The URL can be used to link to this page

2008 03-06Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N. Blairmore Way: Approve 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of n~ 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 ~y~j acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~. 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. I `° k; - Y~ ; _1 S `5 k y y' s ~ r ~ l ~ F 5.k ~ ~~ 5 .t~=~ ~ ~ A { t. } i ~ Y1' i ~ `:4 t i. i 3 Y ~. 6. Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones for Reaencv at River Vallev (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N. Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing to March 20, 2008 8. Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Reaencv at River Vallev by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing to March 20, 2008 9. Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern Springs by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: Continued Public Hearing to March 20, 2008 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3 acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for Villas Cad Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: PP 08-002 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 1 residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Villas Cil Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: CUP 08-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 21 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 3 acres for Villas Cad Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council .; _ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 ~` ~ ~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. I i - -- :, y)~ t r ~, ~, ~ T 7~. ti '- L ' ~ • a~ ry ~ f L .,5 ~"l ,.\, __ .1 - i. 7 ti~ b ',; C ~+ "` r y'._ i~ ,., 4 r _ y~ i ~Iec~S~ ,~~ ~ ~'' ~' ~ ~ ~~.~~ ~~~ =~~~U~~~~11 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND Z®NING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N. Blairmore Way: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~: ~. ,. :~~, , . a ~; a ,, _ , °;; :~ r ~ ~- ~, i s .~ y ' ~ e i ~.~: ~ - - ~ k x: !'- -k r+~~ r dr ~ ~~ f _ .. ~ .. M.,J . C ,.. .. _% ~ ~ ~.: 8. Pubiic Heario~g: PUD 07®®01 Request for approval of a Planned Un'ri ~'' Develo meat for deviations from district re uirements to __ p q provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by ~;~~ Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and ;::t west of South Eagle Road: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones for ReAency at River Vallev (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N. Eagle Road: 8. Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit fora ~ >. multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Reaencv at River Vallev by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: i 9. Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern Sprincts by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3 acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: 11. Public Hearing: PP 08-002 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with - 1 residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: r'' ` ~ 12. Public Hearing: CUP 08-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for t ~'~ 21 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 3 ~z~,', acres for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D_T_ Campbell InveStmPntc - ~tititi ;: _' North Linder Road: ~~ ~;: ~._ , ~,;:, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. {: Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. .}h 'k ,y ..t F p~~ t~ 4 ~'~;W~Sl'.~; s. '~ i~ u'~ 3'11 ri ~"~ F~-`'~ t ~ ~ k; t%g, ~ tl G n r~y ~ ;.: i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~' f ~ 3`e`~A~ ~ ~r ~' t + ~" ~ 51i . ; ~ ~[ ~,~~ ~ ~Y ' . I f ~trm~''~ ,S~ V } SY.; i }}a ~f8: ~y~ rI ~ '~rIFN' ~~'F 4f 31J~ ik 1 +I : ~ ~ _ .~_ 1 ~ ,f . ~ .~i k a x ~ 1~'ti' ~a,ypY~4 rY„F t Y r { r a ~~~. ``~~. i ~, ~~ ^{~ .q r - . n. ~~ a r~{-. ~ ~~ 4'4 ~ ~~{ ~ _ } y s t f < q. 4 '. T..~ p, " ~ ~ F~~ ti~`p c , ~.k v~ f I _ , _ .,. Mi: ,, ~ } . 7 r C' i ~ ^_ x ~ ~ , I c, _ ` ,6., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ r - ~ ~' y ~ N ~ *~ ~ ~j. A i~ U }' L ~ S' i 1 ti t y i 1~ ^ ~r ~ ' ~ ~ ( ~ 1 yYy~q t ~ ' S.wt 7~3 ¢~ ~~ ._ _ ~ rs-• ~ i 'r - ~ 4xr S1~~{ ~ ~ 'S'X~ ~, ~ ~ :~-r S F r. ,~ F t yy.3t _ _ ~ - t r. ~ LL ~ X ~ 5;, ~~ ^ }' y~.~~t1 ~}f. ~ , ~ Y ~ DatelTime 03-03-2008 05:08:23 p.m. Transmit Header Text City afi Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 ~~~~~~ ~<<: This document :Failed ti. ~~>; ; (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5"x11" ~' ~' lease ras+ +tr ~.t.~ r~+~1-ccs._ - ~1 s~aY ~r-.~ ~1 r ,? Y1 J~d'iJ '~6 ~ (WERIDiAN PLA61iNING AND ZON ~ . . ING "''~ ! to ~ F~ cr REGULAR 69EETING AGEPIDA p ,' City Councli Chambers 33 E Id ast aho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 7;00 p.m. although tYfB City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testir-;9arty, al! pr®serrlatlons before the Mayor and CHy CouncN era expected - to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. ° 1. Roll-call Attendance: ° Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay - : Michael Rohm Joa Marshall ~'' David Moe - dieirman 2. AdopBon of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: '~ A. Approve Minutes of Fabnrary 7, 2008 Planning and e'.onlr~ :fx ~,~ Commission Meeting: ; 8. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Plannilsg and Zoning ~' °'_ Commission Meeting: r C. Findings of Fast and Canciuslons of R.aair for Approval: CUP 08.001 Request for a Conditional Use Pe-mlt to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home In an R-8 zoning dlsirtd for Blairmore Pre~+school a _ nd are b Annette R Dayo Y cad 31''x0 N. Blairmore Way: '.' 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexatlon and Zoning of ~, ~, ~L 224.28 awes from RR to R-2 zone (46.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.46 atsr+esj for Etta Rock by Providence Development Croup LLC -south z- . of East Amity Road and west of Sat.rOt Eagle Road: r ~ ~~ , ~ " !3. Puttlle hearing: PA OT-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval ~ consisting of 794 restderdial building iota arn1 88 common /other tats on ~ 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R e zones for Castle Rock by Providence bevetopmant Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and v~ of South Eagle Road: ~~ rn~law, t~r,,,b,s end zrndnq Commmsian aaaem,s r~~~- t s, zoos ~ t m 2 Ali metertels pn9asMed et pab8c mestl~e shalt >e proparty afd,e City of MerEdien. lp_ de9i~ accornm far Obab(Rtlas relazed to documerha endlm tiearU+g, please content hie City C~flca diAca eR ~t64433 SI teas! 9B tuwrs prior W the public meoYng. ~~> Total Panes Srannad • J T..+..~ n....... r....~i-~_r . ~.. No. lob Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 001 807 3810160 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:02:12 212 1 EC HS CP9600 002 807 8989551 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:34 2/Z 1 EC HS CP21600 003 807 2088848723 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP28800 004 807 8886854 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:27 212 1 EC HS CP31200 005 807 2088985501 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 807 8467366 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 807 8950390 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 Q0:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP33600 . <: ; -~.: ..~. •.~ „~ ~, F.,~_. '~ ;;. , >: ,`' '-' ,;, , . ~ ~oa~~~~~~~~ ~~~~r.~ ~' Date}Time 03-03-2008 05:08;30 p.m. TransmOt HeaderText Cltgraf Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Lfne 2 No. lob Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 807 2088882682 04:48:42p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:27 2!2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 807 8840745 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 010 807 8885052 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:28 212 9 EC HS CP31200 011 807 8881983 04;48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 012 807 2083776449 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:56 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 013 807 4679562 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 014 807 8886700 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:01 0/2 1 -- HS FA 015 807 8841159 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP28800 016 807 8840744 04:48:42 p.m.03-03-2008 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polied local HR: Host receive PR: Polied remote WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 FA: Fail RP: Report EC; Error Correct ,. +if~ r ,i:..:F ~ ~+ r~ S's.' F'Y ~n L f - { ~ J ~ ' 4 ~ ~A l} ? ^ .f . G ~ rc~ ' n ~JrF ~~ Y tMu'- a .^~. .. ~ S ~ ue ~~ a i ~ 24 ~ Y F Y T ri K Lam[ f but f.. A . c t .~.: i rT N F} J ~ _ 1h' ~ ~ r 11 y ``k'. ~ Sr -' vi }'~'~ Y'~~.H`4'X YI ~ I i } F~~ 4 ~ :~_ gN y~? '~ Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~~~ ~ ~ ~N y N 8r 5, _:. ly 3C"r.~a c t f ~ 1 ~~j ~ k~~ t ~, : k 1 ^-} ~ ~ J.. Y1 +^L~ N t nz F~ ~~~ '~1 ~ ~ ~,l~ p ~ ~ - ~ .~{ 1 ~~' 1 1 .~j~ ti°O'~Q . 7 ~I'A~.~b A 4'~ ~ t e t ~b i r % ~` a ~ ~ ~` ,} i t' '~ ~ p ~~ ~.F tr n"' ~Hf# '4 ' a ` ~ 'Z4 ~~ Yc ~ej3 ~if { ~7 i ~ • .~ E IDIAN-- I~~H~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." l~`:. 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~:~ ~ Tom O'Brien ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay -~ -~ Michael Rohm ~ Joe Marshall ~~ ~, David Moe -chairman '~-f~i p g ``~' 2. Ado tion of the A enda: ~ ~ ~. f 3. Consent Agenda• ~°~ 4~ A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning ~=,? Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N. Blairmore Way: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: ~~~~Q 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots o ° 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: s ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 age 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~, ~. K ~: r; ~<. , , ~~ - r ~ t ~ ~.:f -~- 1 Y , f 2 ~ }q 1 • 9 , 4.~ ~ Li ~ ! if l ~~ S , ~ ~ L~"~ t[ !. ~ <. t ,V.-V i,_._~_ ~Y"•,'r _, ,. `, _. ~ 6. Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Roa :~ ~ '~ 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones for Rec enc at River Valle (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N. Eagle Road: ~-~~®~ 8. Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Reaencv at River Vallev by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: ~~ ~ ~1~~D 9. Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern S grin s by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: ~ ~ ~/~~ l~~ 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3 acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls b D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: ` 11. Public Hearing: PP 08-002 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 1 residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Villas l'O~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: ~ 12. Public Hearing: CUP 08-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 21 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 3 acres for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: `l°~~~~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 3 ~r ~h {;~ ~ k ~~~~ ~~~ ~~4~ ~ +~f ,:~ {.: '~~"~~~ ,~ ,; ~~ M1'.` ~ i+. §~.c4 `'~'~~:~ Y~. "~ : ' ~ '~,cs 54 r~~~ ~ *c ,~vY~~ 3*k~~-ra~ ,~. -`..tii r c i?ryt ~ 'Y 4 2-+.t; $~ ~ Y yx ~, 4 .1 ..,. ~ ~~. ;::;.~ Meridian Planning and Zonina_ Meeting March 6, 2008 - Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 6, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. ' Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Nancy Radford, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call r ~,lt~=~ X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien ~ ,y-'~, X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall ~-~' X David Moe -Chairman -,. Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled ~a Plannin and Zonin meetin for March 6th 2008. I'd like to call this meetin to order ~. 9 9 9 ~ 9 and ask the clerk to call roll, please. ~~.a "'~~' Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: ~„ Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and, ~~ I Commissioners, believe it or not, we actually have another change to the agenda - tonight. Item No. 9, which is CUP 08-002, for Sonic Southern Springs, they are still ~~~'~~~~ working with staff on some issues and they would like that continued to our next meeting of the 20th of March. When we get down to that point in the agenda we will _~"~ make that continuance. Other than that, no other changes, so if I can get a motion to ~~ accept the agenda as revised. F.~}' O'Brien: So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the adoption of the agenda. All those in .,,4*,I ~~d~; favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. ~, MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. s + Item 3: Consent Agenda: -~;:, t~ >~~. ` A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning _:~ Commission Meeting: A• --F~ ~,~~i#~ .: < 1 i ~ 3 ~ I f ... ~~: I ` ~ ~ Rt. { 1, . . ' ~` ' • r .. r- . .a. e i {... ... J.. ~a.. .: ;%¢ "A %=4 ' t ~ ' I 1 ' ..Y ,.+,{ .a`kkR. ; „ ~ . I,?,.T.-.~.~Me~}ip ,.~,A. FY~f.L YYr.~3 ,• ~Wr( i 111,,, ~ r' W 3' ~ ' ;Y 1 v 1 . . . "5 .. ' i 1y- ~~;4 `~r.~ f{::s'.~i% l c < mod' Y•.. I,. I •.~i '6^,'..^A`~ ~ I I i! ~ ~5~ •' ; .;.3 ( z ... ~ ..~. ~: . ~, ~ e;• _ : ~f .~ , . I II I , : ~ ~1'.=~~. •~!,F •-~"" ~T~i °g•"" , .p s :ys'+": Y.~ - • ;. ' ' ' = .` ' ' C Il. ~ ,~; ~ r. <•;:• ' y * ^ .ti. ~ i 1~•. Ci ~. .-k . i .~ •' ;~ h 1 1~.: I ,r, 1 " ' .. a~ ,.,.w.. ,,>, + ~~v.9 1 I ' r • 3 t I'i { ;7,x• 1.: I 131 ii _ :..~r ~~ .e~:Y • E :.:, ' } y • ' ` ` ~ ~p ~wi .l ~~ 1" f" y~ j ! nx • wl. Ir' 1. '7` ~. - y .. Mme.. ''J te,, iT: ~.: ` .~ 'rl' +"Y.. I ~ ~. - ~. I '~?~ i ~Y ' IO' cy.. .~ . ' i ~ . v .^ ' ` r 3 R ' j .. ,e f l ~~I[[I i t ,~s~ 'R±• : t'f 'S }r' 6 ~ ~ ~1~: ,+ 1•t r ~ ~ ' ~ " •;. .. ,-`. .. i q wd ..l' .•$w! .•~` h ~ g y;,f~i.: II r _'rr ~f 4'y } :~ •. ' IE;. _ ~ •Y ~ I ! Lea t 1 lt.~ # . b ~. X ~,,.t :.'Lia. ~;=.. _ ~'~, ; Se`.=..`yo'a ^ ~ ` '. • , . " ~ . ~ " fie ~, Y+~ 'Aer. •, . 'i ~ ~ : L~i'' ..~<~ . :%+.~ .r ~~ A • Y ~~~ 11 {~i :i' "~ I "'{' w 4+' t ~~Il~. tj:• ~ . ~y -t ~ . ... i . .. . I } 1 .~ ''r 1 1 - + I L ? S t I ~ 6~y~ .h~ ~' ' ~ Yr ./li,y~,.r n,P".s a~ ~ 1 ,'Z 5 f~'dJ i ~1 SA u 9 19 .~ ."K ~ 1 "a'1.' :^:r i'. Yf _ `i.(~~~1-x` `~' ~ 1 - i " a 11 i a: ':. i _ ; , .: ~ ' " ; - k~, : ~ ~.; s r ~ ` I ., :%r 1: _ • y. tom- v I. ~:3'j ? r ~, ~,'•'~z ~:; I ~~ ~I~'~ a ~k.: ' - a. a l~i': ~ , ' t^~l ae.r a~ i I ~ ~ 1 ;j A:' .. }:: - -.: .•;. Y`••H - . i r : rr ~." I ~ :'k: ' s• 4 '. Y ;' Y.u ' : . I ¢; e ~, , . ~ * s p ~„ , r „ .F;: 1 . ..^ ` y. d ~ ~ ~ 3 . 1 7 ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ? * ~ ~$ ~:r tw '"~~[ ' ~ ~~ ~__ •)ti,:.e~ ~ ~ r N ~^~T"Y, . kF• ::1:. F., `,~T; ~Fi.+:r.: 4"lt ~ ~. . y .~ R~ ° ~ '~ i': l ` 1f + yII 1. 1~'. 1 ¢ ~ ~'~~yy -i°.7w;f '~ ~„H-.i."..~i~.y.R~ • , r y '7k., ~'/.+~.,. ; G' ' I • {.: ~.Y Y "L i'SrI ~: I -~ 1 ~t:tE'H r~ ^ ~,Sr i 1~ q ; .~ ;, ] ff 1 .F ~p.., ~' 1( , .. ~:} ~f.- i. j. .,i ` _ '~h ~ .. . ..•~r ~ i. ( ~. t li ~t'-'dt; ":.r~t:~r4"".a~a;':. ° ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning '~" '`'I March 6, 2008 '~ ` ' Page 2 of 80 B. Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning ,~,; `.J,~ Commission Meeting: ~n~- ,~ ~, C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~ .~`~I'i 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for ~~~ ~~' Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N. E;~~~~+ Blairmore Way: '~_ Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. On that agenda there are three fMy~'~, items, which would be the February 7th, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. Also, the February 21st, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission ~~',~~ meeting minutes. And, then, the third item would be the Findings of Fact and ' ~ Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-001 for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare. ;~ Is there any discussion or questions? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as noted? ~~~:~ O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. „,'s; Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in ,~-. favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. ~:~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Next item on the agenda, before we get started, if there is some folks out here °;` that have not been to our public hearings, I want to just kind of give you an overview of what will happen. I can see lots of faces I have seen before, so you have heard it again. Basically, what will happen, I will open the Public Hearing, at which time staff will go over the -- and review the projects in whole and, basically, with the conditions and whatnot that they put on the project and just give a brief overview of the project. After -;x` that the applicant will have 15 minutes to, basically, come up and explain and kind of sell the Commission, per se, on the project. After they have done their presentation -- there are sign-up sheets in the back, if you wanted to speak to any of the projects ~~~~' ; tonight, you could sign up out there. Each person signed up will get three minutes to, basically, explain their views on the subjects, after which time all the people on the sign- up sheets are done, if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to that, they will be given the opportunity and three minutes as well. After all that is done, then, the applicant will be given time to rebut any comments that were made in the `° public portion of that. That's pretty much that in a nutshell. ~s~' -Ha r V. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of ~= 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 ..{_ ,. Y,.,_ ti .. - .:. 7 ~. }. > ~ _ ; ~' y a `,: ,'. ~ ~r ~~ ~, Y ~, r ;. z ~. f ;, ~: ,; z r ,~ ~ F _ ~. ~~ Gr 4 a - { -~ .tf.. i'l"'. ~ ... Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 arc.- Page 3 of 80 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road: :~~ Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by ' Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and .1~ ~~~" west of South Eagle Road: '~'` Item 6: Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an _;, opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of East Amity Road and `_` ~~ west of South Eagle Road: Moe: So, at this time I would like to -- I would say reopen -- well, no, this is a new one, then. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 07-016 and PP 07-020 and the PUD 07-001 for Castle Rock and hear the staff report, please. =~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you noted, the project is familiar, although this is a brand new Public Hearing, noticed as such for this meeting "" tonight. Here in just a second I will run through some of the changes that have occurred "~ in the recent past to the project. Just to -- to reorient you again, the site is located on the west side of South Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel. The property -~'`.~ consists of 224.29 acres. It's currently zoned R-R in Ada County. Now, that 224 acres is the entire annexation area and I will get into the breakdown here in just another second. The adjacent land uses are to the north. There is a portion right here that's approved for White Bark Subdivision. They haven't broke ground as far as I know, but ` that was approved for zoning of R-4. There is some other rural residences in agriculture °'-~ in the area zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is Eagle Road. On the other side of Eagle Road some single family homes on large rural parcels. Most of it's being used for ;a ~ - agricultural purposes, zoned R-R in Ada County. To the south are some single family ~ ~~~ ' homes on large rural parcels, again, zoned R-R. To the west are single family homes on large parcels, zoned R-R and R-1. The existing Black Rock Subdivision was a county subdivision approved on the bluff there. That is building out today. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is shown on the map. This is the _ designation that was in effect at the time that the applicant submitted the application. t r~„ As you can see, there is about -- it's about half and half. It's about 104 acres, roughly, of the low density residential, which is the green, and about 120 acres that is medium ~ ~=~~' density. So, more of the yellow -- kind of shows up as orange on this map. Variety. . ~M' : So, not quite half and half on the future land use map. The applications include three. There is an annexation and zoning, again, of 224 acres. The applicant is requesting two zones, an R-2 zone of 45 acres and the R-8 zone includes 179 acres. There is a _ preliminary plat that consists of 794 single family residential building lots. Now, this is =;~~„i the original or the old preliminary plat. I'm going to just quickly move to the revised one while I read you some of the updated information. Again, 794 single family residential -~ ~.. ~.: ,•. i ~. ~',:. ~;~ .. - .~ y .~ ~ 4 ~S ` { >.. f 3 .t .':. , } t i Ar. 2 ~ 1~~ r _ ~1 Z ~~ C w•. ~ S Y t S Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 4 of 80 ;:r building lots on 182 acres in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. So, if you ~~": notice, we went down from 224 acres to 182 acres. So, about 40 acres is the area of the Black Rock which is not being re-subdivided or part of the subject preliminary plat. There is also a planned unit development for deviations from the R-8 district -~ requirements pertaining to lot size, street frontage, and building setbacks. Now, here is the history that I promised you. And a lot of this was also in the staff report that staff prepared. I should mention I'm pinch hitting this evening for Sonya, she's -- she's out of commission and so I am going to be presenting her projects this evening. But this was, for the most part, in her staff report that she prepared, but I'm going to read it into the `~~ record. The project was originally heard by the Commission on December 6, 2007. At that meeting the Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council, -~ primarily because the density didn't meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the '- Commission wanted larger lots on the perimeter. Prior to the Council meeting revisions were made by the applicant to the plans to reflect some of the Commission's concerns ,~:~ as follows: The number of building lots was decreased from 847 to 789. Open space was decreased from 41.6 acres to 38.84 acres. And the overall density of the plat was _ reduced from 4.65 dwelling units per acre to 4.33 dwelling units per acre. The density of the platted area designated for low density residential was originally 4.48 dwelling units per acre and the revised plat depicted a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. ``` Now, I don't expect you to memorize all these. In fact, I gave you a handout with this ;'` exact same information, just detailing the changes in density between the three versions that we will go through and, hopefully, the applicant can help explain some of the - changes, too, as this is progressed. At the Council hearing on January 22nd, 2008, the ^ Council reviewed the revised plans and voted to remand the project back to the _~~~~ Commission. Since that Council meeting the applicant has revised the plans again. _ Revisions made to the plat since the Council meeting are as follows: The number of building lots has increased from 789 to 794, a net decrease from the original plan of 53 #~~` lots. Open space increased from 38.84 acres to 39.86 acres, a decrease from the <~ ~~ ~ " original plan of 1.74 acres of open space. The city park was relocated from a central ~` -~ location within the development in the medium density designated area to the west boundary of the plat adjacent to Black Rock Subdivision and the low density designated area. And the overall density of the plat area increased from 4.33 dwelling units per ~ ` acre to 4.38 dwelling units per acre, a decrease in the original density of .7 dwelling ~ _ ~~~t~ units per acre. The applicant has also made some revisions to the design guidelines for ~, _ this project. Since I didn't have a chance to go through those today, I would ask maybe ~~ ~` that the applicant highlight not only the major changes that I just mentioned with the ' ~ ~ I park and some of the larger lots on the bluff, but maybe go into some of those details -~ ~^ with the changes to the design guidelines, too. I think Sonya has incorporated most of - , those into her staff report, but I was not aware of what those changes were. So, I'm `~={`'~i going to explain -- the Council did remand this back to the Commission and ask for the - li`.. ;-~I Commission to specifically consider or review the following items -- and it's not ~ necessarily limited to these items, but this is what they were hoping you would maybe give them some insight into. Make a new recommendation based on the revised plat. x~~.': +~ Consider the traffic impact of this development on Eagle Road between the site and the interchange, specifically the Eagle-Victory intersection. And I may just pause there for r„<:;~ one second. We did get a memo or a letter from Gary Inselman at Ada County Highway t ti ~~ a, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ '~b`~~ . fi :4 '¢' ~. 