the site. Moe: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had now. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 8 of 53 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I have a question on the improvements along Ustick Road here. It shows it fully developed all the way to the end of the property, but it also shows it wrapping around to Eagle. Is that going to be completed as part of this application? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner, my understanding is that they are proposing to do that and I guess and maybe our attorney here tonight could help clarify -- you know, the legal description technically does not include that property. But, certainly, I think everybody would agree it's a good idea to have the corner improved and I think they want to do that. So, we'll ask Mr. Seal to address that. I think maybe it's just more of a technical issue that you don't need to get into in terms of how we actually -- if you want to require them to put the Eagle Road improvement on and this piece of Ustick -- how we do that, since it's outside the legal description I think -- it's technically off site, but the whole site, in some ways, is under review, because of the development agreement which talks about a Conditional Use Permit being required for this property, so -- Borup: The documents they submitted shows landscaping in those areas, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: -- that was submitted by the applicant. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Any other questions? I believe we are ready for the applicant. Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. Brad, I think just to try to answer some of your questions, if you could put that larger site plan up and I will try to address some of those questions on the shopping center. To give you just a little bit of background and, hopefully, answer the question, our intention I think here in the near term would be to construct both this access point and this access point. That was a question that came up. This one is probably years down the road. As I mention in the letter I prepared, we have no specific plans for this area at this point. This area right now is intended conceptual to assist in the decision-making. With respect to the back-age road, as Brad said, ACHD has approved a traffic signal -- we have gotten their approval for a traffic signal at this location. They have also agreed that this traffic signal can be installed at the time that we construct the Kohl's Department Store. We will pay for the installation of that. But I think it will also benefit these projects over here. With respect to also ACHD, right now their requirement is that this back-age road would go to what is referred to as the north property line of the Kohl's project right now. We have agreed with ACHD, as we have also agreed with the City of Meridian, even going back to the development agreement and maybe some of the Commissioners here recall -- we agreed to a back-age road. What we are agreeing to with ACHD is that we would construct a back-age road that will go back -- it will probably end essentially here. It will ultimately go up to Wainwright, but we don't have Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 9 of 53 any control over that. But we will pay for that. The total cost of that back-age road between land and improvements will cost us over a million dollars to construct, so it's a sizeable investment. The one thing I would like to mention to the Commission is this is not a set design. It may alter to some degree as we move forward, but, quite honestly, right now we are not sure. But we have committed to the back-age road and it will ultimately connect to here -- to some point here. ACHD has that design. As far as the landscaping along here, yes, you're correct, we did submit that. Our intention I think, again, is -- as I think most of the Commission have seen with Winston Moore -- for example, with EI Dorado, we don't try to go cheap. We don't try to avoid it. It, obviously, is going to improve the appearance of it and our intention is to put landscaping through here, along with this project, even though the legal lots, the legal description is only 8.33 acres. So, that will be -- how that is addressed I'm not sure, but certainly I think you can go on record that that absolutely is our intention. I think if you can go to -- I think the Kohl's site plan -- well, even this one. As Brad said, this is where right now the back-age road would end with this application. Again, we show the 35 feet of landscaping along here and we would continue it up through Eagle Road. I think real briefly -- and I will get to the staff report, because I don't think I need to go into a great deal of detail on this, but I think the Kohl's project -- if you can show the elevations, Brad. This is a new concept for Kohl's department stores. We had a conference call with them today with respect the staff report. This is a whole new appearance for them. It's a whole new clothing program for this project. As I mentioned in the letter to you -- I think I have tried to go into as much detail as I can. We think that Kohl's is going to be a real asset to this community. This project, as I mentioned, will create over 150 jobs just in this building itself. It will generate over 100,000 dollars in tax revenue directly to the city and that's not even taking into consideration the -- the balance of the development as we go forward. Kohl's is extremely active within the community in civic organizations; they are very active with kids programs. Last year, for example, Kohl's contributed over 20 million dollars back into the communities throughout the United States. So, they don't simply just come in, but they also try to contribute and I think be a real asset. They are extremely excited to come into this city and to Meridian and as you may know they are also going into Caldwell at the same time. Right now the time frame on this is -- is that we would start -- we would provide them with a pad March of next year and at least as of right now their scheduled opening date would be October 6 of '06. And it's not October 5th or 7th, it's the 6th. I mean it's very specific. They will open both stores at the same time. So, just to give you a little bit of overview on it. With respect to the staff report, I think the meat of the staff report is the design issues, as Brad talked about. I talked to the architect and senior representatives from Kohl's today, they went through it and I guess their term was they don't have any heartburn with the conditions in there. What I suggested to Brad today -- and I would hope that the Commission would accept this, is that we would ask you that you approve the CU tonight and that the specific details as far as design be worked out between staff. What we would do is we would have the Kohl's architects and representatives come in, sit down with staff, and we will work out the details. They recognize your desire to make this an attractive building, to be an asset to the community, and they are certainly willing to work with you. But I think there is a variety of different ways to do that and I think they would like to sit down with staff and work Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 10 of 53 those out. So, again, we are in support of the staff report and we would just simply ask that you approve it tonight, with the understanding that the specific details could be worked out with staff as far as design-related things. The other items within the staff report we are in agreement with. So, with that, unless you have any questions, I'll sit down. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Brad, can you go back to the site plan? Right there. Okay. There is my -- Zaremba: You're pointing backwards. Newton-Huckabay: Am I pointing backwards? Yeah. I am more eloquent than I am handy with -- okay. How soon is this -- are you going to start building out -- I'm wondering if with this back-age road here and having a light, people are going to want to get out here and I don't see -- other than coming up and around, a clear exit. Seal: Well, you -- one way that you certainly can -- which is not the most -- I'll say conducive -- is through here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Seal: As you say, we just completed the Ustick -- in fact, we did the improvements of Ustick -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Seal: -- which was -- I was pleased to see opened up last Friday night. Glad to see those barricades finally go away. But I think -- I think here in the near term -- and, again, it doesn't address this in the application, but our intentions -- I think this road will continue up. This is what we describe in the application as phase two of the project. We would anticipate that that would follow shortly. Right now our main focus is this. This is basically the straw that stirs the drink. If we got the Kohl's and if we get it approved, then, at that point, as most retailers are, they are like sheep, they follow each other. And there is a lot of others that are interested, but without Kohl's -- you know, that's the 800 pound guerilla in the whole process. So, right now we are really trying to focus on this. We are, obviously, cognizant of the fact that we are going to be looking at phase two, we are going to be coming back shortly and that will be developed here. That process will start very shortly after this. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 11 of 53 Seal: But until we had this approval it's difficult to -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Seal: -- come through with -- Newton-Huckabay: Ultimately that was my question is if this -- if you intend for this to follow fairly quickly. Seal: Yes. That's the plan. And we have had a great deal of interest, but I think like everyone, they are waiting for them to step up and say, okay, and, of course, one of the processes is we can't be presumptuous unless we get the approval from the city. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. Mr. Seal, just a couple things. And you mayor may not know this. As far as on the west side, is there any screening planned at all for that trash area, as well as the dock basically looking in from that street area? Seal: Commissioner Moe, it was interesting -- when we talked to the architects today on this, they mentioned that the people that did this design could have put a little bit more detail. Yes, they will have screening back here. And, again that's something that we will work out with staff. They are very aware of the fact that screening walls, things like that, are important in it. Unfortunately, this can't get into all the details, but -- Moe: Sure. But as far as -- based upon your conversation with the architects today and as far as trying to work some of the 20 percent of the modulation on that west side, along with some color variations and whatnot, do you anticipate that will be able to be done? Seal: Commissioner, they reviewed through the conditions, they didn't have any problem with them. Moe: Okay. Seal: And so they understand that they can work with staff and I think they will be very good neighbors in this whole process. Moe: Okay. The only thing I had -- can you go back to the site plan for the parking area? I'm just kind of curious about something. You're saying that the Kohl's is taking the eight point whatever acres in there as far as one parcel. Well, pad five and six, are they anticipating to have their own parking or is there going to be some -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 12 of 53 Seal: Right there. Those pads. Moe: Well, the pad -- I mean you're going to have buildings there. Are they going to end up having their own parking on those as well? Okay. Seal: I'm sure, yes, they will. Moe: Just curious about that. Thank you. Zaremba: I didn't have this question until Brad mentioned that the project to your west may ask to remove their little strip of commercial and storage units. They had originally offered that as a buffer to your project and the question it brings up for me -- Seal: Maybe we could go back-- Zaremba: The little parcel that you're purchasing and planning for now, is that going to be a commercial development? You don't plan any residential on it, do you? Seal: Brad, can you go back to that other one, please? The other one. The black and white. There we go. Zaremba: That one. Seal: Commissioner Zaremba, this -- this doesn't show -- well, it doesn't show completely our property line here. I think it's up in this area. But to be very honest, that's why I mentioned the application. We don't have any specific design for this particular area. Winston Moore has purchased this. It was owned by John Nesmith. We have not annexed it in. We will be coming back here shortly on that and so we are aware of the fact of the changes that are occurring up here and I think -- I guess the best way to answer that is we will have to address that when we know what we are going to be doing there. But we will be sensitive to the fact that there, obviously, will be some residential and stuff there, so -- Zaremba: I guess my question probably, to phrase it correctly, is going to be longer than the answer. Seal: Okay. Zaremba: But the reason I bring this up is that on the other side of the street where Lowe's went in -- Seal: Right here. Zaremba: Yeah. They had a similar situation, only mirror image. Their loading and storage and trash areas were on the east side of their building backed up against residential. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 13 of 53 Seal: That's correct. Zaremba: And the solution to that was a little wider buffer, I think, but also to restrict the hours of operations externally. Not internally, but externally for Lowe's, and what I'm wondering if this is now going to be nearer to some residential than we were conceiving before without the buffer that was originally planned, would Kohl's accept some limitation on their delivery and -- not their store hours, but -- Seal: Sure. Zaremba: But delivery and trash hours and things that would create noise on the west end of the building, is that something that could be considered? Seal: Commissioner, you know, being familiar, because, like I say, doing that Ustick project I spent a lot of time behind Lowe's. If you look at the Lowe's, behind Lowe's, if this was Lowe's, they have, of course, their loading area, then, they have this and I believe that they have about 20 feet on the other side and, then, they have the residential. Zaremba: Right. Right up against it. Yeah. Seal: In that case your residential is going to be up in this area. It's not terribly accurate, but it's going to be up in that area. I think that the distance is going to be substantial. I think that they would probably consider -- I certainly can't speak for them. I believe within the staff report there is specific time frames when they can do the loading and unloading already. I believe it was from 7:00 o'clock or 6:00 o'clock in the morning to sometime in the evening, so -- Zaremba: All right. You're comfortable with that or you think they will be? Seal: They saw it in the staff report and they were comfortable with it, so, yeah, I don't think that that's not reasonable. I think we have a greater distance between this project and Champion Park Subdivision as far as the residential stuff. And it very well may be that this may be residential. You know, this could be storage units, too. So, we will look it over and -- Zaremba: Okay. All right. Thank you. Seal: You're welcome. Borup: I just had, Mr. Chairman, a related question to that. Yeah, you do -- I mean you got an opportunity of either office building or something there that could -- the development of that could act, as a buffer from -- from the Kohl's, couldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 14 of 53 Seal: Right. Commissioner Borup, I -- right now, to be very honest with you, it would be pure speculation what will go up there. We really don't know and that's why I wanted to make it very clear in my application that we don't know what will be coming up there and as the development agreement says, we either come in for a planned use development or we come in for site specific conditional use applications. So, in my opinion, you have another bite at the apple -- or many bites at the apple as we proceed through this and at that point we can determine -- I think right now we are just -- we would just be speculating. Borup: And that's what I was going to say, whatever develops there, that would be an opportunity to make sure that acts as a proper buffer. Zaremba: Well, the other element that is different is in this case Kohl's will be there before anything else is. In the other case the residences were there before Lowe's was. So, anybody that would put residences there or move into them would be aware before the fact that Kohl's was there. So, it's a slightly different situation as well. Seal: And you know -- and I went to review the letter that I actually had sent to -- I believe when they had submitted theirs and at that point we in the letter stated that -- because we were looking at the buffers -- you know, I would be glad to provide a copy. I didn't -- I forgot to bring it tonight. But we discussed the fact that our project would be commercial. So, I don't think it should be a surprise or a shock to anyone that this is, in fact, commercial. And that was very clearly stated in that letter, so -- because of the various stuff and I think maybe at that point that's why they were contemplating the storage units. As I say, times change, economics change, and, obviously, it's more economical for them to do something else and I can appreciate that. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Could we go back to the site plan once again? The colored one? Yes. Back to this buffer here. This curb cut is going to be constructed at the same time that this proposed Kohl's store will be going in. It seems to me that it would be nice to see that buffer area developed all the way to that curb cut, just so that it could be a finished product at the time that that curb cut's installed. Is there a -- is there any way you could see you rself to do that? Seal: Commissioner, I think in our application, if -- and I guess they don't have the landscape plan in this Powerpoint presentation, but we did show landscaping that would go up through here. Rohm: All the way to that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 15 of 53 Seal: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Seal: And, again, we -- you know, we have always tried -- I think Winston Moore has always tried to make his projects attractive and putting a nice building like this here and this having just a series of wheat fields or -- would not be a real smart thing for -- we recognize that. No, it will be installed with it. It's very similar to what we did at EI Dorado Business Campus. We were not required to put the internal landscaping in, but we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars putting it in, because we recognized the importance of landscaping and what it will do to help us in the marketability. Rohm: Well, I assumed that, but I wanted to ask the question anyway. Seal: Sure. No. It's a fair question. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: I would say that's a good answer for me and, personally, I would be thrilled and satisfied with the landscaping going up to where that road is put in. But while you're here let me ask staff a question in the old ordinances -- and I don't know if it made it into the new UDC -- whenever the first building was built, the perimeter landscaping of the entire -- in this case 58 acres had to be done. Is that no longer the case? Or did I understand that correctly before? Did that ever happen? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I -- that landscaping -- perimeter landscaping requirement is largely tied to a subdivision. In this case they, actually, do not have a subdivision application before you. It's only been a month since we have had our new code and I can't -- I don't believe, though, that we had a requirement if they just do a single building on a parcel. You know, they -- you're basically dealing -- on single building construction you're dealing with the -- with the parcel that that building sits on. So, does that answer your question? I think that we required those whenever there was a subdivision to construct around the full perimeter, but if it was only a single building on a much larger parcel and they weren't proposing to improve the rest of it, I don't think we required that. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? I guess, Brad, I'd just follow that up. With them trying to redo this lot line to begin with, that parcel will be just the eight point whatever acres anyway, so they are, actually, doing more than required to begin with. Zaremba: And I would restate my appreciation of that, so -- I just wanted to clarify what the rules were. Seal: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 16 of 53 Zaremba: Okay. If there is no further questions at the moment, we will have public testimony. Seal: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Signed up we have Ed -- is it Bollinger? Bollinger: Hello. Ed Bollinger, 2800 Jasmine. I got a question on the road behind Kohl's, where -- whether it's going to dead end there for the future. I would think that we would want to know where that road would go. Our irrigation comes off the second piece and connects into there and we want to know if it's going to cut across our irrigation and what they area going to do about that as far as tiling it and see where the red line is right there, in the middle of the -- Moe: There should be a pointer right there. Bollinger: That's where the irrigation comes across and connects into Jasmine Lane, which is north. We want to know about the road coming behind there and connecting into Jasmine Lane and, then, pass it. Will there be a -- can we get a plan of that before it goes into development and not just a dead end road? Zaremba: We will ask that of the applicant when he comes back, but the general rule is you must get any historical water where and when and in the quantities -- what they do inside their property, whether they pipe it or reroute it or whatever, aren't necessarily in the rules, except that it has to end up at your property in the same place and the same quantity at the same times, so that whatever they do to it, whether they build a road across it or move it around, it has to end up coming to your property the same way. That's Idaho state law. Bollinger: Can you go back to the site plan, then? Zaremba: Sure. Bollinger: And like when the road comes in there and it dead ends, how come it doesn't continue on and come out to Eagle Road on this development? How would you have a road just come in and dead end right there with public access? Zaremba: We will ask why they are not continuing it at the moment. Part of the answer is I don't think they had the full plan for the rest of the property, but -- Borup: But in the first section of the road built now and, then, as it develops I think they will -- the road will be continued. Bollinger: I can see that, but it doesn't go anywhere. It isn't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 17 of 53 Borup: But there will. Bollinger: It don't turn into the parking lot or anything. It just goes to the end of the building. Borup: It turns in right here. Bollinger: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Yeah. We'll have the applicant clarify the irrigation question when he gets back. Okay. The person who signed up after Mr. Bollinger. I'm sorry, I need to have you speak on the microphone, sir. Newton-Huckabay: Can't you just state that he didn't-- Borup: He said he didn't need to speak. Moe: Yeah. Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry, I didn't totally hear you. If all you were saying was that you were satisfied with the previous testimony, but since you're here, if you would state your name and address and -- Ketlinsky: Jack Ketlinsky, 2610 Jasmine Lane. Zaremba: Say it again, please. Ketlinsky: Jack Ketlinsky, 2610 Jasmine Lane. I think I can wait until after you guys get the irrigation talked about, because our irrigation line comes right down Eagle Road -- actually, it comes west down Lowe's and, then, takes a right turn on Eagle Road going north to our subdivision and you guys have got three roads coming right across our irrigation ditch, so that's kind what concerns us. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: Is your irrigation down the west side of the road, sir? Ketlinsky: Yes. Yes. Borup: West side of Eagle? Okay. Ketlinsky: Yes. Zaremba: We will ask those questions of Mr. Seal. Those are the only two that were signed up, but there is an opportunity, if you didn't sign up, if anybody has something they feel they need to add. If not, we will have Mr. Seal come back. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 18 of 53 Seal: Jonathan SeaL With respect to the irrigation first, just in general, I think Winston Moore has done numerous projects within the City of Meridian and in all cases we have made sure that that water that was there before we started the project is being delivered to those people after the project is complete. This would certainly be no exception. Our intention is that we would tile it, we would make sure that those homeowners, residents, would get their water and they would not be impacted in any way. And, again, that can go on record. If Winston Moore were here he would tell you the same thing. So, they can be rest assured that we will protect their interest and we will not put them at any type of disadvantage, so -- and, again, that's just like we have done on any other project. I don't recall where anybody's come to the City of Meridian after the fact and said Moore's cut my water off. So, hopefully, that gives the homeowners the assurance and, like I said, it's on the record. If I can respond just very quickly to the road question. Right up here at this area up here is Wainwright. ACHD has purchased a little bit of right of way up above the homes on Jasmine Lane. Their intention is to approximately come down right through here. Our back-age road will have to connect at this point. How our back-age road will -- I'll say meander, for lack of a better word, between this point and this point, is up for determination. As I say, the CU application we have today is just for the 8.3 acres. ACHD is only requiring that we extend the back-age road to the end of the property with a sign and a turnaround in it. Certainly, this will -- but if we extended this road today to here, it would still go nowhere and it may not go anywhere for several years. We don't know. That's beyond our control. So, hopefully, that answers the questions. I believe those were the only two. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Seal: Great. Thanks. Zaremba: Staff, any questions while Mr. Seal is here? Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see. Let me ask a clarification of staff. Since there are changes in the new Unified Development Code, are we making a recommendation to City Council or are we making a final decision? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, you do have the final decision at this point. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were -- the Findings required by the UDC were prepared for you, but the actual -- the actual document with the decision and order in it is not in your packet. So, unless the attorney has othervvise, I think you just direct us to bring that back to you at your next meeting for your approval on the Consent Agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Baird is nodding his head yes. So, we are in agreement that this is a final action either way and the motion needs to include a request for the -- you call it Findings and Facts or something? Any discussion? Are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 19 of 53 Zaremba: Commissioner _Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-048. Zaremba: Is there -- Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: As far as discussion point, based on the applicant's information, I wouldn't really have a problem at all moving this thing forward, basically noting from myself, anyway, that I will want them to work with staff to provide additional development of the west and south elevations to comply with the new ordinance or new code. That would be my main thing. I don't know that there is a heck of a lot that needs to be done on the south side, but the west definitely needs some work and I want to make sure that we stay within the code as it is written, because this is probably one of the first ones we are doing and we are going to start out doing it right right away. That's kind of the way I'm looking at it. Zaremba: Thank you. I agree with you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, could I ask a clarification on that? Zaremba: Brad. Yes. Hawkins-Clark: The way that the condition is worded right now -- there is two of them. One of them states -- 1.4 says that on that west and south they have to provide either overhanging eaves or create additional variation on the building's parapet height. So, I just want to make sure that -- that if you want us to go beyond what this condition says, then, I need that in your motion. Moe: Well, let me read what I have written and we will go from there, okay? Basically, to work with staff to provide the requirements for facades, rooflines, and color slash materials at the west and south elevations as noted in the staff report. Borup: I was thinking along the same line. Mr. Seal said they'd get -- Kohl's architects would get in -- you know, they may have some other ideas that would give the same Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 20 of 53 effect that may be different than that. If it gets the desired visual effect, I assume that's what you're looking for, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yes. You know, the entryway corridor is very important and I think our interpretation is that that south probably holds more weight than the west, because the west is a public street that's not an entryway corridor, but you could argue that that west elevation can be seen from Ustick Road -- Moe: That would be my argument. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Eastbound. So -- but there are definitely more stringent standards for facades in the code than there are for the other three elevations. So, the way that you worded that I could almost interpret it to be that you want facade treatment on the back. So, I -- you know what I mean? I just -- which includes awnings and windows. So, if you -- Moe: Well, I guess where I'm coming from is that working with staff I think that there has to be a little bit of leeway on some of that. I'm not looking for facades and whatnot on the west side. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Moe: I'm just looking for some treatments, basically, up at parapet, as well as some color variations, some banding or something, you know, that's going to take care of some of that, with the different material, you know, their tiles or whatever. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Moe: Here, again, I don't design. Hawkins-Clark: Well -- and this is new territory for us, so I -- you know, staff as well. This is the first application that we are applying this on and given that the Kohl's has such a tight construction time line, if staff and the Kohl's folks come at odds, if we have to come back to you for clarification, thafs going to shoot their whole time frame. I just want to make sure that we know very much the direction you're giving us, so that we don't have that happen. Borup: Are you comfortable with meeting with their architects on the design? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah. I just want to make sure that I'm conveying to them your motion in a very clear way and if you want more than variation in the parapet heights and some of the additional banding work, I just need to know that. Borup: I'm not thinking we need more beyond what the -- even though it's not against the building, the landscaping buffer does soften that, but it's still not the building, so I agree something else -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 21 of 53 Zaremba: I think my comment would be that the existing Winston Moore projects that are already built in the city have proven that Mr. Seal and Mr. Moore are very conscious of making their development attractive, not for the benefit of the City of Meridian, but since this will be the first building on this project and they want to attract other buildings, they have already expressed the interest in making this building as attractive as possible. I, from Mr. Seal's comments, feel that the Kohl's people are on board with that and 1'm perfectly comfortable essentially passing the buck to Brad to make the final decision on this. I feel safe in this one that I feel that both Winston Moore and the Kohl's people will go a direction that's comfortable for you to be the final judge on and I would be comfortable with that. And while we are at it, I would also ask Mr. Seal to pass along to the Kohl's people that we appreciate their interest in Meridian. So, I think this will be a plus. Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move file number CUP 05-048 as -- I move to approve file number CUP 05-048 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2005, with the site plan dated October 2nd - excuse me -- 7th, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. I'd like to have listed work with staff to provide the requirements for the facades, roofline, and color slash material at the west and south elevations as noted in the staff report and also instruct staff to prepare Facts and Findings. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis - 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: Zaremba: Okay. I'll open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-048 related to the McGee property and entertain a motion to continue it to November 17, 2005. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. AZ 05-048 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 17th, 2005. Zaremba: Do we have a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 22 of 53 Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Pubic Hearing: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington - 2955 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: I'll open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-048 relating to the Carrington property and entertain a motion to continue it to November 17th, 2005. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. AZ 05-049 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 17th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 05-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.7 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 05-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Slack Cat Road: Zaremba: Moving right along. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-043 and PP 05-045, both relating to Sunstone Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Sunstone Subdivision. It is located on the west side of Black Cat Road, south of Cherry Lane, on approximately 12 acres, 11.7 to be exact. I will just first thing touch on a -- one little error in the staff report. At the heading of the first page it does say that it's a preliminary plat for 23 building lots and three other lots on 11.7 acres Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 23 of 53 in an R-8 zone. That is supposed to an R-4 zone. It was noticed correctly and included on the agenda correctly. _That's just a typo and I believe that's the only place that that does occur. So, sorry if that caused any confusion. As I mentioned, they are located on the west side of Black Cat Road, south of Cherry Lane in an area that is currently, at least on the west side of Black Cat, largely rural. The subject 12 acres do consist of two parcels, one at 1155 Black Cat Road and one at 1123 Black Cat Road in a separate ownership. They have come together for the application. As I mentioned, the applicant has proposed 23 building lots and three common lots and an R-4 zone for the property. The property is designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, meaning three units to the acre or less. This proposal before you does come in at 1.97 units to the acre, well within the Comp Plan definition of low density residential and staff feels appropriate for the area. I will mention a couple of changes that are not in the staff report. One does have to do with the zoning of the property. The other has to do with the width of the streets, In relation to the zoning of the property, the applicant has proposed an R-4 zone for the entire project. We do have very large lots in the rear of the property, over half an acre, I think .55 is maybe the largest lot. And, then, at the front of the property on Black Cat -- when I say rear, I say west and, then, the front being out on Black Cat to the east. The applicant has proposed some slightly smaller lots. I believe they range up to a third of an acre -- go from a quarter to a third of an acre. Staff, since the report was prepared, in taking some comments from the public and having a few more discussions internally, we do feel it's a little more appropriate to split zone the property. Those lots on the eastern portion that are the quarter to a third of an acre are more appropriate for an R-4 zone, but the -- which is proposed, which is the entire property is proposed to be R-4, but we do feel that the large lots on the east end of the -- west end of the property, I'm sorry, are more appropriate for the R-2 zone. What that does is that provides a little more protection for the other residents in the area that these lots will not redevelop. Oftentimes subdivisions like this that will be in the CC&Rs anyways, but that's just an extra assurance for the residents of the area and it is a little more appropriate for those lots to be zoned R-2. Those would be exceptionally large lots in the R-4 zone. They do not need the R-4 zone for any of the dimensional standards. They do meet all the dimensional standards of the R-2. So, that's one fairly substantial change to the staff report. If you choose to adopt that recommendation, you will need to require that the applicant submit a new legal description that describes those two zones prior to this being approved by City Council. The other change to the staff report is regarding street width. The Meridian fire department -- and I think we may have had this discussion before -- has been requiring streets that are actually a foot wider than the standard ACHD street section. The standard ACHD street section measures from back of curb to back of curb and it's 33 feet. The Meridian fire department has been requesting a 33 foot face of curb to face of curb dimension, which you end up with a street that's one foot wider than the standard ACHD section. That requirement has been requested to -- the Mayor has specifically requested we do go with the ACHD standard and the standard comment that the fire department puts in here is in the process of being -- having that worked out, so we get back to that standard ACHD street section. So, staff would recommend that condition 1.1.3, relating to that requirement to increase the street width, we would request that that be removed. And that the applicant builds these streets to a standard ACHD section of 33 feet of Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 24 of 53 back of curb to back of curb. A couple other items to touch on are the stub streets on the property. In the preliminary meetings with the applicant we did ask that they stub to the north, south, and west. They have done that in the location that's shown on the screen and this is what they propose and has been approved by ACHD. I believe there will be some testimony tonight about the location of those stubs. Our comments to the applicant was that they needed to stub to the three sides of the property and this was their chosen location and it does comply with the Meridian code and was approved by Ada County Highway District. If the Commission hears compelling evidence that one of those stubs should be moved, then, it's certainly within your power to do so. The other comment I have would be on their open space for the subdivision. Looking first glance at the landscape plan, there is the required landscape buffer along Black Cat Road, then, there is some landscaping. There is a -- kind of dense hatching on the landscape plan that, unfortunately, makes this landscaping not show up well at all in this slide. I apologize for that. But the landscaping does continue into the project here on a common lot. And, then, the rest of the landscaping is found at an island at the turnaround at the east -- the west end of the property and also in the parkways that do front -- the parkways, the detached sidewalks that do front West Gray Towers Street. One small modification that was included in the staff report was that while Meridian city code does allow detached sidewalks to be reduced to four feet in width, attached sidewalks do need to be five feet in width. It didn't appear they were shown that way on the submitted plan, so that was a requirement that those be increased in width to meet that five foot requirement. And with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Josh, the R-2 designation, is that for both Block 2 and Block 4? Is that what you're -- Wilson: Let me just verify that real quickly. Yes, that is correct. Moe: All lots in both those -- Borup: No. Wilson: Not all of them in Block 4, actually. It's on a fold here, so it's -- just a second. Moe: Okay. Wilson: That would -- the R-2 zone would exclude the eastern two most lots on both of those blocks. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 25 of 53 Moe: Yeah. I see that there. Okay. Wilson: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I did have questions also. Zaremba: You passed -- hang on just a second. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: On the last question you passed through -- yeah, that drawing there. Just kind of indicate with a pointer, if you would, where you're suggesting the -- Wilson: The break between the R-4 and the R-2 would be this lot line here and, then, this lot line here. Zaremba: All right. Makes sense to me. Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just a comment on -- okay. The attached sidewalks were on the two stub streets, the way you're referring to; isn't that correct? Wilson: Correct. Borup: Okay. I see that now. Thank you. Zaremba: I believe we are ready for the applicant. Sonderegger: Clayn Sonderegger, 1155 North Black Cat Road. Thanks for the opportunity to be here. When we started designing this approximately a year ago, we wanted to do something a little more unique on this side of Meridian, as both me and -- the Sondereggers and the Birds live there, we wanted to make it a nice transition from the R-4 designation across the street, Castlebrook, which Corey Barton is doing a number of phases and working back and, then, we also have the high transmission lines that go through there from Idaho Power, so we wanted to have that buffer where we started with -- and the only reason we did the R-4 designation is so that we could get those -- basically was the criteria for the 80 foot length on the roads -- or adjacent to the roads that have that property line of 80 feet. And so with that transition, that's why we put the stub streets up front, so that we could get the quarter acre lots basically up closer to that way to start the buffer away from Black Cat, as we eventually know that that will be five lanes. That may be many years away, but we know that's what ACHD has in the future -- to transition backwards into a more -- the bigger lots and it was also because the Birds and ourselves wanted to live in this subdivision. We were advised by many people that we ought to be going immediately for the -- basically the three per acre where we would have another 11 additional lots in there. But because we wanted to be there, we like Meridian, we like living there, the schools and everything, we are basically doing this for our own convenience of not putting in as many homes as we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 26 of 53 theoretically could with what the general plan shows. So, that's how -- what our answer was to this and working_with the civil engineers and planners in making that a nice transition. Early on -- well, not early on, approximately -- I think it was about a month ago a neighborhood meeting was requested. We obliged that neighborhood meeting, sent out a letter to each of the people that was on that list. They get a specific list. And, then, we had that neighborhood meeting and two people -- two residents on a different street showed up for that. So, we did comply with that request that came from Planning. It's our intent -- we have -- after interviewing five high quality builders, we have selected Dimension Builders to be the controlling entity of the architecture and the quality of homes that are built. They have a longstanding reputation of building high quality homes. We feel that every home that is put in this will add value to this area. It will only increase the appreciation of the neighbors in this area and help them with the value of their property also as these high quality homes are built. I think that's alii have. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Any concern with any of the staff requirements or comments? Sonderegger: No. As long as we -- we wouldn't have a problem with that R-2, R-4, as long as it doesn't hold up the process. If that can be done in a -- without losing any time. Borup: I think we were talking about having it done before it goes to City Council. Sonderegger: As long as it, you know, doesn't hold up City Council approval we have no problem making that recommendation. Zaremba: I think the only thing they need is a new legal description that separates it into two pieces. Is there anything else that would delay -- Sonderegger: We can call the civil engineer, then. Okay. We wouldn't have any problem leaving that requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Great. Thank you. We do have some people signed up to speak. We will begin with Kathy Farrera. Farrera: Good evening, Commissioners. Kathy Farrera, 4960 EI Gato Lane in Meridian. My husband and I have lived on EI Gato Lane for -- now it's almost 20 years. It was 19 last time I came into see you. And we live -- could I have the -- thank you. We live here in this second lot. So, there is basically a portion of a horse pasture between us and this new development. And I'm not as organized as I'd like to be when I come in here, but we have appeared before you several times this year concerned Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 27 of 53 about preserving the integrity of our largely agricultural neighborhood and anxious about whether or not the way of life that we have out there is being threatened and I'd like to kind of flash you back to the development that was proposed at the corner of Black Cat and Pine Lane, which you have approved in -- and that would be -- oops. Sorry. Right here. You approved that in August and the City of Meridian approved it in September and we had a -- it took awhile, but we had a very good relationship with the developer through neighborhood meetings on that project. The neighborhood meeting on the Sunstone project was set for 5:30 on an evening when many of the people that are in the neighborhood -- they can't get in from Boise at that time, which is why two people showed up. Sorry. Anyway, you will also recall that in the end the EI Gato Subdivision plan, which was first proposed as an R-3 with 17 build-able lots, was finally submitted as R-2 with 11 build-able lots. Those developers figured out that they could have a much nicer development and still make money and they reduced their build-able lots by 35 percent. Took them to R-2. We'd like you to consider that there is still available a significant amount of vacant land that's not being utilized in agricultural pursuits east of Black Cat and all the way to Locust Grove, which have already been pegged for higher density developments than half acre lots. And if -- I'm sure you will recall this, but it was just heart breaking for those of us who live on EI Gato Lane and who live off of Pine Lane -- and I don't have many Pine Lane people here tonight -- that are traditionally three and a half to seven acre parcels. We are going to start being surrounded by something as small as half acre lots. That was a big deal for us. I'm sorry, I'm speaking for a couple people here tonight, I'll try and hurry. Zaremba: I didn't ask you if you were being a spokesman, but are you being a spokesman? Farrera: I think for several that would -- Zaremba: I see some hands raised, so you -- Farrera: Not for everybody, but for several. But I will try and move it along. Zaremba: We will change the timing. You have used three minutes of the ten minutes that you should have. Farrera: Okay. Very good. Anyway, we -- it's not the intent of the Comprehensive Plan that all the developments be developed to their maximum density potential and neither P&Z, nor the City Council, is required to approve a maximum density proposal. R-4 is allowed by the plan at Sunstone's site, but we maintain that its best use -- or best interest are not in an R-4 zoning. So, we are not here about what can be done, we are here about what should be done. All that said, I'd like to remind you guys -- and I know I have said this to you before, but the City of Meridian's leaders, who have made policies affecting areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions into long-established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is the least intrusive to the residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to transition from the new subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat Road into the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 28 of 53 multi-acre properties to the west is by limiting new subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the west to the largest ppssible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, which would be half acre lots in R-2 zoning. A corridor of the homes situated on half acre lots along Black Cat and cutting into the adjoining residential acreage properties is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents, while still accomplishing the city's goal's for future development and continuing that standard that was started at Pine Lane and Black Cat for development in the future. And I believe one of you have made a comment at one of the prior hearings that we had that what happened at the corner of Black Cat and Pine Lane would probably set the precedent for what was going to happen between the railroad tracks and Cherry Lane, which goes all around these acreage properties. And so we hope that that did set the precedent. Thank you. Questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Borup: Not a question. Maybe just a comment. Two lots per acre on 11.7 acres would be 23 lots. Farrera: Some of those lots are small as -- it's either .20 or .21. Borup: Right. But the others are bigger. I'm saying that's the amount of lots you would do if that was -- Farrera: Well, you're talking -- yeah, you're talking an average. Borup: Uh-huh. Farrera: You're talking an average. But there is nothing -- some are significantly smaller than 12,000 square feet. Borup: Well-- and, then, others are significantly larger. Farrera: Well -- and I don't mean to argue with you. Borup: And, yet, within R-2 -- I mean the other choice would have been they could have made the other lot smaller. Farrera: That's true. One of the discussions that we had on the EI Gato Subdivision -- there was a point in time when what we were considering -- everybody was considering compromising for was 12,000 square foot lots. And, then, that went out the window and they actually made them -- their smallest lot is now 12,000 square feet and their largest one goes up to -- I think it's 17,000. Borup: Okay. That's what these average is a 17, is what they average. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 29 of 53 Farrera: Well, as an all-encompassing average. Right? Borup: Yes. Farrera: Yes. Borup: Which sounds larger than your example you just gave. Farrera: Some of the -- granted, some of the lots in the back are -- they are great size lots. I love those. I wish they were all like that. And when we first heard about this project six months ago or so, when we heard they were thinking about it, we talked to Mr. Bird and he said that we are thinking about putting in half-acre lots. I said, great, no problem. There is nobody that's going to complain, no body's going to make noise. And I understood they originally submitted it as R-2, then, withdrew it and resubmitted it as R-4, then, we had a problem. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Farrera, I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you are saying and the folks that you are speaking for. Farrera: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: You're fine with the back half of the development and it's the front half and the R-4 lots -- Farrera: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: -- you're requesting that they be half-acre lots. Is that what you're asking for? Okay. Farrera: What we would like to see is from Black Cat to Cherry Lane on the west side of the Black Cat, stay minimum half-acre lots. I mean not an average with a .2-acre lot here and a full half-acre lot next door to it. Newton-Huckabay: If I'm looking at the Comprehensive Plan correctly, north of this property, then, is designated medium density residential from that to Cherry Lane. Farrera: I don't think so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just want to make sure I understood, because I wasn't sure what you were requesting, which was -- excuse me-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 30 of 53 Farrera: And that comment was -- we discussed the same thing -- it's discussed the same boundaries severaL months ago and, actually, nobody mentioned that, but that comment was never made. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba? Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to get verification. Farrera: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff for a comment. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the property directly to the north of this is designated medium density residential and that designation does continue to Cherry Lane. Zaremba: And medium density would include R-8; is that correct? Wilson: That's correct. It would be three to eight by the definition of the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And there is a neighborhood center there as well. Wilson: That's true. On the half mile on Cherry Lane between Black Cat and McDermott there is a neighborhood center. Zaremba: Well -- and the theory of those is that densities would increase as you approach it. Wilson: Yeah. That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: I believe it's closer to McDermott. Half mile. Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Christy Campbell. Campbell: Hi, there. Christy Campbell. 5055 Sunfish Lane. First of all, we had planned on coming quite a while ago and, then, it got withdrawn and resubmitted. So, I had submitted comments in writing to the city clerk's office on July 12th. Do you guys Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 31 of 53 have that? Is that something that you would have been given? Because I could make my presentation or my comments a lot shorter, I guess. Zaremba: I do not remember seeing that in this packet. Campbell: Okay. Zaremba: It probably was -- Campbell: Would it have been in the original packet and, then, possibly not -- Zaremba: -- withdrawn with it. Campbell: Okay. I wasn't aware that that would happen. Zaremba: It's relating to that. Campbell: Okay. Can we go back to the aerial? Okay. My husband and I are on this property right here. And, basically, our big concern -- we kind of feel like the development is inevitable and that's just a part of us living so close to what is now City of Meridian. We do like the rural feel. But I guess we are willing to take the changes that are coming, but we were wanting a little bit of help from the developers of Sunstone. Our situation was that a few years back we needed to try to annex and actually rezone for purposes of -- my in-laws have owned this property for over 30 years. It's getting to be a bit too much for them to handle by themselves and my mother-in-law doesn't want to sell it. So, we tried to just work something out where we could divide it once, basically give them their acre, we would take the other four acres, and be there to take care of things for them. Well, there were two issues. City services were still on the other side of Black Cat and, then, Sunfish Lane, which is our access, is a private dirt road. So, those were the two big issues of planning and zoning and they said that the City of Meridian would never entertain our request because of those things. Well, the services issue has been taken care of, but Sunfish Lane will always be a problem, because unless we improve it and make it a designated road, they wontt let us use it as access, even if we could develop. So, we were seeing this development as an opportunity for us to get a stub road onto our property. So, our first concern was that there wasn't going to be a stub road to our direction. Well, now when they resubmitted it, they made a stub road onto the Barry's property. We really would like the stub road going onto our property, because, if not, we will be landlocked. I mean we will not have an opportunity -- we went through Ada County, got a second residence put on there, but it's temporary for -- we got ten years. So, we basically have nine of those ten years left. So, once those nine years more expire, then, we are back where we started and are having to move one of our residences off and we were just really looking at this as an opportunity to have an access. Where they currently have the access going to the Barry's property, the Barrys, if they ever did want to develop, have access off of Black Cat Road. So, we feel that it would make more sense going onto our property and we-- we just hope that you would take that into consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 32 of 53 Zaremba: Thank you. We will have the applicant comment on -- but many of the accesses up and down on Black Cat, ACHD is already signaling that if those develop they will not have that same access, so that's part of the reason for the stub road is they will lose that access to Black Cat. Campbell: Okay. Any other questions? Moe: Yeah. Where is your access now? Campbell: Okay. Our access is off of Sunfish Lane and that is a private road -- it's a dirt road that runs right along here around Ten Mile Creek. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: How many properties have -- how many properties access to that road? Campbell: Well, let's see. I would say six. But, then, I would tell you that most of those properties have been owned and out there so long that they have more than one residence on them and so a lot of them have two or three residences on them. Borup: They go clear back this far? Campbell: Correct. Correct. Borup: And the property to the north? Campbell: No. Those all come off of Cherry Lane, because there is Ten Mile Creek. Borup: Okay. So just this section in here? Campbell: Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Campbell: Okay. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Tom Campbell is signed up, if you have anything to add, sir. T. Campbell: Tom Campbell. It's 4997 Sunfish Lane. Actually, my wife misspoke. Basically I just want to reiterate the fact that -- when she said as far as us potentially wanting to annex and subdivide our property, it was strictly for family. We have no intention in the foreseeable future of every doing anything other than for a family Meridian Plannjng & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 33 of 53 purpose, to help us maintain a place of residence that my parents have had and I, myself, personally, have lived on it for over 20, 25 years. Keep this in the family and with the restriction of the temporary use permit, they have a ten-year maximum at this current time, although that I, guess, is under review, because the first ten year period since that was enacted has not expired, thank you, yet. So, there might be some leniency to us at that point. But this point basically comes down to the fact that if we lose that ten-year period and they force us, basically, we have to, you know, move my parents off the property or move ourselves off the property, basically, and do something different. The other thing I'd just like to point out is the fact that there is approximately five or six properties that use Sunfish Lane as the -- basically only access to their properties. Again, I think that even in future developments for the City of Meridian, I think it would be in the best interest to move the current proposed access road to the north of the Sunstone Subdivision farther west, therefore, being able to service more of these adjacent properties to ours. That's what I have. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. One, can you renew that application after the ten years? Is that renewable? I assume you can apply again to ask for an extension. T. Campbell: My understanding is that we have to apply for that, actually, every two years. So, we are, actually -- Borup: Okay. T. Campbell: -- getting close to the time that we have to actually reestablish that permit and it's good from a maximum of ten years at this point, according to how it's been written. Borup: Okay. And, then, you mentioned access to all those properties along there. Why not just make -- why not just make that a public road? Wouldn't that solve the problem? T. Campbell: Yes, it would. As I say, a couple potential problems with that. First of all, what we were told, anyway, when we went to the City of Meridian is that they felt that-- or we were told we needed a 50-foot wide curb and gutter road. Borup: Right. T. Campbell: I'm not sure how that would be handled next to an actual creek -- Ten Mile Creek itself, whether or not they would actually ever let us put something like that right next to the creek, as far as, you know, maintaining that, you know, habitat and waterway as it is. So, I guess I have a fear that even if we did have the money to put in a 50 foot wide curb and, you know, gutter road, that we, potentially, could be shoved down, just because of being next to the creek. It does border the creek and run along -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 34 of 53 Borup: You haven't looked into that, though, you're saying? You have not looked into that at all? T. Campbell: I have not, no. That's speculation on my part. Borup: Thank you. Moe: I do have a question for you. You made the statement that if we were able to put a stub street into -- basically to the northwest area near your property, that it would also benefit the other property owners. I guess I'm curious how would that benefit them? T. Campbell: I'm just saying simply that where it stands now, basically only one property along the -- that's adjacent to the Sunstone Subdivision could potentially benefit from that. I'm not saying they will. I don't know if they would ever want to do something. I'm just saying that for future planning is that if it was moved further to the west to where it would border, you know, potentially our property and other properties to make it at that point less of a burden to develop in that direction. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Let me ask for clarification. If I'm interpreting correctly, your Conditional Use Permit to have two dwellings on one property, is that a county -- that's not city, is it? That's County? T. Campbell: That -- sorry. Ada County. Yes. We had to apply for that through Ada County. Zaremba: That would have been a necessity, because at the time you could not annex, you -- you need to be contiguous -- contiguous to a part of the city to annex. T. Campbell: Which we are currently. Zaremba: If this project went ahead, you would have a border that borders the city. T.Campbell: Yeah, we -- there is -- the property north right there, that is, actually, City of Meridian and it borders our property line already and it's been that way for a few years. Zaremba: Okay. Well, that would allow you to annex, which I'm -- let me ask staff now that -- Baird: This is not relevant. Zaremba: The city would allow them to subdivide if they annexed, wouldn't they? And that would eliminate their current conditional use problem with the county? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 35 of 53 Wilson: As they testified..Jhey do have the access problem still. We do need a public roadway to that subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. So, Sunfish Lane would not be satisfactory. Wilson: -- is private. Right. And I believe it's -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Although I sympathize with the Campbell situation, I don't know that this discussion is relevant to the application before us, other than whether or not we want to recommend moving the stub street down. Campbell: That's all we are suggesting is that-- Zaremba: I think is the subject. Yeah. Campbell: Yeah. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: But I don't think -- I don't know that we need to go into anymore detail than that. Zaremba: Mr. Baird has a comment. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I would just caution against giving any legal advice on how to deal with the county at this point. Zaremba: Yes. That's a good point. Baird: Because we were almost getting into that, so -- Zaremba: Yeah. I was just seeing whether they could annex, but if the access is an issue, then, it doesn't work. Any further questions from Mr. Campbell? Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: That's everybody who signed up, but if there is anybody else who feels they should add something -- come ahead, sir. We will go in order. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 36 of 53 Rohm: Mr. Tom Knoll. Knoll: Yes. I have been introduced by Mike Rohm. My name is Tom Knoll. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. I have been here a few times before. I was here earlier. I'm, actually, the neighbor in some respects with Kathy Farrera. I live further -- a little further west, but we have testified quite a few times on this property here. Kathy emphasized the importance of the R-2 zoning to us and I remember the discussion -- we had an arithmetic discussion this evening about means and so on. I just want to emphasize that the R-2 zoning is very important to the people on EI Gato Lane to preserve the heritage and the buffer zone. These developers down here, when we worked with them and they switched to R-2, they were -- I think they were quite happy and they found their project to be very feasible at R-2 zoning. We would encourage this property to take the same long view and to be flexible and we would like to see the whole property as an R- 2 zoning, not split into an R-4 parcel up near Black Cat Road and R-2 in the back. That's -- we worked with you folks and we worked with the developers at length to make that situation earlier this year and we'd like to continue that working relationship and make sure that we have got high quality developments on the west side of Black Cat Road. So, that's the extent of my testimony and I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Knoll: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Okay. Sir. Hansen: Good evening. My name is John Hansen. I live at 6220 EI Gato Lane, which is the other end of EI Gato from the EI Gato Subdivision. I testified at that -- that subdivision. I want to provide my support for the comments that Kathy has -- Kathy Farrera has made and Tom Knoll, so I won't repeat any of their comments, because they covered almost everything that I had to say. I will add in one small detail, in that the -- with the neighborhood meeting, which we very much appreciate the people -- the developer going through, along with it being early, so many of us couldn't make it. I was one of the few that could, only because I retired a couple of days before that meeting. In that also the paperwork -- and I don't know if this happened for anybody else, but all the paperwork that was supposed to have come to me for that meeting to tell me that that meeting existed, didn't show up at my -- didn't show up in my paperwork packet. I don't know if I was the only one or that occurred for other people, but it appears that there was a -- I don't want to use -- to interpret the low turnout as being lack of involvement from the neighborhood due to those two issues that did come up. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Hansen: Any questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 37 of 53 Sharratt: Paul Sharratt, 5_556 EI Gato Lane. I live at the half-mile mark. I'm right there on this map. Also, nice to see you all again, I guess. Being a water user on tap 27911, which is the tap that we are on, both of these properties are included in the normal watering cycle during the irrigation season. I have personally irrigated the Sonderegger property, the one on the north side, and used that property several years ago. That being said, in reading the staff report I didn't see anywhere that it said that either of the properties were irrigated and that the irrigation -- the property does cross the irrigation ditch, so -- I mean my concern there is there is irrigation ditches and canals that do cross this property and are adjacent to this property and nowhere in there did I see any reference to Nampa-Meridian or any of that issue, so that was one concern on my part. And being that this property is currently fed off our tap, are they going to -- excuse me. I know Meridian says it's going to be pressurized irrigation. Are they going to be pressurized off of our water supply or are they going to be pressurized off the canal or are they going -- you know, it doesn't specify where that water is coming from. So, that's a concern from our neighborhood association. Along with several of the other neighbors that reside along the west side of Black Cat, we are concerned with the development. A lot of the main concerns are the same concerns that we brought up with the EI Gato Subdivision, preserving the integrity of the large lots -- large acreage lots on the west side of Black Cat. Skyview Ranchettes is a platted-established subdivision that was created in 1974. That's where most of us live. There are a lot of attractive nuisances that these larger lots create. As we increase the number of smaller lots, even half-acre lots, these -- our lots become an attractive nuisance. There are several properties with animals, horses, and cows. There is a nursery in the area. Some of the ground is farmed for hay, some with row crops, that means there is equipment in the area, equipment moving around. There have been two lots set aside for game bird habitat. There are a number of irrigation and canals in the area and EI Gato Lane is already becoming a favorite walking and/or bike riding area for residents in surrounding subdivisions. We on EI Gato already have seen an increase in the number of nonresident people up and down EI Gato Lane and the surrounding area. We know that we cannot close down our road or stop this property from being developed, but we believe that the best way to preserve the integrity of the established properties is to have all lots in the subdivision be in the half acreage range, with the entire subdivision having an R-2 zoning. The one last thing I'd do -- and since Kathy didn't do it, can I have everybody that kind of supports what Kathy said raise their hand? Just so you guys can have an idea of -- I was another one of those that couldn't make that neighborhood meeting. But as you can see by the people that are here tonight, we -- there are several of us here that are concerned with this that are in -- not necessarily total opposition of this development, but concerned with the R-4 zoning portion of it. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 38 of 53 Zaremba: Thank you very much. Anybody else have something to add? Sir. And, again, I will ask you to only add new things and not repeat, since Kathy was speaking for you and got extra time. Frederickson: Scott Frederickson. 4200 West Plumb Rose, Meridian, Idaho. And Kathy wasn't speaking for me. I am the individual who sent out the neighborhood meeting notice. I am part of Dimension Building Company, who will be doing the actual building and development in the subdivision. Just wanted to address the issue of the neighborhood meeting just briefly and that is that we did set the time between 5:30 and 6:30 when Kathy did come and gave her opinions and feelings and stated that they did represent the neighborhood association on EI Gato, but that they were going to have a difficult time getting there. We did say that we would stay later. I know that she made some phone calls, which brought John there. We did remain there until 7:00 o'clock that evening to allow anybody else that may come. At the bottom of the letter that we sent out to everyone -- and I personally stuffed those envelopes. I don't know what happened with John's, but I stuffed them with both the letter, along with the plat, along with the notice of this meeting. He said that he did receive a notice of this meeting, whether it was from us or some other source, I don't know. But in the letter that we sent we did provide phone numbers asking the -- if they were maybe unable to attend that meeting that they could contact us directly. Provided them e-mail addresses as well. And we did not hear any response back from them. So, I just wanted to make sure that we clarified that we have made a good faith attempt to try and get the opinions to address the concerns. As far as the actual development goes, we feel that we have taken an approach that covers everyone's interest, as well as those that are going to reside there, the current owners that are going to remain there, and talking a -- the challenge of having a subdivision right across the street, that we are going to transition into even higher quality homes and instead of coming out just with first -- right off the bat half acre lots, half million dollar homes, it allows us to do a transition of the little small, nicer homes, which we have had a very good demand and request for, into the nicer -- nicer estate lots in the back. And we feel that the -- as stated in the staff report that it does provide a very nice continuity from the existing neighborhood in the area and, as you will see, that any lots that back up basically from right there is where the R-4 zoning is going to end and so it leaves quite an area there that it's still just half acre lots backing up to those EI Gato lots. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. Zaremba: Yes. While the other gentleman is coming forward. Newton-Huckabay: Well, was that public testimony or was that applicant response? Borup: That was public testimony. Zaremba: Consider that public testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 39 of 53 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Bowman: Hi. I'm David Bowman. I live at 5808 North Cape Arago in Garden City. Although this is my first visit to Meridian City Planning and Zoning, r do attend quite a few planning and zoning commission meetings and take an active role in that and just watching the proceedings from that standpoint, as well as -- this is public testimony, I don't want to be considered as part of the applicant, although I am representing Dimension Building Company's interest in this affair. Two clarifications that I wanted to just make, just from a personal and a public standpoint as a member of the society here. The stub road was a concern to me. When it was brought up early on when we looked at this development, they wanted it farther to the west and I believe provided there in that turnaround is a future stub as well. So, we, actually, have three per the requirement of the staff report, which would allow them to also make a stub road out that way. Now, how that future development might, you know, turn out for the people to the north of that, I don't know, but I do know that the continuity of the subdivision as it sits now, if you were to move that -- that northern stub to the west, it's going to create a little bit of a hardship in the community itself as far as creating a stub road in between the larger estate size homes, rather allowing a nice street scape and frontage road for the smaller home sites, which are -- remain to be just -- I think the smallest one is just a quarter of an acre, all the way up to a little bit over a third of an acre to the south and that was another consideration that I wanted to bring up, in the fact that when we looked at this overall plat design and it was agreed upon that we -- that we would make the transition from Castlebury over to the estate lots by putting in some quarter acre lots. We originally wanted to stick with the R-2 zoning to maintain the integrity of the subdivisions that were going to be further to the west and also to the south and north, which would affect the EI Gato folks and in thinking -- in that thinking we tried to keep as many of the third acre lots on the southern most tip, so that anything that is even close to bordering within a few hundred feet of the EI Gato Subdivision, that they would remain the larger lots and, therefore, much more open space between the dwellings and keep that amiability -- and integrity to the R-2 zoning that's going throughout. Basically, we want to -- per the staff request we changed the R-2 zoning to the R-4, although we meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning through the whole subdivision, even as the lots sit now. We did that per staff, just to maintain some of the street widths and frontages that were there. So, with that said I will remain here for any questions you might have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. I believe we are ready for Mr. Sonderegger to -- oh, I'm sorry. One more. Densmer: My name is Jason Densmer. I'm with Roylance and Associates. I don't want to step on Mr. Sonderegger's time, but I would want to provide a little bit more clarity from the designer's perspective on where we put the stub streets and what the intent was there, as we worked together with city staff and the highway district. Like was mentioned, we did provide stub streets to all three directions around us. The property to the south, that property, if you look on the aerial, it's very triangular in shape and so we actually intentionally pulled the stub street on that one towards the east to try and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 40 of 53 access the meat of triangular shaped property. We also stubbed into the Barry's property to the north, because we knew that sometime in the past -- I believe it was about ten or 12 years ago, they had actually conceptualized a development plan for their own property that was of a higher density and we -- looking at that and what we knew at the time, we figured that of the properties there on Sunfish, the most likely to redevelop in any kind of short time fame would be the Barry's, because they had already envisioned that in the past. In addition to that, there was a lot of justification for the location of this sub street where we put it. I certainly understand the Campbell's predicament where they would like to divide their property, but don't have access to a public street. I'm afraid that even if we were to shift the stub street within the Sunstone property down to access them, it may actually worsen their predicament, instead of -- as a way of contrasting it, I think that maybe their best way of developing, if they want access to a public street, would be to work with their neighbors and improve Sunfish, because the distance from their property to back to Black Cat via Sunfish is shorter than it would be for them to extend a stub from our northerly property line through their entire property. In either case they are going to have to build a 50-foot right of way and improve it. If I were in their place I would want to do the shorter distance, rather than the longer one. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Now we are ready for the applicant, I believe. Sonderegger: Commissioners, I'd like to remind you -- Zaremba: I know you're the same person, but start with your name and address. Sonderegger: Clayn Sonderegger. 1155 North Black Cat Road. We'd like to remind the Commissioners we have gone above and beyond to meet the general plan that currently allows for three per acre, as we are only at 1.97. The reason -- at least one of the reasons that we switched -- when we pulled our plan, we originally were -- basically all half acre lots, but after the requirements of ACHD, who happened to have those stub streets, it cost us approximately about 10,000 dollars per foot to put a street in, by the time you put water, sewer, all the other utilities, plus paving and sidewalks, and so one way to be able to pay for that is -- being that we are not maxing out like a lot of developers would, we are basically breaking even on the lot sales and being able to just get the streets that are required right now with the way costs are escalating, the concrete shortages that are now in the area. And so there were a lot of people who, once they heard we were doing half acre lots through word of mouth, said, well, gee, how much are they going to be and there were approximations thrown and they said, gee, that's too much, could you do something else, could you get some smaller lots up there at the front and so we also complied with a lot of them, realizing there was a demand for that and in that transition area. Another item, the nine -- the nine years for development, I think he mentioned that they were landlocked. They have full access through Sunfish. And when we actually went to ACHD the first time -- maybe go to that next -- yeah. Right here. We, actually, tried to run the stub street right there and they told us we could not do that, because there were too many property owners and they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 41 of 53 had no idea how that would be controlled. That was our very first choice is to run that street right down that bac.k edge between that and the existing property and because it intersected with four properties at that corner, they said we could not do it. And so that's why we backed up and decided to buffer those stub streets with the quarter acre lots with it. It just kind of continues that transition going through. Again, we wanted to transition from the Corey Barton Subdivision of being a much higher density as we traveled through and to eventually get back to the more estate size lots and, irrigationwise, the main Kennedy Lateral -- and maybe Jason can help me more with this -- we don't cross the Kennedy. The property doesn't cross that. It comes up to that -- the ditch rider road and that's where we end and there is a ditch that goes across for my personal irrigation. And, then, there is one that's right at the northerly edge and I'm not sure if that's only on our property or the adjacent property. And it runs all the time, as it feeds everything more to the north as it goes down through that area. But I don't think in our thing we have to tile anything, because we will be eliminating my ditch. Whether that water is coming from the actual Kennedy Lateral or if it's coming from the well, I don't think it's been decided yet. But in either case it would be run through Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and meet all their requirements with it. I think that was it. If there is any questions for me. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Apparently not. Staff, any further clarifications you may need? Wilson: No. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, discussion? Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the testimony that we have heard tonight and I certainly understand the neighborhood as a whole wanting to maintain the rural lifestyle that they have grown accustom to and from my own personal perspective, it appears to me that this development takes that lifestyle into consideration, while at the same time addressing development concerns of the city, as in stubbing to the north, stubbing to the south, and in the process of meeting the expectations of the city and placing those stub streets in to serve adjacent properties, it leaves you with an inability to maintain the same lot configuration and still serve them and be able to fulfill their development, from my perspective. And so I -- even though I understand were the folks to -- in EI Gato are coming from, I believe that this, from my perspective, addresses your concerns by maintaining larger lots to the west, while at the same time adhering to the city's requirements of stub streets both north and south. So, that's kind of my spot on this. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup? Borup: No. Just well said. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 42 of 53 Borup: My thought was -- I mean I think when you have a Comprehensive Plan, owners of property should have _some expectation that they should be able to develop their property in line with that Comprehensive Plan. It talks about, you know, the low density, up to three per acre, I think they have done a good job of complying with that. It does have -- I mean it does average it at two lots per acre. The overall density is the same. You know, the choice could be to make some of the lots smaller and the other ones larger, but the end result is going to be the same number of lots, same number of dwelling units. The difference is going to be you're going to have some higher -- probably some higher priced homes, which, usually, is what people want. Zaremba: I think for me the key word is transition. This provides a comfortable transition in several directions. There is greater density on the east side of Black Cat Road. There will eventually be greater density north of this project. I agree with the split zoning, so that the back portion of this is guaranteed to stay R-2, but to me the transitions are well thought out. Rohm: I'd like to speak to that split zoning as well. I think that our city staff has heard the public loud and clear that you want to maintain that rural lifestyle and in an effort to address your concerns by requiring that this development replat to split it between the R-2 and the R-4, provides that assurance, as opposed to through restrictive covenants or something to that effect. And so I guess with that being said, I want you to know that your concerns are not going unheard. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I did have some questions. Brad, can you put up the -- an aerial map? I just wanted to get some -- ask some questions on the Comprehensive Plan, so that I can kind of put this whole thing in -- oh, I'm over here. Rohm: We've got to send her to pointer school. Newton-Huckabay: I need to go to pointer school. The neighborhood center designation is, basically, kind in the half-mile area here. Okay. It's no mystery to this Commission I'm not a huge fan of the neighborhood center concept. Is that something that we are still aggressively pursuing on the Comprehensive Plan are these neighborhood centers? That's my first question. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, there has been no modification. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I assumed that. Hawkins-Clark: North Meridian area, as you know, we took off three of them, and shifted those to the intersections of the arterials. I think staff still believes that after only three years that there are some good arguments to allow the marketplace to work in Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 43 of 53 these, you know, particularly where you already have at the intersection, you know, some of the residential buJlt out. So, like at the intersection of Black Cat and Cherry, the Milliron Subdivision that backs up to Golf View Estates, you know, that's -- so that's all residential at that intersection. So, I -- you know, if you look at the whole western area and think about where are services, you know, likely to happen, we would -- staff would still want to see the -- you know, the neighborhood center concept and we have had this map for three years and there have been decisions made by purchasers and speculators of land that this is the plan that City of Meridian has adopted, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. My other question -- starting this -- and this may end up just being a comment. This line right there, basically, below it's designated low density. This is medium. And the neighborhood center and, then, medium. And, then, there is the school -- potential school site right in -- on that property. Borup: That just means somewhere in the mile. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. So, I'm just -- I want to make sure I have my head around the suggestion I'm going to make here. I think that -- knowing that this -- that this medium -- that this is going to transition to medium density, I don't mind the idea of having a little bit of R-4 in here, but I might suggest -- because this is low density here, that we keep those low density here and possibly just do the R-4 on the north side of the street -- there you go -- would be my -- keep the low density -- the half acre lots down here. I think that would be my preference. And I have to -- I don't know whether I would say that I think the stub street should go clear down to the Campbell's property, but I believe they could potentially better serve these properties back here, that could potentially be access to a neighborhood center and a school further west in the property. We put stub streets along half acre lots in the development down -- was that called El Gato? The development? Okay. In the EI Gato one had stub streets along half acre lots. So, I don't know that that, for me, is a relevant argument. And I know that I'm not on the popular end of opinion in this Commission, so I'll end my comments with that. I would rather see the denser lots on the north side of the development and the half acre lots all around the south. Zaremba: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Moe: Well, I'm the only one that hasn't spoke and so I guess I would just say that, quite frankly, I would concur with Commissioner Borup and Rohm and yourself, Mr. Chairman, on the project. I like the transition the way it's -- it is designed at the present time. Zaremba: It doesn't solve all problems for all people, but no project does, and I, for one, appreciate the two different property owners that have gotten together to bring in a bigger project than they would have had individually. We are talking about a tough project to design if we are talking about two halves of this. I appreciate that it came in as a single project. But I think a lot of problems have been solved. Not every problem, but a lot of problems have been solved just the way it sits. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 44 of 53 Rohm: Mr. Chairman,1 h_ave a question of staff. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: With your recommendation to split this into two zones within the applications forwarded onto City Council, where do you make that -- do you add an item -- line item in the staff report? Moe: Mr. Rohm, I guess I would be -- would that not be just a 1.1.9 under your site- specific requirements? That you just do are-plat? Wilson: Commissioner Rohm, as you know, we can't condition the annexation, I'm getting from Brad. Maybe Mr. Baird can help us here with the legal aspect. But Brad's suggesting that you would include in your motion on the annexation and with that I'll ask Mr. Baird's opinion. Okay. He's nodding his head. Baird: And I will verbally agree that's the right thing to do. Zaremba: I'm not sure I understood. The format is just to make it a totally separate statement? Baird: To limit it to the annexation condition, but not under the preliminary plat. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I'm going to do that-- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one -- I was just looking down on the comments from the public. Mr. Sharratt had the water issue concern. Did we appropriately address that? Zaremba: Yeah. I think the applicant felt that he wasn't doing anything that would affect their delivery. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Actually, in the report under the -- under the planning department, under the general requirements, of the preliminary plat, 1.2.6, it speaks to the irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals. Basically, that's to be taken care of there. And I think he also made a comment in regards to pressurized irrigation and here, again, that is also noted Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3,2005 Page 45 of 53 in 1.2.3 that it is a requirement of the city that that has to be done as well. So, yeah, I think both of those issues_were resolved. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: That being said, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-043 and PP 05-045. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Uh? Zaremba: Do we need any discussion of the motion or are we ready to make one? And let me clarify. These both would be recommendation to the City Council? Wilson: That is correct. Zaremba: I see nodding. Yes. I may ask that many times over the next month or so. Borup: Are we waiting for somebody to say something? Rohm: Oh, J thought Dave was going to do it, but I'll do it. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council for file number AZ 05- 043 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated March 21 st, 2005, with the following modifications to the zoning application, to change the lot zoning of lots -- Borup: Do you want me to step in there? Rohm: Well, J can name the lots. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Block 4 and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Block 2, to be rezoned to R-2. End of motion. Borup: Plus-- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 46 of 53 Rohm: The balance of the lots will remain -- Borup: No. There was another section that talked about deleting. Moe: Right here. Zaremba: The fire department road. Rohm: Where is that, Keith? Zaremba: And that change was to design it to ACHD -- Borup: I wrote out -- yes. To delete -- to delete that and comply with ACHD regulations. Rohm: Please add that to the motion. Delete 1.1.3 and adhere to Ada County Highway District regulations. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. I have one discussion to make before we take a vote and that's a question of staff. With the zoning split do we need a new drawing ten days before the City Council hearing or -- Wilson: The legal description. Zaremba: Just for the legal description. Wilson: Yeah. For the two zones. Zaremba: Okay. And the applicant has already promised that. So, do we want to say ten days before the -- Wilson: Yeah. Zaremba: Does it need to be part of the motion or-- Wilson: It could be. That's kind of our general requirement, but it would be good to spell it out. Zaremba: Would you care to add -- Rohm: Add that to the motion as well. Zaremba: And the second? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 47 of 53 Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: And thank you all very much. Traditionally we take a break -- I'm sorry, I thought you did them both. Borup: Yes, you did. Rohm: I didn't do the preliminary plat. Borup: Yes, you did, actually. You mentioned both in your thing. And then -- but, then, you went back and added the change to the zoning. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, it is okay that you bundle them if they are just recommendations and we were listening when the changes were made, that a couple of changes affected only the zoning and a couple of -- I mean one of them, the deletion, only affected the preliminary plat. So, I think your record is clear on that. We are fine. Zaremba: But we are agreeing that both were combined in that one motion? B a i rd: Correct. Zaremba: That's the way I heard it. Baird: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you all very much, then. The motion carries four to one. And as I started to say, we traditionally take a break around 9:00 o'clock. We will do so now for ten, 15 minutes, then, we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 48 of 53 Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 05-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Deyelopment for multi-family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, and CUP 05-047, all relating to ElIensburg Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those to December 15th, 2005. Rohm: So moved. Moe: With a second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 31.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -1990 East Amity Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 103 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 31.72 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road: Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-046 and PP 05-049, both relating to Estancia Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those to December 15th, 2005. Rohm: So moved. Mae: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.556 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Milford Creek Subdivision No.2 by M&H Development, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3.2005 Page 49 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 building lots-and 7 other lots in a proposed R-8 zone for Milford Creek Subdivision No.2 by M&H Development, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Eagle Road: Zaremba: I'll open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-047 and PP 05-050, both relating to Milford Creek Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Milford Creek Subdivision is for annexation of 13.55 acres from RUT to an R-8 district. The plat is for 48 single-family residential lots and seven other lots on the site. The site is located just off of Eagle Road. It's more of a landlocked parcel between Eagle and McMillan in the northeast quarter that section. The site is currently agricultural. It is being surrounded by developing properties. I tried to bring in a new GIS layer that we just developed from GIS pack to show that -- how the existing Zebulon Heights plats tie in with this Milford Creek Subdivision. Milford Creek Subdivision NO.1 is a Boise City subdivision. And Milford Creek West is what we are hoping that the applicant names this one, as that naming convention for number one and two between jurisdictions and within phasing of final plats can become confusing. So, that is a requirement to change the name on this one to try and eliminate some of that confusion. With that the -- there are two changes to the staff report that staff noticed, as well as the applicant found. Condition number 1.1.3 references the Land Group. That should be Harvest Design. And the date of the landscape plan is August 12th. And the second one is condition 8.1. This is a standard Settler's Irrigation District condition. Typically they provide comments, but they did not on this one, so staff included the standard conditions of approval and it references the wrong laterals. Newton-Huckabay: What number was that again? Guenther: 8.1 and 1.1.3. Okay. I'm sorry. I will do -- 1.1.3. Moe: Yeah. Go back over that. What are we doing there? Guenther: We are just changing the Land Group to Harvest Design and the date is August 12th of the landscape plan. Moe: Harvest Design? Guenther: Correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. And eight-- Guenther: 8.1 you just eliminate the second sentence, referring to the HarraH Lateral, which does not apply to this site. Moe: Starting with the facility? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 50 of 53 Guenther: The facilities, _Correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Guenther: Staff stands for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No. I think I'll Jet the applicant -- 1111 wait for the applicant. Zaremba: And I believe we are ready for them. Moe: If I can just real quick -- what I'm looking for would be the access to this property. McKay: The access to the property? Okay. I will go through that real quickly. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B. I'll give my abbreviated version, since I have no neighbors tonight for a change. As staff indicated, we have got approximately 13.56 acres, This is Madison Park Subdivision that J did in Boise city. These lots are approximately 7,000 square feet. This is Milford Creek No.1 that was the same applicant, but this was a Boise application. They have an access coming off of Eagle Road and a stub street to this portion, so we connecting to that. Then wrapping around this project is Zebulon No. 1 and Zebulon No. 2 -- or number two and number one here. One was done in Boise. Two is Meridian. We are connecting a stub street here into Zebulon Two and, then, this entrance is located right here on Wainwright. At this time Wainwright is constructed up to this point only. Wainwright is a collector roadway, goes out to Eagle, that is the half mile, That is supposedly the designated signalization for that half-mile between Ustick and McMillan. So, with Zebulon NO.2 this roadway will be extended westward. This project also has the option of -- if this road is build first, then, it would have this access here. ACHD placed a condition or approval on us that we have to extend Wainwright in order to file this plat. So, I think that kind of covers it. The project has 12 percent open space in it, which is quite a bit, but we wanted a nice kind of open feel. Our lots range of 6,21 0 14,637. The average lot size is 8,261 square feet. And that excludes roadways and open space. So, that is a pure number. This is medium density residential. We are at 3.54 dwelling units per acre, so we are way on that lower end. It's consistent with Madison Park. I think when I did that, that one's about three and a half dwelling units per acre. These lots over here on the Boise side of this Milford NO.1 are five, six thousand square feet. So, these lots are a little bit larger than that. We have got one existing home on the property. It is incorporated into the project, is being annexed, and we will have a joint driveway here for this lot and this existing house and ACHD has approved that one access point to Wainwright. Other than that, everything will take access internally. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 51 of 53 Moe: No. I have no questions. Just a comment, if I might. You know, as of late the projects you have been bringing into this Commission have been excellent. I, quite frankly, think this is a great addition, quite frankly, in an R-B. You're giving lots of room to these lots and I wish you would maybe put a seminar on to some of your other developers and engineers out there to make them understand how easy some of these things can get through when they are designed properly and I appreciate that very much. McKay: Thank you. Borup: They are great. Zaremba: I appreciate that, too. But, unfortunately, it's not her job to teach her competition, although -- McKay: I don't want to give away all the secrets. Zaremba: -- if they watch you for very long they certainly should be able to learn. Commissioners, any other comments? McKay: Any other comments? Oh, there will also be play equipment in the middle of that. It's not just grass. Zaremba: Something for us to use. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. We have no one signed up. There are a couple people in the audience. Anybody care to comment? Nobody commenting? In that case we don't need rebuttal from Mrs. McKay. Staff, anything else to add? Guenther: No. Just conditions of approval speak for themselves and the applicant's in agreement with them. Staff appreciates -- Zaremba: I notice that I actually was asking unnecessary questions earlier. The staff, in the new format, is providing proposed motions and all I needed to do is look there to see whether it's a recommendation or a final, so -- Guenther: Yeah. Staff-- Zaremba: Maybe I won't keep asking that question. Guenther: -- appreciates this applicant's work as well. This was a very easy staff report to complete. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3, 2005 Page 52 of 53 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Oh. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have a question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: And it's not totally related to this one, but is the stop light that's going to go in at Wainwright the same as the stop light that we were talking about earlier 'that's in around Kohl's project or is it two? It's two? Guenther: The applicant requested two and they were granted three access points, one signalized, and I believe that one was the one at 1,200 feet from Ustick. Wainwright is at the half mile, which would be approximately 2,400 feet from Ustick. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Thanks. That's alii wanted to know. I said it wasn't really related to this. Sorry. Zaremba: Well, it is an orientation in the neighborhood. The former applicant was hoping to connected to Wainwright at some time and this is the same Wainwright. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, maybe that's where I got confused. Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-047 and PP 05-050. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRI ED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-047 and PP 05-050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 3rd, 2005, and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 3. 2005 Page 53 of 53 the preliminary plat dated August 3rd, 2005, with the following changes: Under site the specific requirements 1.1~3, starting at the second sentence where they talk about the landscape -- land being prepared, change that to in lieu of the Land Group, put Harvest Design, dated August the 12th, in lieu of the September 15th date. And, then, on 8.1, delete the second sentence starting with the facilities involved. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed, That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:46 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) \'2-. [\ I Ou DATE APPROVED ATTESTEJ~lti\lxY\ *,J\]1fV1 -~lj-,,(jh,~ LLlAM G. BERG JR., CITY CL RK'-^1 '~)