5':'x 5 i t u p t i - y t ~h >~Y, ~ ».:, tj~ ~y Y f . t ~ ~h x +~~ t#~~1 ~~; ICU ~~~~~FF ~ ~ , ~1 L r~-,~.r~ ...3,= ~~ ~ ~ J Y ~ ; am` ~ ~~ r"~.~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 5~ u ~ ~ F ~ ~~it 71" y ~~ ~ 4 ~ X ~ yyjxf ~~ }~ ~ fa'.~ 1 -~..; ~3 e ' ~ i- .~1• ~ T• "1~~5 ~f ~' ~Y ~ ~ ^~ _ ~ ~ ix q 'i7'..i ~ ~{ i ~ 1{~- '41 ~ '~ , ` ~ ~ s,; ` ~' ~ ~ ~r r-s ~r i r ~ , ~ i t~,. C x. '~ . ~ ~ [ .. , 4 f y , i ~ (~~, ?'e ir'sf1x ~i ~ q ~ ~: ~~ a ~~ ~~ a ~ s ~: ~ ~~~r ~ ~s ~$?~ ~y 6ri~c-~-y~ .,'~t ~ 4`~'"' ~ f v r~`~~a ~~. t ~' ~~ x Y ~5 ~~ ~ , ~ '* 1" f T r 4 fi~ r ~1 ~ d t3 ~k ~r t' ~ ~ ~`~'vT 4 P r j t i }} ~r~ 1 ~,i. "~~f ~E ~Z ~. ~!~ • ~` n:. .`mot YS r' v'~V.yi~.. :4~ 5 - .. ., _ 4..,'. _... ;- ~ . n~ `~'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 ` Page 5 of 80 ~~'' ~~ District thanking the applicant. They did make a 300,000 dollar donation to, hopefully, _ keep and facilitate the intersection improvements at Eagle and Victory, to keep that intersection in the plan for 2010 is when it's scheduled to be reconstructed and improved. So, they did make a substantial donation to the highway district in that regard. And number three is to consider not only the maintenance, but the ownership of ~. the coved areas and who has the right to do or not do what within the covered areas. I ``` ,, think that was a concern also of the Commission at the last hearing, so they seemed to ''"`' ' e ` ' have some similar concerns there. And number four was reconsideration of the revised I : ,, I densities in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and recently approved south Meridian area plan. And, finally, consider requiring South Carlyle Way to stub to the east ',;;,,~j boundary across the Ten Mile Creek for interconnectivity upon future development of the property across the creek. So, Carlyle is this road right here and it currently ~~nr' terminates right there into this T intersection. They asked the Commission to look into 1..~-. ~~~~ that. I don't think Sonya made a formal recommendation on that. I will maybe want to develop the presentation if the Commission wants staff to maybe give some more ~~~~~ ~ analysis on that, I can try to -- we can maybe walk through that together. So, a `~'`' summary of the proposed streets, the entrance into this site is from an existing street that was constructed for the Black Rock portion of the subdivision, with the intent that "''°~'1 the remainder open space area that's platted in the county would some day be re- `~! subdivided and also use Taconic Drive, that is the only access into the site at this time. "~~~~~ I mentioned there is a project that's been approved up here. They have not constructed anything yet. The fire department is limiting the amount of homes that are -- that access ~:ti ~'~ this road to 50 overall and that does include the Black Rock, until some other secondary '~~Y~~:, so -- I m getting a little crazy with the pointer. But access can be provided somewhere ` , to some other location, they want to have some other way in there. So, we would be , ~~= ~ limited to 50 and that's included in the staff report as well. The landscaping, there is 21.7 percent or 39.86 acres on the site proposed for open space, including an 8.8 acre park proposed to be dedicated to the city, which is right here. There is a development agreement that staff is proposing for this project. It's on pages 11 and 12 of the staff report. I'm not going to run through all of those. It basically ties the applicant to the ``° ~-c. things that they are proposing and also is consistent with the conditions that staffs looking for regarding some things, such as multi-use pathways, that number of 50 homes, things like that. So, I won't spend any time really going through those. And, -~~ then, some -- some older history on this site. Back in 2006 there was an application submitted to the city for a project called Black Rock Castle Greens and it was the same aY acreage, 224. The gross density was 3.61 dwelling units per acre. That application ,,~ was denied by the City Council. And, then, I already mentioned that Black Rock was previously platted in the county. I do have some elevations. Actually, before we jump ~-l to elevations let me just real quickly go between the three plats. There isn't a lot of change that I can tell between what you reviewed and made a recommendation on, "~` which is the plat that's on the screen now, and the next one, which is the one that the city was looking at when they remanded it back. And the applicant can sure help me out if I'm off base or miss something that's -- that's certainly more important. The main '`~~ difference that I can see is the homes that are directly on the down side of that bluff -- k: oops, went the wrong way -- have increased in size, as well as some of the other lots -- '}'~; it kind of transitions as you -- as you move in. I don't really see any other -- and this is z ~ ~§;~: h ?~h. i:5 x fir- f~ r ~~ ~"}~ ,~ ~.;: ~ . ~ ~ , ri'Sr ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 6 of 80 `-`"~ kind of how I figured it out, I was just kind of going back and forth like that and those =~'_~ were the main changes that -- the main change that I saw between the first two. So, if you have any questions we can sure -- maybe could direct those to the applicant, since L? ' we didn't, as staff spend much time on that revised plan either. It was sent to the -- to - the City Council and what we are focusing our attentions on for this staff report is, in - fact, the revised plat, which, again, where the park was here, it's now moved into this ~~''''~ location. In the staff report, too, Sonya has -- and I think the applicant even provided ~ average densities or average lot sizes, excuse me, for the lots that are within the two gg'~' ~~' Comp Plan designations of low and medium. So, they have broken it out to what the density is there. There is the landscape plan. You can see some of the cooing ~~~ ~~'- t concepts. It shows up I think a little bit better, maybe, on the site plan. Here is some of .~;,` ~~ ~ the build to setback lines. Again, I'll let the applicant spend more time if they have seen fit to explain their concept -- overall concept for this development. We went through a lot of that last time. Some alley-loaded product here. There is a product exhibit that has been submitted. There are -- I thought there was a number of -- the applicant's ;rta x,;: proposing to construct custom homes on the seven lots in the R-2, so the seven that are up on the bluff, basically, with the Black Rock lots. The applicant is proposing four different types of single family detached dwelling units within this development to ~? ' promote diversity and choice in housing type. So, that's what the other colors are on ~~~ ~~ s= here are those remainin roduct es and I'm oin to ust uickl g p typ g g j q y -- again, a lot of ` ' these, if not all of them, are the same elevations that we looked at before, if there are some changes now on the design guidelines, again, hopefully, the applicant can help me out a little bit with those, but these are your -- the Legend series. Cottage series ~~'~~~ here. Village or alley loaded. We have received some letters of testimony on this ~:} project. A few from the applicant. Larry Wickham and Debbie Wickham have both provided letters. Jeny Smith. Russell Fulcher submitted a letter, as well as another e- ~N mail this evening, which you should probably have. I had on my desk, so you probably ,,., . should have a copy of that., And Martin Fabricius, yes, and I'm sorry for butchering your name. Fabricius. So, we received those letters. And as I mentioned, we also received ~'~:F'.. revised comments from the Ada County Highway District, which I briefly mentioned in ' the memo. Staff is recommending approval of the subject project and I will stand for r ~ any questions you may have. Moe: Thank you very much, Caleb. Any questions at this time for staff? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, you mentioned about the 300,000 dollar donation to Ada County Highway District and your words were that it would, hopefully, keep the project on the plan. Do we have any confirmation that it will continue to keep the Victory and Eagle Road project in the 2009 plan? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I did not get that impression from the memo that Gary signed here. I can -- it says this will go a long way in providing ,k±~ `~ ' .;~.._ ~, -~ F J yx_ ' j". ~f}f~ nYk S..f rt ~" \~'S1 SS ~~~~~'~ ~~ t ~ ka3~,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 7 of 80 ;~: ACHD incentive to begin the construction of this project in 2010 as currently planned. It says: While ACHD cannot insure the timing of a project beyond the current budget 3~ year, the donation helps, so -- rf Newton-Huckabay: Is it a donation in the sense that ACRD could use it on another project if they so choose? ~'~~~~' Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't know that that's the case. The applicant would probably -- Newton-Huckabay: They are going like this. z `~ Hood: They are shaking their heads no. So, I don't know that information, but, yeah, they are indicating no. ' ~' Rohm: Good question, though. '~z -, Moe: Any other questions? S Marshall: I do. You were saying that there is -- the development to the north is called ;~~ "~~ White Rock? O'Brien: Black Rock. Marshall: No. No. To the north. It was White something. Hood: White Bark. Marshall: White Bark. I assume that's up in this area up in here you're saying? Hood: Correct. Marshall: Will there be connectivity? Will this -- ~ Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, there is interconnectivity through that stub street and eventually that will go up to Victory Road. So, when the two projects are built out there will be interconnectivity between the two. Marshall: Amity Road. Hood: Amity. Excuse me. Marshall: And White Bark is under construction now currently? Hood: They have received preliminary plat approval. I have not driven out there. I do not know if they are leveling ground or have begun any type of construction out there. fib' ~ <~ ~,. ., ~" 3.,. Sr+ ~ ~,t," + r .~ " T ~~ n .rf r -` ~ _ .~.: b~,,~°rx gay, .-~fd~ :~~ yr, y y . ~ t ,l ~" wr ~'~ + w m ,~ ~ ~ p,: 1 - _ v~ r u ~ ~ 1 ~Yi2`1. 4# t,lh f s H > r~~~ v.L -t 1 1 ,~ + ~,rt t k..ly i. .*^.+~; + ce n: qtr 7Rr ~ t,. :.N ~ ~S t~~ ~t~i\. 2 ~ ~~- ,~~` ~ } ~ ~w 3 ~ ~~ ~~ rkEZ..t t~'t ~£ -x ~ .+~ .~ ~~ R ~~ ~ .; ~~ k L~F t~ ~~~ ~ 4c ~ ~~~~C~~~~ ~'~4~ x x ~e~fy '~ _~ ~~ ! - ~r r ~ j+f zp.'f~~ ...~.3..~ ~~ _, s ~ r_ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning ~ r March 6, 2008 Page 8 of 80 Marshall: But they are ahead of this project. ~_ Hood: Yes. Marshall: Oka Y~ ~~''~~ Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? ~~ ;~ O'Brien: I have one, Caleb. Is there -- when is the plan for widening Eagle Road from ~~~ Victory to Amity Road? It seems like that's still going to be the bottleneck. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, if you can give me a minute, I don't have that off the =;: top of my head. I can sure look it up in ACHD's report. I'm sure it's there. Let me just ~';rt look it up. And the applicant may even know. I will get that information for you. O'Brien: Okay. Thanks. ~:, >;r- ; Moe: Any other questions? ~_'';=;; O'Brien: No further. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeny Armstrong. =~; 701 Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm currently the vice-president of planning and land development for Provident Development Group. I'd like to start our presentation in kind of explaining to you that the last time we were before you your recommendation ~~'~~ was for denial, because we had requested that you move it onto City Council. We got some of the monetary issues straightened out, so we got a time extension on our -- on ~_, our land take down. So, we are back before you to work through and try to solve some ~', ~°~-~1 of the design issues. So, what you see this evening is a solution that has evolved from your comments and so we have incorporated all those in -- in this new design, as well _~'_~I as tried to incorporate all the comments that we received at the Public Hearing before ;;:. i the City Council So, going from the original plan that you saw, we have gone -- we have reduced the density from 848 lots down to 794. So, that gives you a total units per - acre from 4.66 to 4.38. We have decreased some of the open space and that was ;;~;4 because of the desire to have larger lots around the perimeter. In addition, we have `r~~'~~ added an additional housing type, which are custom homes, so that the custom homes ~`" ~ will be adjacent to those homes that are built up on Black Rock based on the ' neighborhood comments. We have also updated the design guidelines to reflect that, ~~'-~~ as well as instead of two signalized intersections, which we had one at Taconic and Amity and Eagle, we have worked out the deal with ACHD -- and I'll give you more _ information on that -- at Amity and Victory, which was a desire of the City Council. In addition to that, we are adding front yard landscaping on all the lots. So, this is what ~~~~~ you saw the last time we were in front of you. I wanted to share with you the major ~s.~ "'3 a:rt} •d~ ~ ~ ~~ n ~ ~ ~~ r~ a h t ~ ~ ~ ~~~u:. ~ k t ~,', ,~ k ~ I - ~ v~ ~+ ~ t~rd~ s ;y '1 ~, y '! ~i ~ ti r`~ ~ j ~?`(fi`~tr ~ ~ {~ i {[ ly' a, ~' ^~ i~r ~`fi r~ < s t,. - rt h ~W ~ i 'r Ft";~'~ ,k i~ :icy. ors .;~~*~~ ~._' y°'~.' t ,~ ~ 4 # }A,L ~ V K: ~v t~fi ~ "~'~* ^~ ra_ ~`.t, .~~ ' ti~ r~ri<~ s r ~.~; ~ f t ~~~~~~' ;~~ i~ F: Y ~. G i~ ~ 3 ~~rr tiif 1 i ,, ,' T S _ ~= '' - ~ ~' ~Y i ~~fiwr rr4 rf r ~. s s, F~ t ~a' ~> t~-, ~ .c~_ ~ ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 l Page 9 of 80 _r chan a -- chan a was the ob'ective of the arks. The wanted the nei hborhood ark 9 9 J p Y 9 p more centrally located to the entire square mile. So, we moved the neighborhood park h'~ from this location here over to here, which is exactly a half mile, half mile. And the other U~- thing it does is it -- these large homes up on Black Rock visually will be more separated from the rest of the development. In addition to that, the comments that the parks had `A~' in the early one was that we had houses along one side of the park, so we removed all wK' those houses from direct backing up to the park. In addition, the park went from seven acres up to 8.8 acres, which is a larger contribution the city. So, we removed 54 ~?=>~.~;;; buildable lots. We have placed the larger lots along the perimeter for transition. So, all these in this color that you see, we just didn't do it on one side of the street, we did it on =~*4~ both sides of the street. That's why they have this color -- are all quarter acre lots. Next. In the Comprehensive Plan the other issue that was brought up last time was the ~ density that we maintain outside of the Black Rock community in this green area less `R' ~. ;.:: than three units per acre. That was your recommendation from this body. We did that. We are down at 2.98 acre -- or units per acre in this area. And we moved that park into that area. In addition to that, what we have proposed is down here, which is 614 acres «:` in this area, which comes out to a density of five units per acre. So, the overall density is 4.3. Just so, you know, if you take this green area here at three units per acre, which '~~rtr , is allowed, plus eight in this area here, the total allowed in our development is 1,246. s -; So, we are only asking for 794 overall. You remember the coving concept, which we are retaining that concept, so we can have more open space and more variety of F'' ~~, housing and facade modulations. So, we have retained that in this design. You will see those green areas in here as part of our coving scheme. So, what it does is it gives an appearance of more open space. What does coving do? It adds curb streets, a variety of setbacks, facade modulation, increased open space, as well as decreasing roadway and maintenance costs. We have got about 25 percent less roadway than we had in }-~~'c: the first proposal that we brought to you. We have reduced public utilities for more efficient delivery and it actually promotes more sustainable development. These cove ''' areas we were discussed as being -- they will be landscaped by the developer prior to ~~~='- closing of any of the homes. All cove areas will be owned and maintained by the `'~' individual property owners. The cove areas will also receive special attention in the °'_:-° CC&Rs, which we control. As well as weekly monitoring by the property management firm to insure the upkeep of these unique lots, because it really affects the appearance ~~,~r' of the community. Here is a new diagram. This shows this cove coming up around ~~ here and you can see what that does, it really adds to the overall open space of those streets, so the houses are not right along the street. The other thing it does is it gives 'r`~~' you a variety. We colored in the garages in the yellow color, so you can see the variety ~> . of -- of how they are located on the side, as well as the brown, which are the front -- front porches on all the homes that will set in this -- this space. So, you can see you s`. ,~<: really get a variety in the -- in the street scene. Landscaping -- sod and sprinklers will be installed in the front yard prior to closing of every house in the development. The #~%, homeowner will be responsible for a minimum of one tree and five shrubs in the front r'~ yard within 30 days of closing, as required by CC&Rs. We will also offer an entire ~ variety of full landscaping packages. On the architecture, we are offering t ~~:; comprehensive design guidelines, which are a part of our development agreement, so we can't change those. We have housing diversity. We now have the four distinctive ~; ~~ ' ~~~Ri ~ _`~ ~ E ~. t 4- ~! t ,~ '- ~~,, - ~ l i `S~ ~ . L~r. . i'.h ~t~ :~h:t~. 1~ ;, s i ~ L t i'. 1 l• f r ~r.,. x i ~ ~[7 t .y',. _ ~:~; Y - r -. Meridian Planning & Zoning ?-i''v' March 6, 2008 s ~~ ~ , Page 10 of 80 r housing types with the emphasis on front porches and comer elevation, as well as the ~~~~~ facade modulation. The custom home sites, as I'm showing in this diagram, are outlined here. They are approximately one quarter acre lots around the perimeter. I believe that was the direction that we were given from this particular body to do that, as F"`~ ~I well as embedding this neighborhood park, so we have more open space. And within ~ the custom home series we will have two different kinds of housing types or , `~} -1 Y y i possibilities. The Hubble Signature series, as well as custom builder partnership, so ~ ~ ~. ~'~~ people can go in there and do a -- custom build their homes. They will be a higher end ~:' product with upgraded architecture, a minimum of ten percent brick and stone accents ~~`~=%~ are required. A minimum of three material types on all the front elevations. Living ;: ': I spaces and porches will be extended towards the street beyond the garage, so that the garage is not dominant. Cottage lot architecture includes fireplaces, bay windows, and other architectural features. This is -- it shows you some of the typical elevations of that =_F ~~ product. The Legend neighborhood, which is shown here in the yellow, is right here and ~.:. w~T ~ it's around these open spaces, so it faces out into all open areas within the Legend. ~F `` This is a typical Legend neighborhood where it's predominately -- you will see porches ~- ~ + out in front of the garages. It will have special architectural features such as columns ' ` ~' and balustrades and they will all have porches out on the front of those homes. As the - ~ distinctive lifestyle floor plan, we will have unique and upgraded architecture. We will ':~~; start at 1,200 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Upgraded comer lot elevations. So, all comer lots will be required to have pop-outs, as well as upgraded elevations facing any ;:~ ~I open space and those will all be sitting on the larger lots. This is an example of the ~F~I elevations showing different materials. This is the vertical siding, the horizontal siding, as well as the board and bat, with shutters and, then, you see some of the features on ~ cv" the columns with the -- with the stone. On the comer elevation we will have the pop- outs of the porch wrapping around the side. We will have the chimneys exposed on the outside of the house, as well as windows in the end wall, as well as pop-outs of bays on `~ «{ ri for us so this the housing. On the Cottage neighborhood -- this is a whole new se es , % neighborhood will be located right in this area here on the street cooing. This is a '~'~ I typical Cottage neighborhood. Again, the house and the living space and the front ~~~ '~ porch will come out in front of the garage. And this -- our entirely new series we will , ~~~r>i start at 900 square feet to 2,400 square feet, with patios and living spaces all extending ~~:`~I towards the street beyond the garage plane, with extensive facade modulation and a `: ~ ' ~ variety of architectural styles. The key to this -- if you look at a typical street scene, we noted that the garages are in the yellow, so they are really set back from the street and as you move down the street they are not all lined up in a row. You can see that the `- living spaces are all punched out in front of that garage space, so you have unique {' 3 ~ ~ architecture out in front of the ara e s ace itself, so all the livin and orches will g r ~.` icapelevations. Those ortions here are the art extend out in front. These are the typ~ p p `~~~~Y; I '~ that sticks out in front of the garage elevation. The traditional Village is our alley-loaded ~~'' series. This will have a unique architecture. Again, the porch is facing the street, so ';~:~ you get a better scale. Living spaces are oriented to the side yards and we will offer -;, single and two story plans. As you can see in this plan, the living unit is all off to the side, so it's into the side yards. Transportation is really key. What we have agreed to is ~~~_-~' ' r )Y ~ by the 50th lot we will have the access through White Bark Subdivision. I think that was , ~ ~~~~! a question you all had, which will go to Amity Road. The site is located within bicycling s ~+ i .~ ,} r~ ~; r,,~~ i ~t 'r": 7 s: w' ~: r x r :-. t~~~ ~~ ~~ ~1 1~ V ~~ ~, nay. r:2.. jl~ a r3 ~~ .., }~. rf'f ~~y~~ y . `t~ ~I '~. 4~ rS..1 ~~ I Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 11 of 80 distance, three miles, of the major employment and commercial developments on Eagle Road. We have on-site recreational opportunities, which will actually reduce the vehicle ~?~ trips per day generated by the development. We have the possibility of the shuttle service being operated by St. Luke's. We have met with them and other major ~~`° ' employers in the -- in the vicinity. It's also -- we are providing a future Valley Ride transit stop that will be located on Eagle Road. This shows you what we have agreed to. We have agreed to fully pay for the Eagle -Taconic full signalization intersection at ~` ~_~', the 400th lot. We will install at the 127th lot an interim signal at Eagle and Amity. And ~' our latest negotiation was a 300,000 dollar voluntary contribution to insure that the ''~~ construction is done in 2010. They don't get the 300,000 unless they build it in 2010. ~~I That was our negotiation with them and we have that in letter form. Just so you know, ~ other than those improvements, in addition to that, 794 houses in here based on current c,~3 ~,'i impact fees, will give to the Ada County Highway District almost 2.1 million dollars on '~ ~''' top of all the other improvements that we are doing. Open space amenities at 39.86 acres of open space that does not count the coving. The city park is larger at 8.8 acres, F' `" which is an outright donation. Village green, other pocket parks, gazebos, this is a ~= ~~~~ walk-able, health oriented community. We also have the Beasley Lateral linear park, as ~,~ well as we have committed to landscape barriers along Ten Mile Creek and along the ~ ~ -` spine road leading up to Black Rock. We are also providing recreational opportunities '.;3 -~~~ for all ages. This is our trail system and connectivity. You can see along here the ~~`~`~'~ green we have committed to a ten foot wide regional path. Originally it just came down ,~ to here and stopped. It was the desire of the Council to go ahead and wrap that on :t; r around. So, we have committed to extend that clear to Eagle Road in case this property doesn't get developed for awhile. We have -- the key to this neighborhood park -- and ~ we have worked with the parks department -- is to make it centrally located to the ~~~, f' I overalls ware mile. There will be uni ue o ortunities based on to o ra h not found q 4 pP p9 pY ~A i at other Meridian parks. We have some 30 to 40 foot drop off here. The one that they ,~ ~`~' r ~, saw during this last snow storm was the opportunity to turn this into a sleighing venue ~ for young people, as well as skiing. This is the total amount of money that that's worth , r:, at 8.8 acres at today's cost of 125,000 per acre. We are donating a total of 1.4 million , 4,' dollars and we will include all the turf and sprinkling system. In addition to that, with the 794 lots, we will create at 1,384 dollar impact fees per lot, we will be donating to the ~'; '; parks 1.1 million dollars in addition to that just in impact fees. So, more than pay for the '~ development. We have these landscape buffers again that we have committed to along :_y}~ Taconic on the spine road, as well as the separation here at Ten Mile Creek. This is a fir,;; typical neighborhood park, pocket parks, other amenities. The other question was what ' " were we doing for this connection. We have agreed to put in a 42 foot wide access ~~•'Y' easement in favor of the Fulcher family, so they have connection across that creek in r ~9~`~`=' the future to connect that land, so they don't have to go out onto Eagle Road. We would ' like to thank you for your favorable consideration and we will just open it up for any hr aa ?~ ~.~:;,T~ questions. We agree with the staff report and their recommendation for approval. `~" Thank you. ~~~', Moe: Thank you, sir. A couple questions I have got for you. I was kind of curious on r ~; the coving and the landscaping, per se, on the -- on the outside of the sidewalk area, ~;, ..K~ `,.., ., .:'. ~r _,, ~ :. is Y%, r ~~~ ~Y ~tY'. t Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 6, 2008 Page 12 of 80 .~~~ you're saying that that would also be the homeowners' responsibility to take care of as ~~,~ well? Armstrong: Yeah. You want to go back to that -- can we go back to the cove -- yeah. Right now the way it is in any development is if you have a sidewalk out here -- this is a ~~~ b traditional kind of -- it's always up to the homeowners to care for that land that's in that ~~-f: ~~ public right of way. So, that doesn't change. It's the same. ~r;`"I i est concem is ou're oin to have lar er areas there and ou're oing to Moe. My b gg y g g 9 Y 9 have one neighbor to the other isn't going to anticipate doing their mowing at the same time and so you're going to have -- that's going to look kind of rag tag all the time over there and I noted in your presentation you said that you guys are going to review that, ~~`'~ but that's going to be kind of tough for -- ,C. -,- Armstrong: Well, we are going to manage that with the property management and the z ~'I other thing, just so you know, it's just like having a large lot on quarter acre lots, they will ,~! have lawns just in front of them that looks just like that. It's the same depth. So, the =~ ~~ point of it is, you know, I live in -- in Riverside Village, which has this similar concept A,;.;. where we have the deeper lots like this, you know. I only mow on Saturday, because can't afford to hire anybody, and my neighbor mows on Tuesday and the other one '~~ mows on Frida ,but it all blends to ether, it all looks really nice. You know, we won't let Y 9 ~I these people let their lawns go un-mowed for a week and they just all tie together in the ;~j landscaping. We are going to be landscaping it, so it all does flow and tie together. Moe: Other than you have made the comment that the homeowner will be responsible for the tree that goes in the front of yard, so that tree could actually be on the outside portion in the cove area, as opposed to back on their yard area as well? Armstrong: They can. We will go ahead -- we are going to landscape everything in this cove area. There is the cove line right there, right up to the house. We are going to go ahead and landscape that area there. What we said by that is -- is that when that house closes, that landscaping has to be in. That's what we are saying. In other words, they can't close on their house without that landscaping. Moe: No. I understand. I guess where I'm going -- I'm going a whole different direction and that is you get too many trees out there on the outside of the cove and give it a few years to start growing and whatnot, and I think some of the aspect of the cove was so you can kind of see through the neighborhood, but at that point you got trees in the way, so, you know, fire and police are going to have a hard time reviewing what's going on in the neighborhood as well if you have so many trees out there on the outside area of the cove. That's where I'm going at. Armstrong: But the whole point of it is this front yard here is not any -- any larger than -- than what you would like to see on quarter and half acre lots. I mean it's the same situation. You're going to have trees out there and you're going to have lawn out there. It doesn't change that. f j~) l ..j:. 4 ', J1T f:'S ~ 4_ ~ ~' t~} s~~ ~', ':~ ~-x ~ ~ i~~~r{ ~i 3 :' 1a .." ~ r ~. ~ i , ~ r_~~ ~ ~~~~aF ~t~~~ ~ r U~: s,,, ~F t~~ , i~ ~~~ ~r {~c` 1 f r ~, ~ ~ ~ ~, !Y~ ~C` ~ r .y,.. ,,r , ' t4.,-~ , i. ~. ti...., ..1 _. _... _..~i ~ t ."'i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning • t;~.;,;, March 6, 2008 `' ~ Page 13 of 80 Moe: Okay. And, then, one more that I have. You mentioned the -- the 42 foot easement -- the right of way for the Fulcher property. Is that where the Carlyle -- ,~~; ~ Carlyle Way is that goes across? Armstrong: Yeah. Here is Carlyle right here. Moe: Right. r Armstrong: And it's right there. ~"~ Moe: Okay. ~.n .. Armstrong: So, that was one that was on this list of the five or six items that the City Council had -- ~I Moe: That's correct. That's what I was checking. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Marshall? '~~_' Marshall: I just have a question. Back to the coving again. I'm kind of a fan of coving, "~` but I am concerned about the ownership of this when it gets back out of the right of way. _: If you're back behind the right of way, that's now on private property and it's supposed to be a public sidewalk. So, will the right of way move back behind the sidewalk or will there be a permanent easement on the sidewalk that allows all the public right of way or N_~Y'~ something? Armstrong: Well, the way -- the way Ada County Highway District works today, whether it's a traditional neighborhood or not, whether it -- whether that sidewalk sits in a right of way or not, the homeowner is responsible for keeping the snow off that and the upkeep ~- ~ of that sidewalk in front of their home. ~~ Marshall: I realize that. ^'~ Armstrong: Whether it's in the right of way or it's not in the night of way, so -- so -- - yeah. It's basically a license agreement with the property owner and they take all the ¢f '~'~ liability and responsible if -- if there is -- if it heaves up or anything like that, they have to ,,:; ,:.; replace it. ;; ~'~ °' ~" Marshall: Right. But -- >,~~~ `~'"'`"° Armstrong: Whether it's in the right of way or not. -4.,,, ~; Marshall: As a neighbor I have a right to walk down that sidewalk -- ~; ~~~`4.~ ~~~~ Armstrong: Absolutely. ~`,} 3Ya ~* 2 ,:, ` F`~ ,,t Iii 1' ~ -S U I f ~ ~~a ~,i r-~< .'sr , ,~ f ~ r f ~~5.,~~n iS ~~_ ( i. ~; 4. is y~~q.~yp., , 1. ai ~~k.7:}n. ~. .'.La'.w G :,~ { . G,a ~. ., .. , _ c;, k~r`b ~St ~u ;,~;~ ~ !~ l F i A'. ,~~~:., Y ~~}~ ~k ~ ~ n ~rncG'! ~F~ .~ '`^~ ~ s, ~, ~I - ;~ .r. ~.'. ;~ . \i ~ y ~ ti. } r ' ~ ~ a __ _ ~~' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~-, March 6, 2008 ~i ~ Page 14 of 80 Marshall: -- because it's in the public right of way. But when it gets into somebody's - private yard, they can kick me off of it. "L~ Armstrong: No. No. This --this sidewalk will remain public -- in the public realm. Marshall: Okay. As long as it stays within the public right of way -- ~;,,:;., Armstrong: Right. Marshall: -- I can understand that. But once it's on private property -- I may be wrong, _ but I think they have a right to kick me off their private property. If they don't like my `,~yY;~ dog, get off my property. tF..;^R Moe: Mr. Marshall, I think we have a comment from -- ~'r Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners and Commissioner Marshall, ACRD does have a ~' ~ provision that they would require license agreements to be in place -- in fact, we are "~"~''~ doing a similar thing with the new City Hall construction across the street. Part of the public sidewalk is going to be on land that is actually not in the right of way and in order '`~'`I for us to build that sidewalk, ACRD needs to see that license first, so that it will be open ~~~Y """' to the public. So, we are anticipating that same requirement would be applied to these _- _ sidewalks. It's a good question. Armstrong: Absolutely. Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Armstrong: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? fi:h, }~', ~. Moe: Yes. '_::;r; Hood: Maybe before you open this up for the rest of the public's testimony, I can J-~ answer Commissioner O'Brien's question about Eagle Road, when that was going to be - widened. In ACHD's staff report, it says Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel is planned in the CIP to widened to five lanes between 2019 and 2027. So, there is some horizon time out there. - O'Brien: I was talking specifically between Amity Road and Victory. ~, - Moe: Victory -- it's got the Ridenbaugh Canal to Victory is in 2009. And then, again, the section between Amity and Lake Hazel is further out. It doesn't have the section further ~'L~' to the north in the staff report. • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 ~~ Page 15 of 80 ~ Moe: Thank you, Caleb. On the first name on the sign-up sheet would be Martin Fabricius. When you do come up, if you would state your name and address, I would t~ appreciate it. Fabricius: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Martin Fabricius. ~~`"~"`~~` My wife and I own five acres in the Upiano Subdivision, which borders on this area. Our address is 1800 East Suzan Drive. I'm not an accomplished public speaker and for that apologize. As you have noted before, I have been writing letters on this issue. I got u ~ ~`,.' kind of caught up this time and didn't have the seven day required waiting period and :,~' that's why I'm here this evening. If you read my letters you know I am very much ~' ' opposed to any development in this area. I think I have even stated that if I had my way ' 'i there wouldn't be another house built in the entire valley until we got on top of this -- this `' ,,;`~ infrastructure problem we have. I hear a lot of promises being made on what's going to be done with these roads, but it's a long ways down the road and as I look at that first ;fi~4;;~' map, I don't understand all the number of units and the size of units and all that. I'm ~~~~ sorry you lost me on that. But I see a lot of units in that proposed development that are going to spill out onto Eagle Road and to Amity eventually. As I look there now, those t~'F, roads probably appear pretty much like they did in the 1930s and 1940s, except maybe ~'' ~' some blacktop and a few stop signs, and if you go out northwest of Meridian where there has been extensive development out in that area, I don't see any road < ~'~wI improvements out there. I just don't see them, folks. They are not there. And what we end up with is a lot of crowded roads. We keep adding more lanes to our freeway and ~r~-~~ by the time developments like this come in we will have to be looking for another ~1~~~ freeway somewhere else. I guess other than being opposed to it, my property in the Upiano Subdivision consists of five acres, as are all tracts in there, and the value to my ~-~T~~ property is the open space and the view. And anything that's done in here is going to detract from that. And I have already been down the road on this property on a couple , . , `_, i of issues, not -- we moved there in 1993. Shortly thereafter there was a proposed ~`'"'~' gravel pit and asphalt plant right across the fence from us and, of course, I had to '< ~ oppose that. We hired a lawyer. I was out 3,000 dollars, as were most members in the -;,; y.~ community. And Imade apromise -- it wasn't a threat. I said the day you start turning f A d '~ ' it. n re going to be in court. And I meant every word o 1 dirt for that asphalt plan, you '~'~r~~ think what -- how I'm going to have to approach this thing here is because we can't ~'" ~ subdivide in Upiano Subdivision unless there is agreement among all the property owners. So, I'm stuck with my five acres. I keep livestock there and I can only imagine ;?~~ what's going to happen when my cows get down there along the fence between the subdivision. I have been through that once before. I had to move once before because '<<~;, of this. I used to live over east of Meridian. And so I guess what I will have to do, if this S ,h,~~}: ~ thing is going to go forward, I'm going to have to have my place appraised as is and, ~; , ~`y~ ~ then, I'll have it appraised after the fact and I'll probably just end up in court on it. _` Apparently I don't have any recourse. I think that about sums up my comments. ~~... ``'`~ _ ~`~`' = appreciate your time. Thank you. r~ Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Next name is Pat Fabricius. Okay. Thank you. From the audience she defers her time. Next name would be Carol ~~ Jarvis. ~ f:~. w ~ ~ ' .~ _ Y 5 l'-• if 47y ] ~ ~.', +f K ,li 'tl 15, ~ ~ " r ~. ~ ~' ~ ~ f `"JJQQZ~ 'Fr- lh.f2~ k ,~ d ~ ~k .j, ' ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ` <x ~L ~ a~`~sa ~ r ~'^'ai ~ r'.. ~ ,~ ,- r~. ~` "a ~ v 6 ` ~y:~ ;u~~~ n k~w ~p yt /: w k ~~t~lgr ~t )y,..`~~. `~~~ cM 11 ~ W .!,fir±~. ..R ~}' . ` ` S •F ~P ~ ~ ya `J ~ ~y ~~ j ~~ ~ x i > > l ~~n 'S~ t I 1 ]~~ ~ ~ i' :.:~ s r ~,~„f ~fi-p .nt ~, - . Frsc F 5s„F fi'k `~~5 ~ yr +.k ~~ t, ~~k'R•;t, j t.E ~~~~ ~ -. ~~ t~~ `~ l; ~,~ r ~ y. l F *',~ ~ 1 jam' t .t +3 ~ \- } 4 h y5~i~ Y~,. t G~}p~x - "` Meridian Planning & Zoning • ~'' March 6, 2008 Page 16 of 80 ~'`?:: ` Jarvis: My name is Carol Jarvis. I live at 1875 Susanne Drive, which is at the end of '-r„5;~ the Upiano Subdivision and butts up against this property about 700 feet. I have been ~t~ wondering -- I notice that there is a line across the -- this line that comes across here. -. =~ ~; ~< .. ~, /; <' rya; >: ~„ ~r; 5: ~' -~Y :~~ Moe: There should be a pointer here at the mike for you. Jarvis: Okay. When I -- I happened to be -- and found out that that was the line of the - - where the Meridian city area of impact ended. Has that changed? I mean I have to assume it has, if you're dealing and making changes and you're making -- you're approving things south -- south of that line. Do any of you know has that been changed? Moe: I do believe it has changed, yes. But we will get staff to ask that after the question. Jarvis: Okay. I also wonder -- I have been wondering for quite some time how many lots there are in -- in -- that have already been approved, because every time you see a field, you know, if not -- something's not going on there, you don't know if it's still in private ownership, but I went to Planning and Zoning and got some maps and found that along Victory between Locust Grove and Meridian - Kuna, there are almost 700 lots in there and possibly more that are in the progress -- process of -- have been approved and are to be built on in the not too distant future and right along Amity between Locust Grove and Eagle Road there is several hundred more lots there that have already been approved and some -- most of them have not -- only part of it has been -- actually houses built on. Some of it's in preparation, some of it is just sitting there, it has not -- the ground has not been -- you know, they haven't even begun to put in streets or anything. But that accounts to several hundred more lots. And, then, along -- at least a hundred along Eagle Road on the east side and there is -- almost all of the area that you're just looking at right there -- not all of it. There is two areas that are not -- and one of them maybe is a park, so, anyway, that -- that's been my question. How many lots are we going to have subdivided and people still -- I mean -- and they are just keeping them go a head and putting in hundreds more, so -- I had some other points, but that's my time, I'll abide by it, even though the man who was presenting did not abide by his 15 minutes. Moe: Thank you very much. The next name on the list is Ray Eggleston. Eggleston: Commissioners, my name is Ray Eggleston. I live at 12728 West Merchison Street, which is the Rock Hampton Subdivision. I'm on the planning and zoning committee, so I meet a lot with the Ada County Planning and Zoning. We have taken into account also that there are a number of lots there that are already going to be filled and fulfilled for the school districts in that area. Our concern is not only the housing itself being substandard -- if you go in through any of Hubble developments -- I know people live in them. I have repaired some of the houses. I have got 43 years of planning and zoning development experience. What our concern is is not today, it's not ~ '~. ~`'r~ ~ e t2 ~ t fro r ~ ~. ~ ~ '. s~ S-j} ~L~~ C 4. ! '_ ! 'a & ~. i ,r ,_ t t ~i ~._ - t f" ~~- Z ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 2 Yn {~( ~t 17~ "-.' ~ ~ Fdfi ~ t - ~T•~ ~ h wj f~ ' 3 ~' t } , • ~. 'h-'4 ~ 4 1 xi ~ ~ f' ~ - o- r~ 7~n ~y't ~ v~ K ~ ~ a .. a,.. i2 3. i4~' ~~ tc~ ~ ° ' tJ 1 _" _ ~k ~ lx~ fis ~i'~ . h k '} ~,7~'~~c~{ ~f C~t4' n .. ~ r f t y ~~ ~~~ F ~ ,~ ., S ~ t `~ti ~ r q' vim ; h Via„ ~e ~ , ., ~ R ~ . i ~ ,., yy ~'; ~ .i ~•. T ~. ' j'~511! ~ o _ ~ ~~¢~~ r~ ~ d t 3 . ~~ + ' ^ r ~~ [. ~~ A t ,{~k~ ~k Y '~~ '. ~ ~~ '~ ~ '' ~ I ~k ¢.~) '+' .~ w E rn~- rar a •'-. ~'~~ ~F t x ~ ~~ F~S~ i? ~ ' . ~,, ~. ;', ' ` i Meridian Planning & Zoning :•r : March 6, 2008 `%~ ~_'° t~z~ Page 17 of 80 only the lots that are available, but the housing in this subdivision, being small lots, 46 ~~~?= foot wide. Those coved areas, which are going to end up being parking lots, because they don't have the area for car parking. You have a two car garage. Most of the ., people are going to end up using those as storage areas, like most people do. You're all going to end up -- I get nervous when I talk, so -- and also a part of our concern is later down the road is a low priced, low standard subdivision. If you go through any of their subdivisions around our area there. What's going to happen down the road when they end up being -- low income families are going to move in there, because of the price of the homes. They are going to have a lot of children. Those front yards are r~,- going to end up being playgrounds for the children, which is going to make an access for the roads. Another concern we have is down the road what's going to happen when they tum into being rental houses, because if you look at the other subdivisions, which my sister lives in one, the majority of the houses in their subdivisions that aren't empty '\'~k ~ are rental homes. The subdivisions are going downhill pretty bad. And this is on Maple ,~~=, Grove and Lake Hazel. This is our main concem is what's going to happen to the value of our property within the area. We live in an upscale neighborhood. We were told at ~== :> the time when Black Rock went in there and was at the City Council, they were told when that was approved that this was going to be all up-grade homes. And we went by that. So, nothing was ever said. Now that it's becoming Hubble Homes, which is a lower standard even below Corey Barton -- and being a builder I know so -- this is our testimony and this is the representation of Rock Hampton Subdivision planning and ~; zoning committee. Thank you. ;, L 7~~;;t Moe: Thank you very much. Dan -- is it Licksberry? Okay. From the audience he said tg~ he's been spoken for. Justin Thiel. Thiel: My name is Justin Thiel and I live at 2308 East Hyper Drive. I am a resident of ~~ Black Rock Subdivision. I was -- I have come here in opposition and I was going to address three points. The first one is going to be roads and traffic. That's already been belabored to this point. The second one was going to be schools and as a personal note, when we purchased our lot in Black Rock we began the -- you know, the pursuit of schools for our children and once we identified the school we contacted the school, °~ which was Lake Hazel Elementary. They told us that school was full and to contact the district. So, we contacted the district, the district says we can -- we can bus your child to the next closest school, which is anothertwo -- I think two miles down the street. So, you will drive right passed the school that's in your district -- or your district or boundary and to the next one. Of course, that wasn't acceptable to us, so we kept our kids in Boise School District, so -- my wife's a teacher, so she can take them to her school. But, anyway, a project this size generates enough kids to have its own school. It has enough roof tops to generate a build out population almost the size of the city of McCall ~~ and three times the size of the Horseshoe Bend -- of Horseshoe Bend. Just the city. .- So, there is that many roof tops and that many people are going to be living in this area. ?~: And I have a question as well. If you go to the -- the website, we have this south Meridian comprehensive plan, the majority of that plan in that area shows low density. There is a small area for medium density right there. What I'm wondering is the 4;:` Commission works awfully hard on these plans, why would we deviate from the plan if 5 ~.~~ 1 ~w '4'Aj~ ~ - iv t ~e l ~.. ~ d~;' ~ ~~~. wt rr{`~ ' t ~ h ray a : 3 x ~- j., i r S F. a F~ - ' x'r• ~' i a 5+~ .~ 1 ~+'Xa1 i~ m kY -7y 'Y x.a<ti~y. #~,':' r'yr i} ,: ~~:kti ~ ~{~;, ~.'~'~ ~' '~ ° C np~~.- r~' ~.1 .. , -. ~ P.. BI" k i ~ S. ~. '~ ~~ ~' .. - ,('.. - - k' ~-.•. ~ a a C'. t- ~. . V :i ~ ,~ - ' f ~.. _. fir'. - ~ ~ ~~ e + ;~'i w~ ti- ~_ .. ~_ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 18 of 80 this is what you have decided upon? So, clearly, low density is not being addressed by that particular plan. Pretty much everything else that I was going to address has been addressed and I just hope that you guys will deny the proposal. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Don Cantrell. Cantrell: Council members, I'm Don Cantrell. I guess I'm still -- anyway, I live there at 3000 East Lake Hazel. I have got the 30 acres here and I got these two lots here, as well as this. So, my property butts up to this portion here. I did notice that the lots did -- had grown previously to the last. My concern, once again, was -- is people over here, as we all know, we got the soccer fields. During the soccer on Saturday I anticipate from my housing going down to Eagle Road approximately to get to this point from here to hear is about a -- oh, about a 35, 40 minute stop, just because all the kids and all of the traffic. Once again, the traffic issue for me is really considerable, because everybody seems to come down Meridian Road down -- down to Lake Hazel, down to here, which everybody -- excuse me -- down over to here, which everybody is doing about 50 plus. Trying to get out of my parking lot in the morning is quite something different. Once again, at this point you got a stop light and so everybody that comes down here in the morning -- and there is an awful lot of traffic. I'm usually in my parking stall there for, you know, three to four minutes trying to come out. At that particular given junction, they are speeding to get to the stop light and, then, when I pull out to that point they are -- they are usually going around me, because they are in a hurry to get to work. If, indeed, if we are talking about another 800 homes -- I have been in Meridian since we have had 4,000 people. We went from, what, 4,000 to 72,000. So, you guys have had a lot of infrastructure here. I tried to move out as far as I could, hoping to alleviate most of the issues here, but, once again, they are here. With that being said, right here, which I have cattle out in here, when the soccer kids are out -- or if people -- they come over here and park, they walk their dogs. The dogs are out there, usually chasing my cattle. I got to get down on my four wheeler and chase the dogs away. I had requested, if, indeed, if this ever has the potential of coming in, to have a fence line along the property, so I didn't have the concern with the dogs, as well as the children getting into the pasture and in the horses for the liability concern. As we all do know that there is 1,564 homes for sale in Meridian right now. If, indeed, if we have got twice as many as what's being considered here, how many more homes does that put on the market as we speak? As well as, once again, the concern of the traffic. Where it used to take me five, six minutes, 17 to 22 minutes most mornings now. The last snow storm we had it was a 47 minute drive from here to Eagle Road because of the traffic. I thank you for your time. Moe: Thank you very much. Tim Foster. Foster: Good evening. My name is Tim Foster. I live at 2678 West Crossland Drive in Meridian. I own a lot in Black Rock Subdivision. And Mr. Thiel brought up the south Meridian Planning and Zoning recommendation, the new map, which I was under the assumption on February 22nd or 29th when the City Council met, that they actually approved this newer map, which if that would be the case, then, pretty much anything ~> s ~L_ j. ~`~~` ~ ~54Z Y .~. i ~ ~ty t $ ^ ~ ~ S y ~~" - ~ ~ % l pyi ;;~~ ~ 4S {{ ~~;: x "{~fbf y}~~ 4~u ~~ ~ A Y ~ ~ ~ 3. Y7r ~t1 }` LE If'f'17.1 ski tax t fin. ,~ ~~z L ':~ '~.?i i1 \ ~ tr X41 ~. ~ ~j/-- ~ ~ y r~' 4 1~ {~~ ... 1 ) ~rT ~F ~ ;. [ , y r ~ . xY. ~ r~' Y~. ire/ ~ '. 3 l ~,. ~ '~a~ ~s { - , w ,Y ~ , ~, f. G ,S .~ ~.t.'{k,, II~~,f, Jk ~~` ~ ~ '' ~ '~ ~ ES"~lA:.i~ ,y,, . . . ~~rr)) s ~' l t ~' f ~, .+ ,v y'41 + ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- s u ~ ~ ~: p i ` ~ . / ~i ~t~ ~ e y µ..ts3n. S, ~:_, s :~ ~ ~~ t , ~uy~r r ~l~`a" zsc _ L~ ' i K ~r k '~~' , c o- 9 f - fi Mr O L ~~'1. F ~1' ~ . ~i ~( -~. 5 ~ e .hy ~'~t. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 19 of 80 ~, ` you wanted to do in there was -- is not -- you know, doesn't fit within what they had said. '"' But another thing that I wanted to point out that has really bugged me. And I know it's ~.~~., the age old thing that money talks. They are putting out donations for this and donations for that and point out how, oh, we did this for you guys and -- what, as '4yr_ " homeowners, can we do for you guys, then? I mean if that's the case -- money really shouldn't matter. If they want to donate, that's great. You know, I'd love to have people donate for the cause to do this or that, but they are donating with stipulations and, oh, ~$ now we -- oh, you got a bigger park, so that's even more money. Well, yeah, okay, and, yeah, you're going to get all these taxes from them because of it, but, you know, I don't say, oh, hey, you know what, I'll give you a hundred dollars if you don't do this and -- it's ~~~~ the same thing. And in big businesses today it's -- you can't do that anymore. You can't go, oh, well, here, I'll take you out to dinner, I'll get you this. It's not allowed, at least in "' my line of work. We are frowned heavily against that. It's a big ethics thing. This to me ~~~~~ sounds like another big ethics deal. You know, if -- if they want to give a donation, that's - great, you know, and I love the fact of the park, I love the fact that they want to give this ~~ to Meridian, because we can all use more parks, but to use it as a bargaining tool is -- you know, it's not right. It's -- you know, Bridgetower where I live now, we have got a big park, we -- you know, we take care of it, but they didn't say, oh, you know, we will w~, give this to you guys if you give us our -- you know, what we want. They take care of it themselves, so -- and as for the cooing aspect, which is a great idea, I do agree with the ~~~ concept of it, but the enforcing thing is one that really concerns me, because, you know -- and, like I said, I live in Bridgetower, we have extensive CC&Rs on -- you know, you "~~ can't have trucks or this or that out and I have a neighbor that will not move his big utility ,,~ trailer out of his driveway, even though it's against our CC&Rs, he's not going to move it. Who is to say any of these guys in there are going to listen to what, you know, the ~;: management company has to say? You know, I would hope all of them do, but, you know, if -- if my neighbor won't listen to ours, what's going to make, you know, all these ~~~ people listen to theirs? So, if -- if by chance this -- this P&Z recommendation or the new plan isn't correct, I'd like to know, but that's pretty much all I have. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Well, I don't have any clue there. Any idea? Well, I'll tell you what, I can't read the name here, so if there was someone else that had signed up, please, come forward and tell me who it is and, if not, if there is anyone else that would like to speak, just raise your hand and we will take you one at a time to come up and speak. It starts with a J. That's all I can tell you. No one else to speak? Yes, sir, come forward. Sylvester: Hi. My name is Tom Sylvester. I live at 1910 South Marshwood Place in Meridian. My concem is if -- do we have the picture of -- that shows the driveway, the entryway to the subdivision that shows the landscaping there? When you -- when they had the elevation of that, it shows about a nine foot berm with -- with heavily wooded screens that go down both sides of that, so that it kind of shelters the -- or obscures the homes from the --from the street view. I went and drove down that -- up and down that a little bit ago. The berm is about three feet from the -- from the ground level up, so it's about a third of the height that shows in the -- in the elevation of it. And the trees are about one-third of what it showed in the picture as well. My concem is that the whole -- ,~~ ~~u ~~~ ~< YF ~ a~ _ ~j ~ ~ t 6 66 iiF . ~ s r 4b~~ 5• f, ?k R: ~ j • '~ ~ , . ~ t F~11.'~,1h Aid'. ~~ - aSaxy~ l l V ~f~~~N M1 ~ ~ , 1. ` i t ~f ~ w L' r +3 ', ~' , ~ n ~`1 i'' ` 4 n'~ ~'JZ~ ='_ r Y ff ,j~M1~~i.(~.M T ~ ! ~' ~ R ~ ,{( b y k~ 4'G ,~~ sW 4. ~ F tt~ f 1 Y x-4. y~t 4 X • 1 ~` 7V. ~~ a x; ` 1 y . ,~ ~'~~~~~~~ r ~ ` L ~ 3 n.._~y ~ g•~ ` ~ ~ Y ~~ ~ ` ~ ,~., d wk ~: ~_ S ~ ~~ ~t ~ '~1 ~y . 0. ?w 7r 1 4 ~~ atiz:r~ ~~r YF 3~',!t~2~ r ~~''~~ ~.. . ~'1 F F i 1 ~'` ~ Yt 7 ry _ .,F 2 ~~1nt Y ~'~SF y, A t A, Z4; 4jjy~ f 4 r `yy <~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning '''''~ '~ March 6, 2008 Page 20 of 80 ~~~~ the whole subdivision is going to be like this. That what they -- you know, it's a big song and dance here and shows what a great subdivision it's going to be with the cooing and with the park, but as I deliver around the valley, what I see Hubble promise and what ~~ the actuality of it is are two different things. These subdivisions don't age well. In 20 years it's not something that -- that I don't think most people look back on with a lot of pride in their neighborhood. I don't know why we have to put that there. I don't see the attraction. It's been -- it's been shot down and shot down and shot down and they keep trying to make it better and each time I think the things they do are better, but I just wish we could put a stake in the heart of this thing, because I don't think it's something that Meridian could be proud of. And I think that what they are advertising is not what they are actually coming through with. That's all I have. F'i* Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? Yes. Taylor: My name is Tim Taylor. I live at 1488 East Blue Tick in Meridian. I have a lot in w~'~~'e Black Rock Subdivision and I have also done quite a few subdivisions as a developer. have a couple of questions to start with. Are -- are all of the lots required to have the landscaping in place before they close? So, all phases, all lots? Great. And I ~~ understand that the developer is going to do the landscaping in the coved areas. Those 4'~r are good things. Is there still a traffic lot planned for the entrance off of Eagle Road? A traffic light? Okay. And I suppose that won't be there until they widen Eagle Road in ~- 2027. r .;rt. ;`T'`; Moe: Are you going to address us or are you just -- Sylvester: Sony. Sorry. My -- my other concern is, as Mr. Foster brought up, the -- s- the ability of the management company to monitor and -- and I guess enforce the maintenance of the landscaped areas and the homes themselves, this developer does have a good track record in their ability to have a management company that does that. "~'~~" ~ So, that is a huge concern. And other than that, I think they have made great progress ~~~~ ~ with their -- their homes and the design and the architectural materials. I think they `~4"~ have made good strides in requiring that the landscaping is in place, but I have a '"~~'~ concern that they won't be able to manage that and control it, so is that a promise to get ~;- ~ it approved and, then, we end up, like other subdivisions of this developer, where even ~~`~I' though things are in the CC&Rs, they aren't enforced and we end up with a -- a subdivision that our city could not be proud of. That's all. ~~-: Moe: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward? Okay. ~_~°~ Great. Would the applicant like to -- you have already been up, sir. You can't come ~-~~ back up. Would the applicant like to come up, please. ~~ I Hood: Mr. Chair, while the applicant's coming forward, if you want me to I can answer `~-`` ~ a couple of the questions that were kind of directed at staff during that time. ~:4.. Moe: I would like that, if you, please. ..- ~J fy- fi ~~' ,. ~ ~ r,~~` 6 ~ r"~- ~ ,' 'K rf~ ~ 4~.'~ ~ 3' i i~:ri -.i ~« c~~1. t ~ `- a ~ r ~ is ~r~`{'~ ~ t ~' ~ ~-~, ~~ ,. 4~~ ~P~~$ h - r ~'~ r a~-- ~ ~~ ~~~` ~ ~~ ~4' r- ~ '. .r 'c~oql~ ~ ~ ~ ,y r ~ ~ rSk4 a r :~.. f ~ ~'• 1 i Crz ;+ '? t ~' . ~' ~ ; ~ ~: ~ ~. ~} - J , F. - .}. w rsr~/~` r z ~ : t~,, ~ t f J ~~ji~~ F4 iq~ N l~ ~ q v _ =NY R £'~ ~ t •_ T; Ev u~~~~~' yt-~~s t' _~' ,~' G ~ .Q a~ a~.yTy~~~ ~~' J '`CCSC' x3'i.fi 1~ S •. `~. ~, Lei ri t es k y ~ ~ Z ~al ' 11.: ~" t ~ J s, yr.~`,Y c ' ~~;"~~ - ,{;. ~` Meridian Planning 8 Zoning .'v p, March 6, 2008 Page 21 of 80 "> ~ Hood: There was a question on the aerial that was up about the dotted purplish blue line and, in fact, this area is outside of the city's area of impact. We have a couple of „~;;;°~ other applications with Ada County trying to add some area to our area of impact, but properties do not have to be within our area of impact to annex them, they just have to be contiguous. So, this parcel is eligible for annexation, although it is not currently in '-_~ our area of impact. We are negotiating with Ada County. And, then, the Comp Plan designation that the other gentleman -- and, I'm song, I didn't catch your name, but the City Council just this last Tuesday did amend the future land use map and added more low density residential to this site than what is currently shown on this map. However, _ the applicant did submit their application when this was the Comp Plan that was in effect. So, we evaluated it based on this plan and not the -- not the Comp Plan map that was approved by resolution on Tuesday. ~; ~_, '~~~ Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Armstrong. .; ` Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Jerry Armstrong. I - would like to address the Fabricius, I believe it was, talking about the ACRD and the z r ~ a traffic problems out there and the number of units that are going to Amity. Just know . =F that the Ada County Highway District commissioners are the ones that approved and I recommended approval of this project. They are the stewards of the road system in ~``- ' Ada County and they have approved of this project. Carol Jarvis had a concern about '. the area of impact and I think staff explained that, that our property is adjacent to ,..;; annexed property, which is the White Bark Subdivision. Therefore, we can be -- request annexation into the city. Also, the purpose of the area of impact, just so that everybody understands that, that's an agreement with Ada County, which allows the city to go into .~ ~. _`" ` the planning phase or provide a Comprehensive Plan. You have done that. The fir', Comprehensive Plan that we are under, currently vest under, was approved by this Commission and by the City Council in October of 2006. The other issue that was ~ talked about was whether or not it complies with the -- the newer Comprehensive Plan '" ` that was just adopted on February 19th of '08 and I think we have a -- this is the south - Meridian study that was approved just February 19th, that's just last month, two, three r`='=~ ~ ~ weeks ago. If you look at our property on the low density, you take 180 acres that in the green, there is three units per acre allowed in this study. For the 44.27, which is `+"~-" medium density, which is reflected in the yellow, includes 44.27 acres. We are allowed ~'~~ up to eight units per acre. And that's 354 units. So, the total is 894. Again, the number `- z ~>-, of the housing units that you are allowed on the total land mass in this area under your , s ::~ current one is 894. So, the number of trips -- and the issue is why you approved this Comprehensive Plan was to limit the number of housing units on the roads in this area. ''~ ~' We comply with that. We are actually under, so it allows other people -- for you to improve -- increase densities in other parts of this area in there. Ray Eggleston brought ;y' up the issue of the school district. And could we have that other map? If you will notice, ~~ within this one mile section that's shown here, right in here, just north of our site right in ~~''~` here is designated a future potential school site. Within this one mile area here the -~_~~ .: , Meridian School District is providing for a new elementary school and the comment that ~ . ~'~- ?' was made was our subdivision will take up an entire school. That's not true. According ~`"~`" to the Meridian School District, this one school will service all the approved units that ~r~ ~ W; 't.~:. , ~z_ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 22 of 80 you have approved within that square mile. If it's -- if it goes out to that same density :~_;:~ that you allow on the ground and that's the way they plan schools. There is supposed to be a new elementary school in every square mile. So, I think that takes care of that ~A~~ issue. Also, Mr. Eggleston brought up the idea about the cooing being parking lots and `~ there wouldn't be adequate parking. In each of the driveways at all the houses there will ~``'' be two car parks in the driveway area, there will be two at the street curb side, so that's four. Every house will have a minimum of a two car garage. That's two more. That's six cars. Some owners will opt for a three car garage and it pushes it to seven. Also at the ends of our streets we will also allow for additional parking. So, there is no need to >a have parking lots on this site. The other issue that he brought up is -- was a previous ownership of this ground had made a commitment for a different style of housing and, r~F:r obviously, if that were financially feasible, they would have moved forward with that ~r>' project. Instead, they sold it to us. Justin Thiel brought up the idea of roads and traffic. Again, I believe those are under the purview of Ada County Highway District and they 3 have recommended approval. He also brought up the school site. I think we have addressed that. We have addressed the latest Comp Plan. Again, Don Cantrell brought up the same kinds of traffic issues and ACHD and, again, those are the people that they need to get in front of to lodge their complaints about traffic congestion in this area, because they are stewards of those -- those funds and we are contributing again ~~° 2.1 million dollars in impact fees to help with solving the traffic issues in this area. The other issue that was brought up, let's see, here was -- I think we have just about -- oh, it was a traffic light at Taconic and we are committed through the development agreement k,. ~~' to provide that signalization at the build out of the 400th lot. So, we are committed to do that -- that light. There is no way to get out of that. The other thing that I wanted to bring out is what's unique about this project -- the reason we proposed the design guidelines -- and those become a matter of regulatory for the City of Meridian, we are signing a development agreement, which includes those design guidelines, so we are ~~ ~~' committed to do those. They can withhold building permits on us, they can do all kinds ~"'' of other things if -- if we don't comply with those design guidelines and with the ~.:~' development agreement that we are about to sign for this. So, we have committed to r+, ~r``` ` these design guidelines and the higher quality of architecture within the development. And I hope that addresses I think all the issues, unless the Commission has other «~~=•< ;, questions that I didn't cover. ~~. ~.n.. ~~= ,~,: ,. - Moe: Mr. Armstrong, one thing that Don Cantrell also brought up, the -- discussing x fencing, that is between the project and his property on -- basically on the south side of your property. '`~ Armstrong: That was right along here, I believe. Moe: Yes. Armstrong: Yeah. We -- well, two things we are doing. One is are providing connectivity to his property in case he ever chooses to develop it. If he wants fencing along there, we'd certainly -- we can add that in. But we did all along his property add in these quarter acre lots. ~~::_~ Meridian Planning & Zoning i i March 6, 2008 ,, ~ Page 23 of 80 ~`~" Moe: Anyone else have any other questions? ~.~ Marshall: I do have a few little ones. One, back to the landscaping plan. And this is just internal and just kind of interesting to me. There is this canal here, right? And you got a little pond here. And I'm guessing it's been tiled up to the historic outlet up here; is `~ that correct? Armstrong: Okay. Let me explain how this works. Currently there is a lateral that comes in right here. It follows Taconic -- ~'~~ . Marshall: Oka Y• -- ri ht here and oes ri ht strai ht u north. Armstron 9~ 9 9 9 9 p .ti ~.~ ~' ~'~ ~ I Marshall: Right. <~' Armstrong: What we are doing is with the project board of control, it's actually a `"''~~~ lateral - #r . Marshall: Uh-huh. '~+I :, - ~ Armstrong: -- which is a lot smaller than a canal. ~~ Marshall: Okay. ~I Armstrong: And we have chosen to relocate that, so it becomes a new waterway and k,;.. ~ ' water feature through the project and will still serve the lands beyond, but we are going to improve that with natural landscaping. We will have liver rock in the bottom of it, but ,, ~;,a ~~ it flows clear water. }~ ~~~~ Marshall: It flows a fairly good flow; right? .`~~ Armstrong: It's about -- I would say on an average the deepest I have ever seen it is anywhere from 12 to 16 inches and it s probably, oh, three to four feet wide. ~;~ :~ ;fit ~' Marshall: Okay. So, you're going to probably have a trash rack here in the pond where your -- you know, some coverage here where you're going to pipe it, you're going to the `;~- it up to its historical outlet up there. I'm a little concerned about it being right next to a tot lot. ~'"- Armstrong: Well, this is -- right in -- in this area -- yeah, it will be fairly close, but at that ~ point, if you take that deep water and you spread it out, it's only going to be maybe four ~, to six inches deep. Marshall: Okay. My -- c .t'y a~~:; r.- ~f~:il x „~tia E c=: ~, pjp ~ ~~l~C ~' ~'1 q~6 c ~'! * x 7 ~' J~' +f.. 1 ~iT~.t r ` AJ ~• fif ~4 Y ~` -' ~~ ~.~ Qr ~. i ~" iS~.: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .r. ,! ~~ _ . ~~ ,~ I~ ':f Iy' ¢. " +` .. k i~ 1 ~~; I~+ ;it I . t J ', #.' ~ T , i i - a ~ ~~ r . Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 24 of 80 Armstrong: That's the idea of it. We are trying to create -- Marshall: I'm just thinking about three and four year olds in a tot lot -- Armstrong: Sure. Marshall: That's where you're attracting the little kids. x, '~~ Armstrong: Sure. ~:" Marshall: I mean older kids are all right, but little kids right next to something that's pouring in pretty -- I mean a lateral has got typically some decent flow. I mean it's -- you know, I can wade through it, it's not going to knock me down, but a three or four year old `~ ~ in a tot lot I'm pretty concerned about. Armstrong: Well, we could certainly look at relocating that tot lot, if that's the desire of this Commission. ~~r~~ Marshall: That's just one thing that concerns me there. I have some other questions for staff for later. Thank you. Moe: Any other commissioners have any questions for Mr. Armstrong? Okay. Thank ~~ ~ you very much. Armstrong: Thank you. ~~'~ Moe: Mr. Marshall, you said you had a couple questions for staff? ~~ Marshall: I do. Is there -- and I tried to find it in the Comprehensive Plan, but I believe there was some type of ordinance or something somewhere about the berm size against the major arterials and collectors and the like and especially considering 20-26 had some very large berm requirements and I can't seem to locate that anywhere. Is there -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, I can sure look that up. I know we have certain noise mitigation things along state highways. I'll look at along arterial streets and see what we have. I can recall some fencing standards along arterials and a maximum berm and slope height. I'll try to find what those are and give you those numbers here. ~t: -~ ~'~ Marshall: My thought being that three to five seemed to be fairly low up against Eagle is -- all right. Thank you. Moe: Any others? Okay. Well, Commissioners, comments you'd like to make before we close the Public Hearing or -- ! .7 •~ ~. ~j ~ iy I ~_ k.v ~~ N y ~ Q ~' ~ ~1~ti ~~ s ~1~ f ~ n~ - ~ ~~, i# 6 ~~~~~ =. a a r`° ~ _~ ? I d ~1 '~ t 4 .1 S~ c?.. i ~ r.:af C &...x to (.: ,nr~' Pi" ~ it ~'r { r S ~' ~3~~~~~~Af~ .t h f H 1G1' ~ ./_ ~ ~..,~L, i1C 4- 1 -t7.L JY .y+ y~ y n r c. .. li.>i x..r - _ v~2 J ~. ` F ^e a ~ _ j Y` 6 r c;; ~, . . ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 25 of 80 O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. ~-_~ Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: --of staff. Caleb, so I -- I'd like to go through the chronology of events of the ~: purchase of this property. It seems like the very first time that they tried to obtain ~~~~`~ approval for some homes it was like 264, something like that, and I believe it was for +.` this area right in here. And it was denied. And, then, I think it was after that that they purchased in Castle Rock and the remaining acres that we have before us today. At `~+:` r_,:: what point do they -- are they granted grandfather rights to the Comprehensive Plan it that was basically put before us before the one that we currently have approved? Is there something there that -- did they start over again at some point after that first one was denied a couple years ago or are they still -- it just seems like there is a conflict between the old Comprehensive Plan and the one we have now or the old designation. ~""_~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, I think I follow you. This area has changed. ~;~ I think it was 2006 that the designation was changed on the future land use map to what -= ! you see today and it was just recently acted on by the Council mid February and, then, they just approved the resolution this week. You're not grandfathered in with any of your designations. Those are subject to change. When you come into apply for u want to do on ran hin o annexation or relimina lat or conditional use ermit o yt g y p rY p p ~~;°~, your property, the Comp Plan map that's in effect at that time of submittal is the one that ~~.~, -- whatever you're trying to do is reviewed against. So, I don't know all of the ~~. chronology of when things were sold -- bought and sold and I could probably find the ~' last designation on this property before the one that you're looking at there, but it really "; ~: '~~~' isn't relevant to what's going on today. I'm not quite sure if that's what you're asking or ~; not. O'Brien: Yeah. My concern was -- I thought we had approved this last year, but if you say it just went before Council recently, then, I guess we have to go according to this plan here now. Hood: And maybe I should clarify a little bit more. The Commission did forward on a ~ recommendation to the Council on south Meridian last year. It just how made it through ~~ the City Council in February. So, there were was some lag time since when you saw that in November to when they approved it in February. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Chairman Moe, I did have one more question for the applicant. ~ Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Armstrong would you, please, come back up? n ' +45 ~~~,yy4.j f i t ~ -*' 91i+iU x.~~,:, ~ Tn~T,~, -~r'i r, L t`.: ~. ~.~,`, :..-~:-4 ~i.Y .j.! i.Y:'. l i 1. i ~ ~: F3. * j ~"z~~z' ~' '`, rya ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~' ,, } ~`~ + • .s ~Y ~ t~ ~8~++ ~ ~ .r: ,,y - ~# _`'!~ r :ji;. ^' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 26 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, while he's on his way up, can I -- I just want to ask just a quick question of Caleb. This still has the step up request in it, though; correct? In the ~r~ density on the R-8 side or that -- we are removing that now? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I believe that they had a slide in their presentation that show that they were right at 2.98 I think was the number in the '~~~',~ low density. I don't remember what the medium was. But it goes up to eight. So, think they are probably below eight. And that line that's on here isn't an exact line. You couldn't go out on the ground and figure out exactly where that line is. But it looks like that's how we made the -- in the staff report a recommendation for approval. It appears -~' ~~ that it is within the guidelines of this density. ~~ ~;;; ~~: ~_ Newton-Huckabay: I hadn't seen it, but, then, I didn't before it had a stub up, so -- okay. 'fi,~. Thank you. ~:-,; Moe: Just go right ahead, Mr. Marshall. `~ ~ ~~ Marshall: Thank you. I -- about the higher density there in the center, on your &'--~~~~~ application it says -- and I was trying to understand how the -- could we get the slide up ~~ that shows the plan there? In this area right in here. Okay. It states some minor modifications to the underlying zoning designation are necessary. Okay. Here we go. < <. ~~; This easement allows the neighboring property owner to the west to use, maintain, and benefit the westerly five feet of their neighbor to the south's property. Okay. I'm ~~ assuming you're saying the neighbor to the east's property, because you're looking at ~`"t east-west. So, this guy's going to take the five foot -- the guy to the east's five foot. Okay. So, as I'm looking at this, you have a plot plan here for a comer lot within that '"=~ area that shows the house on the comer directly up against the east property line and it shows the 16 feet or so -- 15, 16 foot side yards. But when we get to the comer, the very end down here, the last guy is going to be on that property line or the guy on this ~y. side's going to be on the property line. One side or the other, depending how we r:°x interpret this -- somebody's not going to have a side yard or an extra five feet. I'm not ,, . sure how that works. Armstrong: Can we have the slide of that -- those Village units, the site plan? That will explain that. Okay. I think this is what you're talking about. What happens here is the property line for this property sets off five feet. This area right along in here. And, then, this area over here -- right at this point where that garage is, it's about 20 some odd feet wide at this area here. It's around 12 to 16 feet. What happens is the next house sets off five feet from this property line -- Marshall: Which would be this five foot on the next site; right. Armstrong: On the next site. So, what happens is there is a use and benefit agreement that this owner gets to use this ground and this wall here there wouldn't be any low windows. There could be some high windows in there, but, basically, this owner here would have the use and benefit of that entire side yard. Therefore, their yard gets much ~_ .~ Yt ~,~, ^: ~, ~, ; ,; ~ Yom= - t.~:, R Y„t ~~~. ~. h.H ~•-1 k ,!` ~~ J7 ~a ~. . y Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 27 of 80 larger on that side of the house. Okay. Now, go to the corner. I think we have a comer lot. ~~ ~ Marshall: I got one on my page 22 here. Armstrong: Let's see. Okay. I'll look on the staff report here and show you. Page 22? ~~ Marshall: Yeah. Well, you're -- yeah. Twenty-two. It shows that house entirely on the p_ west side, which would be, essentially, right along that boundary line, leaving five feet between house and house. And the property -- the lot size is exactly the same on the „~~,~~ far west, not giving any room to move that out. Armstrong: Yeah. I don't have the -- that in front of me, I guess. Let's go back to that site plan. I think -- I think it will explain it, because there is a lot of right of way that is along there. Right along here at the ends is all these blocks. There is additional space `Y'~~~ at the ends of -- of these lots. So, you can flip flop the floor plans in those areas and k~ still end up with the same usable amount of area, so there is excess area at the ends of ~,' ,~ all of those lots. .,~.: ~.:: ;; Marshall: I'm not seeing that on here. The setback and things like that shows that right up against that property line and -- ~- Armstrong: Yeah. What you see in this particular case is the ten feet, plus you have a ~<~F use and benefit of this additional land out to this side here. Marshall: So, to get that -- but you only have five feet between that and the house to the east, so if you're going to push that house -- so, you have the space between those houses, you have got to push that house out to the right of way. Armstrong: Yeah. In this case those houses would be flip flopped on the side, so you always end up with the 16 feet. No matter which block you're in, you will always end up with that 15 to 16 feet always. Marshall: I'm not sure I understand how you're going to flip flop that, but okay. Armstrong: It's just that this is drawn on the opposite end, if all the units were flipped the other way. Marshall: It shows it on the east end. Okay. Armstrong: No. I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the -- if you took that last site plan and flip flopped it, then, it would all make sense to you. Marshall: Okay. x, ,~ .~ ;:; ~ ~ r , ''~ r:2~. ,~. . 2 .~ .kr x } g 3•L ry,j 6 ~r t F ~ /3~*•. A I ~y~ f Y 'r .; ~ .f ,~~ ~~ F a,? ~,~ S {a s i ~' a k S`4Y 4 ;-'~^t~~ Eli _r 7'1 S ,~.~d4 '~'. r:.~ ~ S[ ~ ~ 1-y ~~~ ~ ~ V K~~: 1 F i ~ .. ~ ~~ ~-: f r~~. !!f S 1. ~`9 _r '~ ~ 5 n }+~ ~~ s e -t s~~' 2 ~. ` ,R ~t~. - „ .. ,J~.w+ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f 1. - ,. 1 ~ ~ r ~~ _~ k 1 r - ~ ~ a~ r ~ kT~ ~ ~ t tY r 1~: ', ~.'rY ~1 f ~~ t.. ~ .. } ~ r ~. ~ f 4~''`` ~ ~ ~- 9. ~4- ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 28 of 80 Armstrong: And that's how we plan on laying them out. And that's -- that's how we do it. We want everybody to have side yards. We won't be able to sell them if they only -:~ had a five foot side yard. ~r.'1 Marshall: See, if you flip the other one I see you got the other problem -- the problem on the far end of the block. The lots on the two ends, according to the preliminary plat, are actually smaller than the lots in between, simply because you cut the comers off. So, the same size lot. Now, that means, yes, you have got the right of way, but to get ~~ the space between that last house and the next house next to it, you got to push that ~;~~ house out to the right of way. ~.~~:. L,,r Armstrong: No. Marshall: Okay. That's all I had. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. <;, :~- }I ,_~. O'Brien: Yeah. A question. I read somewhere in the material -- I can't find it at the moment -- but regarding the -- the installation of landscaping by the homeowner. I read ~`-I somewhere it was 30 days after signing, not at the day of signing. Is that -- do you ~`±` ~~:~ remember that or not? I couldn't find it -- _ , ~, Armstrong: No. We committed to -- that landscape has to be in at closing. They can't close on their house unless it's in. Yeah. The additional. If they choose to put in additional, they have 30 days. O'Brien: I thought that was part of the plan that they had to put at least one tree and =~; several shrubs within -- is that true? Armstrong: We -- that's true. We put in the sod and the sprinkling system. O'Brien: Okay. And that will be done by the day of closing. Armstrong: Yes. O'Brien: Okay. I got it. Thank you. Armstrong: Okay. Does that make sense? Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Armstrong: Thank you. Moe: Commissioner Rohm, do you have any comments? ~ -. ~. rr. 1;. F ~, M }~~, ~~ Y; ~q ~ 5~'~S ir:~ lr~.. } v- O:~ a ~ ~ ~K- 1 ~ { ~ ti fat.~~ J~ ~ ; ~. ky- ',` ~~ ct M^ i x ~. a~Y • ' ,~' ~ 4 3t" _ i7. e t 1 r v ,f - r 5 r + t ;, :~""~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • ~` ~ March 6, 2008 ~~ Page 29 of 80 Rohm: I think we have pretty well hashed everything over and I think we could probably tii'~ close the Public Hearing at this time and, then, we can have our final discussion '`~`'~ amongst Commission and move forward from there. Moe: Does that mean that you're planning to do that? ~! Rohm: I will, sir. At this time I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ h`d 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. "-~ Marshall: Second. Moe: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? - . That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~= ~,~i Moe: Mr. Rohm, now do you have any comments? ~' `_'' Rohm: I do. And, first of all, I want to thank each of you for your testimonies tonight and -- and I think the developers have tried very hard to at least take your concerns into ~~~y'" consideration at every juncture. The -- the significant issue has always been, to me, in ~~- ", any development is this road issue and throughout Ada County and specifically in the '-=~~ City of Meridian all this development occurs and we still have an infrastructure that is ";~.: ~ inferior. The fact of the matter is -- is if -- in my opinion, is if we stopped development, infrastructure improvements would also stop. It's not going to -- until we have a developed mile, that mile is not going to be addressed by Ada County Highway District. So, the argument that the infrastructure is not there to handle the additional lots -- it may i ~.' be valid, but it isn't ever going to change under our existing system of government that ~...,~ ~f~: we have in this state of Idaho. I travel a lot to Arizona. Igo down to Phoenix, oh, probably a month a year and it's amazing how they will build out a hundred percent of the infrastructure maybe ten miles out from the city and they have five lane roads going 4~~ ~" north, south, east, west and no development. I don't have a clue how they do that, but ':'' `~ mean -- but we don't have that available to us here. And albeit that I -- I agree with '~-' everybody that spoke to the infrastructure, the roadway, I personally don't think that it's ~~ ever going to change until our state government changes the way funding occurs or t•~I, impact fees are collected or any number of different venues. But roadways I just don't believe are ever going to come ahead of development. So, that's my little speech on roadways. The second comment that I have is the Hubble development versus a ,= t,k~, subdivision of custom homes. I have been driving around this community for a good `~;;;..~ number of years and, you know what, there are vacancies in every single subdivision and there are for rent signs even in subdivisions down in Eagle that are supposed to be the high end subdivisions and the fact of the matter is -- is, again, from my perspective, is these constructions of homes that are available to the populous that occupy the jobs in our community, they are essential. If you don't have developments like this, I'm not sure where people reside. So, I actually applaud them for their considerations for the ~s, Y ="' Y ~r w .- 3 ~: ~ d ~~~ ~ ~ rs ,jt,~ H .c.~_ i,{~ i o e.k.. .,a -.^ ~ 4 y~k ~ kk ~ ~ i .:~~ t~ 4 Y ' ~'~ ~ ~~~: ~ l r If' ~~ s Ll v _Lgr P ~~~ x ~ . ~" ~ ,f y~ ~ ~- ~:, - „if ,,$~S R y: xn 1-.1.~ ,~ i_J L ¢L f i ~ ~~ ~ ~x ~ ywy,~ ~ i {{~~,,j},~~~~ i~ 'q_ X15.'.3 c ."1 ,. ,.:fix t, ~ i yr ,,~.;, n= 4 } = 7 "r F 4 i~ ~~ »? R { ~'i 7y" Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • March 6, 2008 Page 30 of 80 `~~ parkways, the open spaces, and the development as a whole. So, that speaks to that. The fact that this property is outside of our current area of impact, I think staff spoke to ~~~ that, that it is adjacent to property that has currently been annexed and it has always `~ been the city's prerogative to extend annexation to adjacent properties and I think that =~ ' this project certainly falls within that provision. The last thing I wanted to speak to is the -- the design guidelines for the structures themselves and it is my opinion that we have {- a very good building code in the state of Idaho that requires that every structure that's ry.= built be built to minimum standards that are in the best interest of the homeowner themselves, whereas they have proper insulation levels, proper wiring schemes, proper ~~ heating and air conditioning and duct work, all of that stuff that is provided for in state >-;; ~ code under the building codes or the building permits would not be issued in the first place. So, I think that from my perspective, the fact that it is one developer versus another carries no weight. And that's the end of my talk. Thank you. ;~.~ ;;~;,;J,~ Moe: Thank you, Mr. Rohm. Mr. O Brien, would you have any comments? k>.w;Y~', O'Brien: I'll defer for a few minutes, please. sk,{ Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall. -'I -~ ~;:I Marshall: Well, to be honest, I really like the cooing idea. I have seen in other states ?4j`„ where it works quite well. I haven't seen any around here. But it is a very nice idea in ,.,;F; ~F ~~~ creatin an attractive streetscape. I like all the o en s ace. I like the trails. I think we ;Y. g P P definitely have a need for a less expensive area -- area where you can buy houses that x,~?~ I are a little more affordable, whereas the price of land has gone through the roof, for a lot "~ ~ ' ~ of people that becomes a very difficult purchase and this might be an option for a lot people. I am concerned about the roadways. That is a concern of mine. I feel that this ewe know it's on the outskirts and ty . ~~ area was zoned low and medium densi , becaus more of our infrastructure is in towards -- and we are trying to get the denser -- higher :; . I density areas in towards the traffic areas, the areas where we have infrastructure to ~ handle that traffic. I have to admit it's not a high density, but I am concerned -- I see there is a lot development in that area -- along that area going out that way that appears ~~; to be going medium density and that could put a lot of strain on that roadway. I mean to those ends I like the development itself. I do like the fact that there is a 50 foot or 40 foot elevation difference between the Black Rock and the Castle Rock to alleviate some `~,~ issues there. I like the park and the ability to have that up against the hillside there. I don't like the tot lot next to the irrigation lateral. I guess those are my -- my thoughts ~~ right now. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Chair, Members of the Commission, I was reviewing back over my comments on the first -- the first design that they had and based on the recommendations that we made to City Council for the reason that we denied this applicant in the first place, one of them being that we wanted to see the density moved into the interior of the project, I wanted to see larger lots on the exterior of the project f ~ ;' a; 1,J% ,'~ - --r 4 , ^yI ~t .y 'S `a~r~Nt i..~ !n Tom' Y ., ,(,1 '1 ~ .t ~~ 4 - ~~ ~ fi m ~'? ~ ~ r+ Y3 ~1 4 ..'.t Y ~3Q ~.-y~ ,ts ~.~~a~-'j y t ~.~~5 ~ ~s,' 1.;~' ~~4 4 :'f t~ r;~ + i ~~ , ~ G~ ~ ~T r' L f-~ , !}:~ E' i ^~ '• ~,``~~F S ~ '~ ~ +e.~j ~~ ''Lx~~ f "" ~~~ S * 4 i f ~L~. ~ ~' ~ ? f, ¢~ ~ 4~ /~ ~i ~':r T ~ t z ~i ~ e7s , ~ ~ ~~ 1:. ~ EJ x ~ Y~ ~ ~ 5 ~r r « ~, --i a. _ ,t.... iP i t r , f y ,+ _ ~ , <i Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 31 of 80 , k~= ~~: ,.r., Y ~'~ 4.,~: :~: ~: Ft..' , ~~~1 ~, r,w..: ~~. rr~~;.~ x~~ ~i =~;.:~:i ~~~ i.~,•, r °~r .._ . ~,`. and, then, the City Council wanted the issue with Eagle and Victory Road addressed, maintenance considerations for the coved areas and, then, a reconsideration with the new comprehensive -- south Meridian comprehensive plan, as well as a stub on the -- on the car itself -- Carlyle Way to Ten Mile Creek. That said that the applicant has addressed all of those issues that have been sent before us. They have moved the density more into the interior of the project. They have moved the park. They have provided some funds to -- for the Victory and Eagle Road intersection, which I, myself, was extremely disappointed when that was taken out of the plan that was suppose to start this year I thought, so hopefully that will push that back over the edge. They are providing two other stop lights at busy intersections, which I think is -- you know, off-site improvements are always nice to help move those -- that infrastructure along, given the current state -- the way that we handle infrastructure here in the city. I also like the cove concept. I think that -- my only concerns with that is I cannot visualize exactly how the driveways would look across that, but on paper I like the idea. And it does meet the Comp Plan for south Meridian. It didn't before and it does fall with the Comp Plan for south Meridian now. So, those are the positive things or -- depending upon which side of the issue you stand on. We do have the ovemding issue; neighbors are very much against having this development so near their homes. There have been lots of recent Comp Plan changes and as a resident in south Meridian it's probably very difficult to keep up with all those and we have been working on that Comp Plan in front of us for the last couple years. I believe we have seen multiple times, so I know that's very -- a very high frustration, especially if you may have purchased a property in the last 18 months. It is a dense project. But, again, it does meet the plan. The fact that they are Hubble Homes is a huge concern for neighbors, but, again, they do meet a market need for the mainly service based employment area. My biggest hesitation on this development is that is so large and given the market the way it is today, anytime we have a large development come through -- this is not going to build out in 18 months. This is going to build out in five to 15 years, given the current market that we have. It's always very hard to plan a subdivision that isn't going to build out for 15 years and know how the market is going to stand. So that is my biggest concern anytime we are approving residential right now, as we have a lot of residential approved around there and is the market going to bear this development five years from now or are we going to have to come in and do it again? Is it going to get denser, so -- but Ithink -- I don't really have any other comments, really. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm not going to belabor the evening any -- too much more. In regard to comments between Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Mr. Rohm, a lot of my same sentiments -- this does meet the Comp Plan at the present time and there are still a couple things that I am still a little bit unsure on and one being the -- the South Carlyle Way in regards to a stub to the east. The applicant is saying that they would grant a 42 inch -- 42 foot wide easement through there, but at the same point if that property, then, developed they would have to come back in and construct back into this property to make that work within that easement. I would rather, quite frankly, like to see them at least come to the property line, you know, this sign -- you know, and stop at that point, so that it's developed up to that point. I realize they don't want to put the bridge in is what I'm gathering is a big point here. But I'd rather at least see the ~: r.{~~ jI w~.~~. A ~ ~ s ~' . 1 ~+ l ~ .t y ~~' l r ~ u- Y' Y x x4 ~~ ,~. ~5.~~ .. L Sip ~Y+t . ~~. ~ 7 ~ /+~A ~+J,~, :: t.^ ik is :Y.:C ..,~ r. i.::ti t i ~ >• `' c 1 1• L 1 t_ , 1• Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 32 of 80 development come to that point with the street going through to that point before a bridge would be built. Newton-Huckabay: To the canal? Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: A road to the canal? Moe: Yeah. You know, basically, right in here, bring it to that point. The other thing -- and the one thing that I have not seen tonight -- do we have a drawing on the phasing plan for this project? ~`~ Hood: Mr. Chair, I didn't include that in the slides. I have a hard copy in the file, I can probably try to find that, but didn't -- I didn't make a slide. I didn't see it in the applicant's presentation. Moe: Okay. Well, I guess what I -- basically I would like to just kind of verify a little bit, as I understand phase one is anticipated to be in this area right here, whereas this area here -- I think this is like area three. But Ijust -- I'm a little bit concerned with, you know, they go ahead and may get started in area one and, then, it's -- how long is it going to take to get to this -- Newton-Huckabay: (Inaudible). Moe: Well, that's my concern. And, then, we haven't really done much for this entire development, especially for these people up here, if this is all that's being developed. And so I guess I'd kind of like to get a little bit better handle on the phasing plan and see what could happen as far as trying to do a little bit more of the work in this area before we start just targeting one spot right there. That's just an opinion. I saw that in our -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I looked at it this afternoon, too. Moe: I did, too, and I can't find it since. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Moe: Would anyone be opposed if I -- if we reopened the Public Hearing to talk to the applicant and he could address that for us? Rohm: I think that would be appropriate. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, there it is. Moe: Never mind. We won't have to do that. Okay. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ~' March 6, 2008 Page 33 of 80 N ~~ Newton-Huckabay: It's on page 9 -- Exhibit B, page 9, of the staff report phasing plan. Phase one will enter in here and comes up to -- it looks like it comes to here, then, `~'~ crosses over here, down here, through here and down. So, phase one right in this area ~:~ here. So, it's the alley loaded -- ~~.,~~ Moe: Southeast, then? Y Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The southeast comer. And, then, phase two would cover ~~ this area here. Phase three would incorporate the park, so that connect comes -- it looks like it comes up around here like that. And, then, phase four is right about this g~~ middle area here. Then, phase five takes up -- I guess this was, I think, the Legends in °~ here. And six was up in this area here. And seven this area here. And, then, eight ~`° was this real low density stuff here. Moe: Okay. "', Newton-Huckabay: So, we have eight phases starting here, working its way up around this way, filling out up through here and, then, wrapping around here. And, then, ~---~ coming back and filling this in later. Moe: I hadn't heard that -- no other comments from the Commissioners, so when you look through that, I assume, then, that no one had any problems with the phasing. Newton-Huckabay: Well, if it all fell apart, this would be the most likely to come back in for redevelopment, as would the -- so, the perimeter would be the most likely to come back in for redevelopment on the north side. ~:_~ Moe: Thank you, Commissioner, for going through that for me. I had no other ~;.;:; comment, so Mr. O'Brien. `~~`~ ~ ~ O'Brien: Yes. I'll try to keep it short. I agree with the rest of the Commissioners on the ;:.,: ~~' layout. I really like the location of the park and the increased size and the frontage, et cetera. The -- but I have a concern of the traffic within the subdivision itself at one point. -~`` It seems to me, es eciall with -- with the amount of traffic that this area here will x p Y generate, versus this and versus that, it's going to be a -- pretty much of a bottleneck here, especially when the school goes in and these stubs go off to Amity, it's going to be ~~~~~, an issue. And could we have the overhead of Google, please? So, I'm concerned with -- my concerns really go along with the owner of this property in here and the amount of `~'~~~~ time it takes now with current traffic as it is and the bottleneck that it creates, especially ~~„;r'I putting signals here, signals here and, then, another one at Victory and Eagle, it's going to put a considerable load on Locust Grove and it's not slated for any improvements ~;~`~ until late 2020. This is a very narrow roadway and it has some swales, if you will, along there that sometimes can be dangerous, because people speed along there, as well as speeding along Lake Hazel and Eagle Road as much as they can. So, those are ` -~'~ concerns about the amount of traffic that's going to generate by this -- by this plan. ,~ -t also have a concern with moving what I call the urbanite line, changing urban areas 1 r ,,. ~ ,~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i t b-ty, `~ s - i ~- ,,,y ~ i. 4~~+~ ~ z z~. ~ 4 {~F + K yy ~y G ~ 4 ~b' ~d~~ < ~ ~ "f - yayvtf ; cf` IK. A ~. ~ ~ S, 'Y S Z' ~ q L¢ !, ~ } t ~ i ~~"~ ~Y +,~ S y~~ ~"I l 5cr ~ ~ M J ~.7 '~ _. .~ ii ~ ~ 7t~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ~ 3d5 ' `" ~~ ' . ; M r ~. ._akj w ~'~ ~~ ! ~ ~? ` ~?:. 's• ~ i F Sci~'~ }~} , ~ .: 1'. A ¢ i ~_ ~ ~9y i; y~ ~_M 4 x~ ~~ ~ T t r ~~ F' ~E.Ly'7.r s:,' ~~ Q, ~ Y~ ~; ~:=,., ~= Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 34 of 80 closer to Overland Road and trying to, basically, compress the transition between Meridian City and Kuna by using this -- this area as -- as an urban center where what I heard from the community is they certainly would like to keep it as rural possible and I heard more negatives about this than I heard positive, so that concerns me that, you know, are we really doing the community a service and the City of Meridian along with it. What is the right thing to do, what is not? So, I have those things in the back of my mind I'm concerned with. Density, we have to follow the guidelines. I think they did a good job in trying to work out those issues. I'm still concerned about the amount of density that it will create in this area, but, again, it follows the guidelines. And that's what they are, they are guidelines. I think that when I first came into this position one of the things the -- that I was informed of is that it may be the right -- it may be they look to be the right thing to do, it meets all of the goals that -- it satisfies the development code, but is it the right thing to do and that's what bothers me so much. Is this the right thing for this area. It's very unique in that it has a nice area here that rises up and looking down over that valley it's pretty nice. And so I'm concerned with those kind of things turning it into an urban parking lot and lessening the transition between our city and Boise and Kuna. So, I'm going with that as my major concerns, the traffic, the rural -- or urbanization of it and the infrastructure of the traffic. So, that's all I have to say about that. Thank you. Moe: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question of Commissioner O'Brien. Well, if we have a development that meets the Comprehensive Plan and the density is within that Comprehensive Plan guideline, what is our -- what is your -- our basis as a Commission -- what is acceptable in there? Something substandard from the Comprehensive Plan, which we have as being an acceptable density on the Comprehensive Plan? I mean I -- for the most part I agree with what you're saying, I have some issues about whether or not this is the right development for this area, but if it cannot be -- if it doesn't meet the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, but yet it meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, what is the -- what's the alternative for somebody to develop this property? O'Brien: I agree with you all the way. I -- I don't know. We need all those criteria, but sometimes it's just down in your gut and my gut feels like this is just the not right -- it's just not the right fit and I think the community -- every one of the members that I have heard, including people I have talked with at the neighborhood meetings, say they want to have us maintain a rural atmosphere and as much open space as they can, thinking at the time it was already too late to go through that exercise to try to change the Comprehensive Plan, because it's already -- it was already said and done that it's going to be a -- what we are getting. And so it's a moot point. It doesn't mean I have to like it. i~ fq, k $.C E (~zal ~''4 G.y ~ - :~_ I ± £ . ~~ ~3~"1 x l y ~ t +r~ ..` ~~~' .` ~ G 4 5 k. Z n t+YF ~fi' f y ~Y I ~~ ` ' 4''~' 4: r ~+ ~,~~~'~' ~~ n A j L ~ £~ 7 ~ ~ ~ y h ty 5 t t t ~f.,.wk~.f P ~ A~ ~ x f ~ ~ 11 r ~. ill- ~ t• Y..:~~~~' ~~~~_ "i YF r N~~° ~ ~~~ ~ y ~~ ~,. ~t ~~,Ap~ c .tl J#~`1~ ~, z r U .f"~ ~, rv - x~i ~ E~ 1~ ~ $ T° i ~ s Z i~Q ~~;? ~ ~{; _ / F ~:, ^ .~ a ~ {., A'.A~ 4 ~ ~h F h ~ .. J ,.. 4¢ ~ i k ^ wear £ 1 k~~u /~~ s. , 7 ~ y~ h F-. R t- ~ k.-i fs ~~~ { fi S + M: ~5." 7 ~ r.Iy~ .~' y~'i~ Meridian Planning i~ Zoning ~ • March 6, 2008 Page 35 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Would it make a difference if they were all Kastera Homes instead of Hubble Homes? O'Brien: I have no idea what -- what they are. I just think that the spirit of the __~ community was that they'd like to see it more open space and there is nothing they can do about that. They agree they think it was R-4, but it's really compressed I think of spaces that they thought it would not be. •~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking just like specific lot size? O'Brien: Well, yeah, the lot sizes are very, very small. I mean -- if you will. I'm against row houses. I think that's an eye sore. It's just too compressed, too condensed, and a. especially right next to that entrance to Eagle Road when you get a lot of people going out of there between 6:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the morning you're going to have a backup there right at the intersection of Taconic Drive. These things just don't jell with me very well. We are just asking for problems and I can't put a nail on one particular %rtV i one, but you add them all together and they say this big red flag. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. ~'I Moe: Well, thank you for your comment, Mr. O'Brien. Do we have anyone getting close to making a motion? ~:. Rohm: I -- ~~~'~~ Moe: Before we go -- I do want to make sure that we all understand that -- and, trust me, I'm not asking to sway a vote one way or the other, but if, in fact, a motion does A ~~', ! come that is for a denial and whatnot, we will -- this Commission has in the past been .:: ~;` directed that if, in fact, we do go with a denial, basically, we would like to be able to direct the applicant as to what they could do in order for us to possibly look at it in a ~~~~~ different vein, just like we did the first time they came through with this. So, having said ~. ;~_z that, the maker of the motion, the other thing I want to make sure that we go through is `y~` would you, please, add the 42 foot easement that they are willing to grant at South ~~ Carlyle Way, the stub, if, in fact, that's all we do. Yes, Mr. Marshall. :;.., ~~,-.~ Marshall: And a fence up against -- Moe: Mr. Cantrell's property I believe it was. -~:~; Marshall: Yes. Yes. It was Don Cantrell. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. ;~~, °~. ~ ~~. ,K ~ tf ~, '~~~~ j~; < ~s~ F~ ~' r s~ ~ ,~ ~~ Y ~~i 1 ~~ i r 3 ;ty,';~'F ~' w ra? ,~ s' r cy' ¢ -, ~.-r _ t . L-f i F~ t i.,:, ,i 1 .t -/M1l~. Y ~• ~'~ r-. ~~ '~,; r ~ .,r r ti s ,e < f ~a~~ " is S 4 ~~ 4. 6r '~ ~ - ~ ,f ~ ~ L # .. F• Ep q ~ S > ~ ~ -`~9~ b. .t~ s t~E~ r r: ~` ~ ~;*t,r x6 ti 4. ~' i 4 1 Y'~ _ _ q dr ~' ~. ,,. J }.-1 f l d r r - ~~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~. ~~' r~ 4 Y~ `~ .'~iu ._'~ r. ~, ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • R'°' March 6, 2008 :tea. Page 36 of 80 ~~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall also had suggested moving the tot lot away from the water feature. „~ ~'R~ Moe: Yes. That is correct. I believe that would be a great idea. Rohm: Forty-two foot easement along Carlyle Way. Move the tot lot. What was the ~~ third one? ~~ ~*'~~ Marshall: Fencing against Mr. Carlyle's -- Mr. Cantrell's -- Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? .Y .. Moe: Mr. Rohm. ~x~,e~ ti„' ~ Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of ~~~ ~ !~ AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001, to include the staff report with the following =" °I modifications: That the developer provide a 42 foot easement along the Carlyle Way as was in discussion. Work with staff to relocate the tot lot within the subdivision. And, three, place a fence along the Don Carlyle -- Don Cantrell property. End of motion. ~'~*; Moe: Do I have a second? Marshall: I'll second. .;~,: C" {' Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approving of AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same ~~, sign? That would be a three to two approval. That motion carries. ~~~°; MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ~~~ ~.: Moe: It's about ten after 9:00. We usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock. We will adjourn ~v,:'y~ and come back at 25 after the hour. x ~. (Recess.) ;_;.~. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of ~````~`! 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and C-C (1.15 acres) zones `. for Reaencv at River Valley (REVISED) by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 N. <,: Eagle Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Reaencv at River Valley by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reopen the P&Z hearing for this evening and open the Public Hearing for AZ 08-003, request for annexation and zoning of Regency at y ~ ~~ .. ;~' L.1. ~ t ~ 9z ~r ~ t-. ck, I fi`' ' ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ 2 b s E a a~~.x` k ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ 7~: yc. '1 i i; i Y -t. t ~± i p Mi', ' h" t~ ~' N V~ ~w ~ ~t4 R f ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~V ~ Li 2r} ~ 1: t-r ".Y Y L {. ,,1 , M i N 1 M"f: v]' -,7- t 1.~'%~~ ~* aR. t ~ ~~ `~` )~~ i c'~ ~;. r ,d,. ~ F ~ l~'$'r~TYE~ T'k +: .T. -.. , . ~.. b vib ~ 3C ,", a ;~ ti , s 4 F' C k v i>. Y f.~ Y. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 37 of 80 River Valley, as well as the Public Hearing for CUP 08-004, also Regency at River Valley. And begin with the staff report, please. .,~ :i t' F~ ~~ Y„ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did just want to start with your agenda real quick. There is a revised behind your annexation for this project. The reason the revised was added is in 2006 there was also another project -- in fact, on this property that came through with the same name. So, the revised was kind of thrown in as an afterthought, but really meant to differentiate between the 2006 application and the 2007, 2008 application. So, that's what the revised is on your agenda and I'll talk a little bit more about past applications here in just a second. So, the subject property is located on the east side of Eagle Road, midway between Ustick and Fairview Avenue. The address is 2500 North Eagle Road. The property consists of 12.06 acres and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the north of the site is some vacant property, zoned C-G. Both this parcel and this large vacant parcel was annexed with Red Feather, are both still currently vacant. There is a home, I believe, and some -- maybe an outbuilding out on that property as well. There are -- to the east you can see the lots in Red Feather. In fact, there are some homes, although this phase was not fully built out the last time I was out there, but there are some homes in Red Feather there to the east. To the south is vacant property. It's currently going through the process of being zoned in the city for -- to C-G for the Meridian Town Center project. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west are some single family residences and vacant property, zoned RUT. Also across the way from Eagle Road is an office park and, then, River Valley Elementary School further to the west. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is mixed use regional. There are actually four applications associated with this project. You have two of them on your agenda this evening. Those are the only two you're required to act on this evening. However, I'm going to talk about all four of them as they are all interrelated to the same project. The annexation is for 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40. And that includes 10.56 acres to R-40. And, then, C-C zoned area of 1.5 acres. This map here only shows the R-40 -- maybe jump back real quick and -- the 1.5 acres, then, would be -- there would be a break right here between the C-C and the R-40 zoned property. And a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family residential development on the site. I'll get into the details of that here in a second. And as promised there are two other applications. Both of them are variances. The first one is city code that prohibits new access points to state highways at points other than the half mile on state highways and the applicant is requesting to construct a temporary access out to the state highway in this location here on an interim basis. And, then, the other variance has to do with the number of covered parking stalls required based on the number of units and the number bedrooms in those units. So, in summary, the -- there are 204 multi-family living units within nine apartment buildings. And, then, there is a clubhouse that's kind of sandwiched right in the middle. There is a swimming pool area, a putting green, several gazebos, an entryway water feature, pathways, extensive landscaping and a playground area. About 1.9 acres or 18 percent of usable open space on the site. I touched on the access of -- proposed temporary access to Eagle Road. The main access into the site is the extension or construction of River Valley Road. River Valley -- excuse me -- currently exists on the west side of Eagle Road and, again, goes into the office park and the school that you can -- you can see on the other .. ~~ . ~~ ;,~ ' : ~<~ y ', ~~~ ..,,;. ::~ r r t.~) c ~g ' ~ ~,, ~.._ 1 '~ T 'S1F1 ~i tr'`a '` ^T 'T i y~ y, N ~-- L l i~;t ~ rc r j' ;;k,E.q ak~ ~~k a'r! 1 ~ ~ ~~: ~ '?• < M ~ ~h ~~t- .y t rr t- ''k Y~$` r ~~: ~ ,~ "~ ~ in 3~ ;~~ ~' ~ ` k ~rt .,.~ ~,'. {~ Y ~y~, ~ • ~;';!: ~'~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 38 of 80 _ side. Staff is not supportive of the proposed temporary access to Eagle Road at this >: - time. In fact, staff is recommending denial of both the variance to Eagle Road and the ~ request to annex the 1.5 acre parcel. We will have to talk about that a little bit more as ~~ we proceed. That's how the staff report is currently written. We may need to look at that a little bit more. I'm going to jump back, just take a side trip real quick. This ~`, property today is actually on two parcels. However, the parcels are not split right there where the zoning is proposed to be split. You can see the existing property line do something like that. So, if, in fact, we annex this, but not that, it would, then, create this ~~ no man's land parcel over there that's in the county still, but created by the city, because we are annexing this greater portion. So, we can talk about that some more, I just ~'~' wanted to kind of explain some new information that was brought to my attention. The applicant is proposing to construct a 25 and 26 foot drive aisles right now, although think they are going to have all them be 26 foot wide when all is said and done. We are ~' requiring them to submit a private street application and name those roads, that way emergency service providers have access and can find the units within the development. The applicant is also proposing to construct a small segment of Allys Way, which is on the east property line. It's approximately I think around 140 or so feet right at the intersection of River Valley Road extended and Allys Way, which would :>_ ~~~, ~ eventually feed down and connect in with Records at Fairview and going the other way would connect up with Ustick Road. ACHD is requiring a road trust deposit for half the - ' construction of Allys Ways. There will be a bridge that will need to be constructed in ~';`~ this location to have that Allys Way continue to the north. There is currently, as you can ~ see on this -- this plan may be the best one, maybe not the best one. As you can see } s~ on this one, there is currently not an access to Allys Way proposed. I do have L comments from the deputy fire marshal that was provided this afternoon, stating that ~` "~ these two points of access do not meet his -- or fire code requirements for separation of 5-. ~~~ ~ ~~ a project of this diameter. So, he does want to see at least an emergency access be rovided over to All s Wa p y y, preferably further away from that intersection. Off street y, : parking, as I mentioned, they have a variance request. We require two parking spaces ~~~>~ per unit for a one bedroom unit. One of those must in a covered carport or garage. There are 48 one bedroom units shown on the site plan. If there is more than one ~r-.. bedroom, they need two parking spaces, with both of them being covered. There are a total 360 spaces and 48 uncovered spaces are required on this site, for a total of 408 <~~~; spaces per the UDC. There are seven garage spaces. Each of those contains six parking spaces. Let me see if I can make those out from here. There is one there. One there. One There. One there. Those are kind of what the garages are on the site ~~~' plan. Most of the other parking areas are covered with carports. They have left some area near the clubhouse area as surface parking. Staff did request that. So, it got good visibility into the common amenities and things there. This is where the variance comes in. There is an easement along the South Slough. It's known by three or four names. The South Slough -- there is an easement that Nampa-Meridian won't allow any vertical ~j construction or any permanent construction that you can put down parking area, surface ~~~ parkings and things like that, but it's my understanding that they will not allow carport structures in -- within their easement. So, the applicant has requested a variance. They ~~ : are 65 parking -- covered parking spaces short of being in compliance with the UDC standards for covered parking. Staff is not supportive of the requested parking ~. -. e - ~- ~Qrz, ~ `' ~v, ~F ~~ r. i?~. S `4 ` ;~g, +~ j.. ~~~~ ~~i~ `.t 5 1.C ,. r ~~~ v - x~ L Y 4 i } i yS ` ~, ~ y; ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~r T y H ,~,~~a,;~ tti~ ~ x ~ ,~~ ~~', .e i r , ~'"', 7.: ~ ~., fr ~ ..; ~.'i - ~ ~ ~`u+J k Y 5„ lu ` ~~~•~ . g F ~Si _ ! Y-. •, i s d Y . ' ~ '1 k. t S?~ s h ~3~ Z _ r.. c'~a ' tip`" r ~r fi=b:. 4"- ~t x: x 't:. 5 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 ;~'-°:;~. Page 39 of 80 ' variance. There is a 35 foot wide street buffer on Eagle Road and 20 foot wide buffers t;~' along Allys and River Valley. Both collectors. There is another canal that's mentioned z., k in the staff report, along with the South Slough, the Downey Lateral, an associated easement there. There was some concern on staffs part. Some of these buildings were encroaching into that easement. We have asked the applicant and we will ask - again tonight that they explain what -- where they are at with Nampa-Meridian on either .; relocating that or obtaining an encroachment agreement to have some of those `~'`~' buildin s encroach and if, in fact, the do relocate, what that does to a landsca a Ian ``' as type ally Nampa-Meridian does not allow any trees within their easements. So, `~~ again, I will ask the applicant to provide an update to the Commission on that. Staff is requesting a development agreement for this site. Those provisions are on pages nine, ten and eleven of the staff report. And as previously promised, just quickly there was an application submitted in 2006. The City Council did vote to deny the application. That application was for annexation and zoning, Conditional Use Permit for 204 multi-family - residential units, private street and three variances. The third variance that they aren't applying for this time had to do with the private usable open space, such as a patio deck and they are providing those on these units. And that leads me to the elevations. So, ~~` this is the look at the entryway, if you were coming in from standing or in your car right `~~ ~ there, you would be looking north into the site. Here is a rendering of one of the one ~~'~ buildings. There are four different buildings, plus the clubhouse elevation in the nine buildings that are proposed. The structures are all proposed to have brick, veneer, masonry, stucco, stone veneer, and fiberglass reinforced asphalt shingles. All of the ~~, structures are two to three stories in height, have the same architectural design and ~~ :~ appearance, but are different in size based on how many units they contain. So, your floor plan basically has to deal with your massing on most of the buildings. And on the ~1< next sheet -- I know that is kind of hard to read when you have four different building types on -- on one sheet. This one really does probably a better job of telling the story. And, then, here is the clubhouse, labeled as such and, then, your garage elevations as well. Staff has not received any letters of testimony from adjacent property owners. However, I understand there was an a-mail sent late this afternoon from an adjacent `` property owner to the south. You all should have that in your electronic packet from a _ Mr. Kleiner. I have not received, like I said, any -- from any other adjacent properly owners. We have received revised comments from the fire department and the ~;w applicant regarding the access point to Allys Way to the east. I think I touched on that enough. We will probably have to talk about it some more, about getting in a driveway over to that -- that direction. That is one of the reasons staff continued this for a _ redesign site plan showing an access over to that Allys Way. And, in fact, staff is recommending several significant changes to the site plan, parking plan, access plan and building locations. Staff is also recommending that the C-C zoned area adjacent to <F Eagle Road not be annexed at this time. For these reasons and because comments ~~ have not yet been received from ACHD and ITD, staff is requesting that the Commission defer final action until a later date to give the applicant time to make revisions to the site plan and landscape plan as outlined in staffs report. And I will stand for any questions you may have '~r,~ Moe: Any questions of staff? r } Ffa ' 4}. ~ - .~ ~' ~~ .~,t :, R ,,. z .~s. ... ,._ ~:. . ; ,~,. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 40 of 80 Marshall: Just wanted to confirm that the Downey Sublateral easement is running right along here, along this edge. Is that correct? Hood: Correct. It's on the north side of the future River Valley Street. Marshall: Where it is currently. Got you. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, we already -- the last time this came through it looked a lot like this, didn't it, but it was a different owner? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's the same development team pretty much. I think they have -- they have changed some, but Bach Homes was the owner back in 2006 and they still are. There have been some changes. Like I said, the elevations are probably the biggest change, that they really beefed up their elevations and amenities. I went through it pretty quick, but it's certainly not the same building that we saw before. They have multiple colors they are proposing, multiple board and bat siding and stucco and brick and stone and multiple colors and windows. Side elevations were discussed before by the Commission. They really dressed up all those sites. And, like I said, the private usable open space, now they have the patios on the units and comply with that requirement. So, as far as layout goes, very similar. But the units themselves have changed significantly. Newton-Huckabay: Yet it come back -- is coming back before us with -- with the exception of the personal open space, all the same issues it had before. '~~:~ Hood: Yeah. And -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. A lot of the same issues. However, there is a pretty big project that went in just -- or has got approval just - recently from the City Council and the applicant believes that now the timing is correct ~~ for them to get into this square mile and work along the same time lines as some of the ~~ stuff that's going on ~to their south. So, that is a big -- Newton-Huckabay: You're talking about the center -- Hood: Meridian Town Center. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Meridian Town Center. Hood: So, that is just directly to the south of them, so they are expecting, you know, this access point to be -- it's something now that -- that is on the horizon. Before there wasn't any access to the site and this is in the foreseeable future going to be a reality. So, we have conditioned it that it -- that you need to have that road in before you do ~.~r. f- .-~. ~~ `;' ~ w , ,N. ~. x ~ y. ~ V t.~t7 ,~.: ,~. J ~~ ~ ~ i' .r - # . ~,, ~~~ t ~, fib S ~ R i-fd ~~' yygy~{ >3 1 . iG'i]+N J -F ~4' r ~`. 1 ` ~ y~ ¢~ ~ z ~~~.. ~. i >. f1 ~ n i r ~ $ ,~ ~:. . { i ~ t },~' ~b~' ,o. ` } ~ ~ ~'' ~: ~.t - ~ ' ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 41 of 80 this, but that does look like it's a very likely possibility here in the near future. So, I don't think it was but maybe a couple days after the City Council gave the thumbs up to Mr. Welk and his group to -- that they submitted their application. So, some similar issues with the variances and things, but -- but the timing certainly is different. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. ~'~ Marshall: I did have one more question about the stub -- the stub street that the fire department's requesting. Are they expecting that to be right in this comer off their ~`<~ property right here at the intersection? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- the fire code -- and I'm going to do my best without trying to interpret fire code. I met with Joe Silva a little bit today and he had his scale out and he scaled out the vertical -- or, excuse me, the horizontal distance of ~TM~ the site and by fire code your accesses into the site have to be one half the diagonal :;° distance of your project apart. So, I think he said in his revised a-mail that they needed -- that the access points -- he needs to have two access points into the site that are at least 600 feet apart. So, if you leave this one, 600 feet puts you over here. Not only do they need to be separated by 600 feet, but he's concerned about the congestion on Eagle Road and even if this road gets constructed, he wants to either be able to get into the site from Ustick Road or the Fairview Road, not both necessarily. But he needs to be able to attack this from Fairview up Records and in or down and in, because he can't x -- there may be gridlock on Eagle and they can't go anywhere to get into this site. So, he -- at the -- at the very end of that a-mail -- and I -- it was given to the clerk and I don't know if they got it scanned into your packets or not, but the very last comment he has in there has something to do with a recommendation or a potential condition that could be put on this project would be let them construct approximately half or a hundred units, until some other access into this site from either Fairview or Ustick is provided and, then, adequate secondary access is had, so -- but, yes, back to your original question, they are looking for it to be -- to be at the part of the northeast comer. :; Marshall: Okay. So, even if you move this one clear over here, you would be right next to that within your 600 foot. Hood: Yeah. I could scale the width of that property. The applicant probably knows what it is. I don't know the exact width of it, but, yeah, it's probably around 800 feet I would say. Not that it's impossible, but, yeah, you're still close to this intersection and -- regardless of where you put it and I think they have about 132 feet or something like that of -- 143 feet of frontage on here. So, it's going to put any access really close and that's why I think probably emergency access, if anything, is the best way to go. Having that be open to full traffic is probably not a good idea with this being a pretty major intersection in the future. Moe: Any other questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? ~ ., ~~ *; r t ti',~ ~ t ~~ ~. ~~- ~+ ~~ ~' ~~ '~% `` ~ ~~ ~ Y~ ,: . ~~~ ~~, ~'wr f,- `- ~i R- ~~i+1 r ~s~ ~ ' -' T z~ ~I~.. ~'~'..~ ~-~ ~. ti~~ w,~ ~~ 5: i ~~ ~ ~ ~ - -» ,~~ n. c ..:~a b~.` :F ~,i:i `~, ~ x~ # '~'~'';~~, ,~~ r~, ~ gib, ~i ` :~`~ ~ ~.~. ~' ..'w~~ t S e S~ 1 ~ ~fiv ~ t , ~ _ y ~ ~: y~, ',s ~,r - *~ z µff ~ 4.~' ~ f '3?~';;~'~ ~G> ~ s ~r ;tea ~ y~ ~- ~ "~ d 13y i .f 3~r. a. Y^~F~~ 'Y: ~.~~ ~y '~~ ~, = b,. ,x _ . Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 42 of 80 ~:~r~., Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commission, my name is Lars Anderson. I work for Bach Homes, the project manager, at 11650 South State Street, Suite 300, in Draper, Utah. ~.~;~ 84020. I am here representing our interest in Bach Homes. We are the same applicant that was here in August of 2006. It may look the same, because you have seen so °y4; many projects, however, this project to us has drastically changed. We took the comments from your -- from previous Commission notes and from the Council and we have gone back and changed the architecture and the site layout. I would like to point r~_`~ out those differences now. Randy's going to show you our -- the architecture of our F; 64, building changed quite a bit based on your comments. We removed all the siding. We . have gone with the usable space of 80 square feet. Added that. We even changed the side elevations, which I believe Commissioner Huckabay mentioned being too -- what was the word she used before -- too vertical and not enough roof gables and didn't -_- break it up enough, so we have gone back and changed that since that time. And we j` believe that was a -- a positive change. So, we are really happy with the architecture now and we have included in your packets -- we submitted a supplemental booklet to ~_ you and I hope all of you had a chance to look through that and that shows all of our floor plans and details about our company, so that we don't have to go through those now. So, if you have time to go through that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well done. Anderson: Well, thank you. I hope that helps. Next we'd like to show the clubhouse. We really beefed up our amenities as Caleb mentioned. We -- and these are models -- these are renderings of the actual plans. So, it shows the pool area, we put in a kids play area in the pool area and we plan on building those gazebos and create a very livable resort type feel to these apartments, they are not the typical apartments, and a water feature out front with the signage. So, we feel it's a great asset to the community to have these apartments. We are the owners. We build them. We develop them, build them, and maintain ownership of these and for the foreseeable future we don't sell them off, so with that we'd like to tum time over to our engineer and he's going to address the technical issues and after he's done we'd like to ask that we receive approval to -- recommendation to move to City Council for the annexation zoning, as well as for the Conditional Use Permit. At this time at this meeting we would like to pull the variance that we were requesting for the Eagle Road access in that we have relative assurance that River Valley Road will be built and, therefore, we won't need the temporary access off of Eagle Road. We only requested that as a backup if River Valley Road weren't built. So, if we are able to proceed that way, we will pull that variance. We still need the variance for the covered parking stalls, because of the issue with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, with that I'll tum the time over to Scott. Thank you. Stanfield: Good evening. Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. We are back again. I'll just go over these items quickly. Caleb did a good job of pointing those out. As Lars indicated, we are going to drop the temporary access to Eagle Road. We are comfortable with Council's actions and what Center Cal is doing and we can work with them and get that accomplished, so there is no reason to .. 9 ~; ,~. ,,, 5~ y ~,,.. r ~? , E ~:~¢ ,~ ;;, f ~ ~; ~~ i~: i 'a 4 ~~" f ~L ~~ ^-,i , k ` Z }~ t" a r. ~~ ~ s ~~' ~ l Ya .. .-EShc4--.i ~l z '~ f , t4f '' ~ 1, r _ L~ 1 4~..y ~ ,; ~. ~r g ~f .~, ;, i G.~_ A,+ ~~.+ i. i,yyST ~?~ ~ i y~'i ~, _ ,~ .i. r ~"~~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 43 of 80 ~." keep that variance on the table. With that said, that might ease staff s mind on allowing - us to annex the commercial area now, because one of their concerns was with the -- the ~~ ~ temporary approach going through there, so .it's recognized that that parcel -- that commercial parcel just over one acre will have no access, so it's really unbuildable until _ the parcels to the south develop and an access to River Valley is provided. The reason why we are uncomfortable with not annexing that -- that commercial now is it does - create an illegal parcel in the county. Dimensionally it's illegal. We tried to do a property boundary adjustment in the county, because we do have two legal parcels now. We tried to do a property boundary adjustment that would match the legal "- ;~~ description that you have before you tonight, but the county quickly said, no, you will -~:. create an illegal parcel and the commercial one would be too small. So, our fear is if that one gets left behind tonight, is the county going to squabble and say, well, you have created an illegal parcel, therefore, the whole thing is illegal. We are just concerned and maybe Mr. Nary can shed some light on it, but we would like to annex the whole thing now, just to avoid that future problem. Bach is not a commercial developer, they ~s~' don't have any plans on development, they would just sell it and market it at the appropriate time. Emergency access, Caleb did an excellent job describing what Joe ~'t`~ wanted and, believe it or not, we do have room up in the east portion -- the northerly end of our easterly portion to put a 26 foot wide ingress-egress only. I agree with Caleb it's highly inappropriate to put a public access there, but we do have room to put an -~~~~~~ ingress-egress for emergency vehicles and about the only thing we would have to change is that sidewalk, the first couple of stalls, and the trash dumpsters. So, we feel t~e~;l nothing in our opinion to justify holding back approval of the it's very minimal changes ~~~~ , site plan tonight. So, we would agree to that. There was some discussions from the ~ ~ Parks Department, Mr. Steve Siddoway, about a ten foot path that's not shown on this ,~ .., ~~~~` ' ~' : plan right now, but we do have multiple locations we can put that path. We have been ; ~; talking with Mr. Siddoway, we have got a meeting with him tomorrow morning at 9:00 }"ry''" and I'm telling you tonight that we will agree to a ten foot north-south path where ever Steve thinks we need to put it. There is plenty of places to put it on site. So, again, it's not on the Ian toni ht, but we feel it's re minimal; we have got plenty of room to put p 9 p ttY ~'~`~ n.~:a; that. The fire department wanted private streets with 26 foot drive aisles. The only ,~~~, `~"`'`' drive aisle that's not dimensioned 26 feet is the far westerly north-south drive aisle, it's dimensioned 25 feet, but you can see we have plenty of room to gain a foot quite easily. ~~4:~:' ~r So, again, it's something you wouldn't even notice on a site plan if you were to see a , '" ~~ dimension change from 25 to 26. So, we don't feel that's a big issue, because we can ,:: ,;,:i comply. There was a discussion in the staff report about the sanitation company and , the dumpster locations. My client, the owners, Bach, did meet with the Sanitation ,,_ti"xr~, group, Doug, I can't remember his last name, met with him today and they have apparently ironed out all the issues and the dumpster locations, particularly on the north, will change and will shift, but, again, we know we have to comply with his desires ~3;~'~ and wishes and we don't see that as a big issue regarding site impacts. Wheel stops, the staff report indicated they'd like to see wheel stops, because of the pull-in parking, particularly probably around the units. We definitely can agree to either widening the '~~~`-~~' sidewalk or the wheel stops. Probably the wheel stops. We don't want to add anymore hard surfaces than we need to; we prefer to have more landscaping than hard surface. ~~~`~' So, we can work that out in the final designs. Probably the two issues that staff is ,-, #. ,,, ~''~} fi:~ 1~-~ ' ~ ` ~ ~~ Y~"~ 1 i ~ ~ k 3 , ~ ~~ ~> 8 µ ., _. , '~ sa 1 . , 4 ~~ ~ J " t 'a ri ~ y r ~~ w r ti. r ~ '~~ y {y,~~ry yy '~ J7 ] ;~~ 7 R i~;s.i ; f ' iyt ~`Y ~ r' ' ` ' F. ~ G7.. ~a-. ~ - 3~,~y ] t~ y ~q ~~ lY~'• ~~rv• V~ Y [j'I k ,._ ~ f l eh> ~ `c ~c a J # ~ h ,' ,2 ~ . ~yyy~ xiv~Y~ _ y.' J,~ -.~i ~: _.. ~,_,~ ~.:. ;~ ~< ;, ~~.~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 44 of 80 correct that has the potential to impact this site is regarding Nampa-Meridian's facilities and we have two facilities. I'm going to start with the -- my opinion is the easiest one on the south and I'm going to call it the Stokesbeny Lateral. Nampa-Meridian recognizes it only as the Stokesberry Lateral, so I need to always call it the Stokesberry Lateral. And that is on the south boundary. And there is an existing easement that we do show encroaching upon with our buildings. Staff indicated in a letter -- in the staff report that they wanted a letter from Nampa-Meridian approving that. Nampa-Meridian will not write letters without final plans and construction drawings, but I did meet with John Anderson and my clients met with him this afternoon and he didn't say it would be okay, but he didn't say it wouldn't be okay. He suggested things that we could do that could increase our chances highly of getting approval from Nampa-Meridian's board and those are ideas that we definitely will entertain. Some of the concepts were go with an inverted siphon, so that we don't have this big pipe poking out of the ground and have to put this big massive amount of dirt on top of it. He did say that he doesn't want any large tree bearing -- root bearing structures within 20 feet of the centerline of that pipe and that would cause the tree scapes to be pushed out to the north. Another option that he was quite intrigued with was Lars Anderson, who does a lot of this in Utah with UDOT on his landscaping plans, is he puts an HTP liner in the trench wall of the gravity irrigation pipe and, apparently, stops the trees from going into the root structure and John Anderson seemed real intrigued by that. He thought with the proper license agreement between NMID and Bach as the owner of this project, that that could be a good test case. So, there is plenty of options that we can do. So, we are comfortable that we can move ahead with the Stokesbeny Lateral on the south regarding Finch Lateral aka South Slough. Again, Nampa-Meridian only recognizes that as the Finch Lateral, but it's the same thing. They will not allow -- we tried to convince them to craft any type of one-sided license agreement to allow us to put parking structures in there, covered parking structures, but they said absolutely not. Basically don't even apply for it. So, that has the potential of causing a major site revision. If our variance is denied and we have to put in covered parking, then, we are going to have to shift that whole line on that northerly boundary about 25 feet into the site. That's going to squeeze this internal area, put our buildings much closer together and really impact our landscaping. That's why we requested a variance and -- Moe: Question for you on that. Stanfield: Yes, sir. Moe: What about getting rid of this building right here, would that not take care of the problem with the additional parking spaces needed? Stanfield: It's going to -- I think we still have quite a bit more we are going to have to provide and it's going to wipe out that whole northerly tier of parking. I don't think we can get enough parking just in that one little building area. And this is why we requested a variance. You could tell us to revise the site plan, but at this point we are not willing to withdraw that variance, so you would, basically, get the same site plan, to be honest with you. So, we would be looking for either a recommended approval for ;; ~~. ;: ~ rx~ t ,'~ `, ~, ~. , ~ r ~~ ;' ~ ~ y y t r ~ zz~E ~- ~, .' ~.:~~ '2=..':yc ~tllw~ , Jry ~ ~ j ~~~`~ ~, ~ ;,k:. K ;'' zr ~ w ~~, <~ ~` "r~~g ^. ~ '; =: r L ~ t- ~,T r . ; ,'- a - ~_ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 'y Page 45 of 80 that variance or a recommended denial. We realize it's a gamble on our part, but it's ~k~ something that we are -- we are willing to move ahead to with Council. But it does have the potential to impact the site, but that's why we are requesting a variance. And I think z'~ that's it. I tried to go as quick as I can. It's pretty late. Moe: Any questions? ` Marshall: So, usually when people move into the apartments they have places '``~` assigned to them; right? Parking stalls assigned? Stanfield: It's been a long time since I had to move into an apartment. ,~ Marshall: Yeah. So, my question is are any of these assigned? Are those just for the clubhouse? Stanfield: Some of them are signed assigned, but by and large they are open for ~~~`:~ visitors, the mailman to come in, other services that may need to come in and provide support to the clubhouse. The idea is to keep that as open as possible and encourage people to park in their assigned parking stalls. ~ Moe: Any other questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now. ~t ~ Moe: All right. Rohm: Before we -- before you sit down -- Caleb, if they drop their variance request for the access road, would you be in support of including the commercial property and drop '~~~: ~ your desire to have that excluded? s "`'~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, absolutely. We have some -- some provisions '~~`~' ~-~~~ or Sonya has some provisions already written in the staff report should you choose to n::. ~°- annex that commercial portion. It talks about things such as requiring aback-age road on that lot, so properties to the -- maybe I'll go back real quick. There are some parcels that aren't a part, so approximately this is -- the 1.5 they have -- there is one more l parcel to the north of them that is also landlocked but for Eagle Road and, then, two ,x more south of them. Some of those rovisions in the DA talk about aback-age road for P ~' all four of those lots to use and eventually come out to River Valley Road. They would not be able to develop that lot until such time as access is provided through River Valley ~~`' or probably a less likely scenario, up to Ustick. But those provisions are already written ~,.:., into the analysis section of the staff report. So, absolutely, if they -- if they withdraw their variance request I think staff could be supportive of annexing them into the city as - well. ''~~'- Moe: Okay. ~~'. ~: -;: ~, , ~~'L y " 1 ~p ~~~ k. `~ :~ f ..)'.: ~ ~' p~h ~~ 3 : ~6 .S n _ .F A{:^ t ~ ~~Y/S 1Ffrw F ~~ ;~~~a ~ i, ~1 frti ~Q .,; >d t,T, ~ "1r .i ~ S ~ n : 1 ~ ~ F ''4 r~ k ~ ~ M t , II i i ' , 7q I~ III I `~1, Y tt '. ~ ~ a: ,~ { .~ '` r '~ ,:, t K 1 ~' l1 P ~~ y - f ~~ I ~ ~' ...v t ' /. v' . , z ~" ~ V .~ r i~. r:s. hi ~ w vj~ i4 ~.' ~9 ~`I'.fl `j~: k ~~ ~ ' ~$: r '~s~t.t ~ ~ ''~'' ?~ } ~~ ~ ~ , n ~~ ~' ~? ~ r ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~w 5 J.~. F~ t Y. _ ;; ~~ , , ,,;..;. ,,,, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 46 of 80 Stanfield: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the site plan that has my title on it on the right-hand side that I prepared, we actually even show anorth-south ingress-egress easement for the benefit of our neighbors along our east side. ~~_~ Rohm: That generally has support by this Commission for adjacent properties, because I think we have found that a lot in developments where the adjacent property is just as landlocked as yours -- ~~~ Stanfield: Correct. Rohm: -- and, then, if it doesn't get addressed now, it just moves the problem out to a `,= ail later date. Stanfield: Yes. And somebody's got to go first with the annexation and set the tone and ,;;~ we are willing to set that tone with that north-south. {~=~~~~ Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. As far as sign-ups, Lars and Scott ti; ~„~~~;' did their job of signing on there, so Andrew? "' ~I Welk: Thank you, Members of the Commission. My name is Andrew Welk, I'm with Center Cal Properties, 7455 Southwest Bridgeport Road, in Tigart, Oregon. 97224. Glad I got that right. And I think in about two hours somebody turns into a pumpkin, so - ~r '~ `° - we are -- I'm here representing our interest as a developer to the south of this ' property. We are neither in support or against this application, we simply wanted to r=~`~ state into the record that there is potentially an adjoining road between us, being East $'I River Valley, and we would encourage, as a condition of this approval, that the applicant r. ~ : ,' be encouraged to work with us as a neighboring property owner on those access points ~:~~<`~, on East River Valley, just so that the properties are coordinated for access. It just makes sense. So, I just wanted to state that and I appreciate your support in that. Thank you. ;~ Moe: Thank you very much. But, I guess I am curious, you already note that where the spa -- the entrances are and whatnot. Are you anticipating yours is going to change? Yours ~~'-~; won't line uo and whatnot? :',e,ax ~~''~; Welk: We haven't designed our approached off of East River Valley yet, so, unfortunately, we don't know that precisely today. There may be some flexibility in their •~; access, I don't know. Moe: To me it doesn't look like we have a whole bunch of flexibility, other than probably the one that would be right now that's shown on the east, because the one on the west has to stay -- or should be fairly close to staying where that's at. The one, basically, in the center I guess could move. Welk: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know. It's their site plan, I would just simply ask that, you know, we both, as neighbors, need to make an effort to coordinate what we do. i ~~' ,f~A 1 i ~~ ; t w w ~.j :; it - ~~~,~ ~~ ~~ ~` js "~~. x :~,73~ u ^~ti ~~ i i" ~; ii' a { r. :~ ~' >~1' ~` r~er ~ F ~T ~,~ ti Yr ~ t <, ;: k ." Fy a ~~ ,?~ kti-yw r; ~: ~ ., ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 47 of 80 Moe: Well, I guess on the record you said that and they have heard you. Welk: All right. Thank you. Moe: All right. Thank you. There is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come forward. Okay. No one else would like to speak. Mr. Rohm, you look like you want to say something. ~~~ Rohm: Just that we probably need to close the Public Hearing. So, with that -- Mr. Chairman? y~ Moe: Mr. Rohm. ~~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004. ~_; `> '` I Newton-Huckabay: Second. "'~~J'~i Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 08-003 and '~~~~~ CUP 08-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. ;~~ ~:::- ~'~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. .., wy-;"~ ~ Moe: Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comments? y-,gig,, Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions, if I may. It may be a late hour, but / , , assure you I do not tum into a pumpkin at midnight, it's much worse, so -- this whole ~~T, thing -- Moe: Is there a witness to that or -- :;~: '~ -' I Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. You might want to move back. I totally lost my train of ~;a,' thought now. Okay. So, this whole thing hinges on the variance 08-002 being ~,.~,. :-.~. approved by City Council and, if not, the whole thing has to be redesigned, is that what I'm -- that's -- okay. In addition to that, isn't this site plan -- it's uncovered parking and F it's 56 spaces short -- or 53 spaces short? Moe: Sixty-five. Newton-Huckabay: Sixty-five spaces short? Moe: As far as covered, 65. Newton-Huckabay: It's not -- no, but isn't it short spaces also? '2 A _.,., { ~i ~~A ! S -~}Y S~ . ! 5_It r J ~, ~~ ~~, ;fix ~~ ~pst~,~~ ~` s', I~ ,?w• 3a t #t~. S ~ 's :M Fc'7 ~^~,'.~ q 'k'~.., k ~, r~. r ~ ~'}$~ '.P r ~{ r ..~a~ 1 ~.. Jy`•. ~., ~ ,. t AL" 1. 'x4 h y ' ~l { '1 Y mss! R C . f ~ r ,. z .~' •, ~ T ., V+ ` Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 48 of 80 Moe: No. I Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just short covered spaces. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's -- that's correct. They actually have, I think, four more than what would be required by total parking spaces. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. ~ Hood: But they are 65 covered parking spaces short from being in compliance. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's all my questions. That's my question. I'm done. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm. ~-~~`'~ Rohm: You know, I like the project as a whole, but we can't act on the variance request, only City Council, and from my perspective the project as a whole has a lot of good merits to it and the variance in and of itself is only to be acted by Council, so I think we should give them an opportunity to take it before the Council and if the Council doesn't we will see the I k of covered arkin then the can kick it back and then like the ac , ifs' whole thing over again once they have gone through a redesign, but I'm in agreement ~_'~ with the applicant that why redesign if, in fact, there is a solution with the variance. ~:~' Makes sense to me. Moe: I would agree, Mr. Rohm. I guess the other question I would have -- what would ~~> `~; your opinion be of the 65 spaces that don't have cover at the present time? ;~~, ~~ °; =`°-~ Rohm: I think that anybody that moves in there would be aware of that at the time they ~~~,~ moved in and it's -- that doesn't create a significant issue forme. But I'm not living there ~~~ I either. "'`~- ~' Moe: I understand. I guess my point being is -- is that we do have the opportunity to '~`°ti` give opinion to Council, along with any other motions that we bring forward to them and - so -- -~_~, Rohm: I don't think the lack of 65 covered parking spaces should preclude this project <„ . ~; from being developed. =~ `- Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Brien. _s O'Brien: So, am I understanding correctly it's the reason that they have suggested that ~~ we have 65 parking spaces that are uncovered, is that being driven by the irrigation .., district? Moe: Yes. They can't -- the Nampa-Meridian right through there -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 49 of 80 O'Brien: Okay. Moe: -- they can't build over their property -- over their easement. O'Brien: So, the next question would be is a parking cover considered a permanent building? Moe: Yes. O'Brien: Okay. Thanks. Moe: Mr. Marshall, anything? -`.~ Marshall: Yes. To be honest, I don't think that allowing them to build without the 65 covered .spaces constitutes any special privilege or anything like that. I really don't, ~-'~ ` because of the hardship created by the irrigation district here. I do -- I am concerned --.J and would like to see a solution to the irrigation here on the south side. I understand r~~~' things are in works, but who's to say all that falls through and we can't get any type of ~~ ~ trees down in there, the buildings have to move, things like that, based on where that '~ irrigation -- the Stokesberry Lateral easement is and based on that I have a hard time -- ~,.``.' I want that information before I make a decision. Moe: Well, Mr. Marshall, I guess one thing that could be done -- just my point would be w-"'~ that the maker of the motion could make it such that no construction could start until fi ~,.~1 written authorization from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation was given in order to go ahead and ~r~:; let that go forward. I don't know that there is a reason to hold this thing up, just waiting ~~~~ on that approval. Nothing's going to get done until that's done anyway. You know, ~:.,< Nampa-Meridian's going to have to approve it -- fi~ r '. r''~ Marshall: But in what kind of condition? Are they going to allow trees in that area or are they going to allow the buildings in that area? I mean to what end will Nampa-Meridian go? I understand that's in negotiation, but -- and they seem amenable to finding the ~`~d: solution -- n~-.~, Rohm: I think what the deal ultimately boils down to, Commissioner Marshall, is we are ~~~~ not recommending that the landscape ordinances be abandoned along that property '~'~'~'`' line and if, in fact, they can come to an agreement with Nampa-Meridian that meets '''~:;„ Nampa-Meridian's needs, while at the same time does not abandon our -- our landscape ordinance, then, we got a -- we got a deal. If they can't, then, at that time they will have to come back and revisit that situation. But our process of approval m a-Meridian uts ven if Na doesn t vacate ordinance and so they are still required, e p p ~ limitations on them, to be in compliance with our landscape ordinances. Marshall: Which means they wouldn't be able to move forward as it sits. A: bar' • :LL 7 * ~~ A f ~ i s ~ ~ , ~~ r ~ 'f .T3v' 3 t .y r ~ ~ # er ~ t'' _ } r ~ ~ ~~. s .:r <1 rl r,5.: -.. :rt „t^ <w~ .y ~ '~ ~ ,~ `~ z ~ N r~+AG r s i w ~~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~` ~u a r ~ ~' ~ ?~: < ' ~;, i K t -''+`'^ S kdi ~ ~- f ~ ; _ yf ~t ET f~~ P.f"y~ 1 ~.~ f ',;,4 3 M1S R2,'I'VTT~k. ~.f ii ~ ~~ ~`~, ~' ~ f r '~, ~ .„ ~, .,~ ~-1.~, t 4 ? +~ ~ F ~~ w ~s~ r i u ~ ae i> a ~` ~~ ~ '~t ter;.', Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 50 of 80 Rohm: Right. z?r Marshall: Got you. I appreciate that clarification. ;~~~ Moe: Mr. Rohm, you did a great job. Rohm: I think that's correct. ~, Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other comments? O'Brien: None from me. Moe: Okay. Would there be -- yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to wrap up the -- the changes that would go on a ``' motion, would be to add the ten foot pathway as per an agreement with the parks commission. Condition approval on -- what's the adjective I'm looking for here -- agreement with NMID at the emergency or -- no, it was right-in, right-out, ingress- egress, it wasn't just ER was it? It was an actual ingress-egress. No, it was an ER .4Js ingress-egress. Okay. So, an emergency access on the east -- southeast -- southeast? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Just the east. On the east side of the property along Allys Way. Those were the three -- oh. And, then, we would put -- that we accept withdrawal of the variance? x~:'fs' Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: The first variance. Variance 08 -- } i Moe: The access to Eagle Road. Newton-Huckabay: And we need to -- I don't think we need to put anything related to Mr. Welk's comments from Center Cal. You're happy work with them. ~~'w Rohm: I think you're ready to make a motion. }_~~ _ Newton-Huckabay: So -- okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on -- Rohm: It's already closed. ~:,.,~ ;~~ Moe: We have already done that. `,'_ ~~ i~ ~:; 2 f ~ •~" ~~! V ~. z ~~ xg '' ;ids., _ . ;k_ N ~ < k ~_; ~~:. -= ~ Y~' >;'~ , L t y „~.. A~ti, ~r ~ ~~ S 4 Y ,~//ia \ Y b, }~ "~"' z r '~''~ i~? ;£.~~ j ~;'.. ~~' ~~Y. 1~: ~..;.~. H. <: fi. }"3' L ~ ~}~~'~~. p ~'a e~'~L~. 1y,. ~ c,f kt+. t~h. ~r ' ~~ ~:_ s - ~`. 1 ~.~'. %t .L :::.: ~Yw,; Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 6, 2008 Page 51 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, did we do that? Okay. ~~ Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, before just -- I didn't print off a ~~`;~ copy of the staff report. I'm not quite sure what Exhibit B has in it at this point. Are there conditions of approval provided in the staff report? I vaguely remember seeing something about, you know, since staff is recommending continuance -- I didn't know how many conditions made it in there. ;~a' Rohm: Read that whole thing. Newton-Huckabay: Do you want me to read through the whole thing? `~ ~ Hood: No. That's fine. I just want to make sure there are conditions of approval -- V~~ Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. There is -- Hood: Particularly from the planning department is my concern. All the other agencies should be in there already. 2.r'~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. It says draft, though. ~~; ~ ! Hood: Okay. And you may want to read through -- you may want to read through those ~> real quick, Commissioners, because some of them do reflect some of the changes that '~_ ~ staff was looking for. So, if those are the only changes you're making, those are really ~~ added changes. Some of those you may not want to move forward onto the City '`. ', Council, I guess, is all I'm trying to say. Moe: Well, actually, probably the first, he's already making comment that the development agreement does not talk about the C-C zoned property. See that first one? ~' ~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. You know, we may have to -- we may have to continue ~}~` this just so it can be cleared up. ,~r'~ Moe: Don't like to sit here and try to make conditions for projects, so I don't think -- but don't -- and, again, Sonya's got that analysis back in Section 10 for what -- I couldn't ' give you the page. I apologize, I didn't print it out this evening and bring it with me, but it T I sis re ardin the C-C looks like page eight, maybe, of the staff report has some ana y g g <r. zoned property. If you're not comfortable doing that now, we can certainly take that ~`" ~ initiative as staff and, you know, revise the comments based on the hearing tonight and t ''~~ bring it back to you. ~'~~~~~°I Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners? Moe: Yes, sir. ~~,~~ f ~~' ~ , <~. - -3u - ~ ~~ ., ~f -~~~ _~. 1t P ~t ° ~7~? f~ ~,'~'.: ~ ~ ~ f h ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ ~,_~ ~x .~~-~~ ~ '~, ~' k ~.~„ r , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~~ '~~ rj's-. ~ r trt ~' v ` o ~~ F ~~y,~ ,~ .l t ., .i: pr„ " ~ ~ ~ l ~i~r a y'Y,' ; l~i. t5$, Y-•. `~, c .: ~ ~ _ _ s.~ ~ ~"~~ o ~'~ ~ 17 ~ 17 F ~ w t'~:"cc.F~.. ~ F1. }i 7j ~:`:~ ~~ a`. •• ~~~~,~.4 5~~ l $!~ ., ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 52 of 80 Hood: If I may, I think we could probably solve the C-C portion of it pretty easily if in -- again, beginning on page nine of the development agreement provisions, you added two additional provisions. One that requires the C-C zoned property to have aback-age road to the property to the north and south, to provide them with across-access ingress-egress easement to the properties to the north and south. Newton-Huckabay: Across-access agreement or an ingress-egress agreement? Hood: Ingress-egress, slash cross-access. So, it's really both. Marshall: As shown on his preliminary plat; right? As shown on the back of the preliminary plat as an access easement. Hood: Yeah. I didn't see that exhibit, but I did see it out in the hallway earlier, but I haven't seen it on the plan. Rohm: And what's the second one? Hood: The second one would be that development of the C-C zoned lot shall not occur until such time as access is provided to East River Valley -- street, road, alley, whatever it is. And just a note to the developer. I don't think we necessarily need it in the development agreement, but this is an entryway corridor, anything constructed on that site will be subject to design review. So, typically would put in something about architectural character of those buildings, but we do have at least those minimums covered with the city's design review standards. So, that lot will be subject to design review anyways. If you want to put something else on there that you want the building to be gold plated, you certainly could insert that if you want to, but there will be a minimum design standard, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, would that be okay? Nary: They probably don't want that. That's probably not in your testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Are those the only changes I need to add to the motion? Hood: As far as staff is concerned those would be the only ones to the development agreement. I have not had a chance to go through the ones for the Conditional Use Permit and I think based on the discussion you all have had, there may be a couple of those that -- that you may want to modify. I haven't had a chance to look at those, but if you're -- like 1.1.2 on the Exhibit B says the applicant's request for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved. So, it sounds like you guys are going to want to change that one. Newton-Huckabay: Can we just strike that? 'l S '~y'S?~ ~Y (f Xf ~y _~ , +~ ' F t~ ~ .h~ ey S ~ ~ k j ,~ jN: r - __ ' K. 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 6, 2008 Page 53 of 80 Hood: Yeah. You could simply just strike the not. And, then, again, in the Conditional Use Permit it talks about the site plan being not approved. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. You're leaning to want to wait on this and seeing the site plan? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm just concerned that I'm going to make a motion and we are going to leave in items in this staff report that shouldn't be and leave out items that should be included, just based on what conversation we have had here. It might be cleaner for everyone if we continued it just to get aclean-up staff report to the next meeting. Moe: Two weeks we would have it cleaned up and -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I think we probably could. Now, that also -- I would preface that by saying I don't know if there are changes you want to see to the site plan. Like the emergency access over to the side or not. Now, then, I'm going to put the ball _ back in the applicant's court and say, well, when can you get us a revised site plan that we can have, you know, a new date on that we can just reference in the staff report. I mean we need a little bit of time there. So, if they can get us something by, you know, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, we can have something for the following Commission meeting the following Thursday. So, that's why I would preface that yes with a depends on when we get a revised site plan and what changes need to be made. Newton-Huckabay: Chair, I recommend we reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, VAR 08-001 and VAR 08-002 to discuss continuing this with the applicant. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 08-003, PP 08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? We are back open on the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to applicant to come forward? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please. Anderson: The applicant Lars Anderson with Bach Homes. Do I need to restate my address? Moe: No. I think we got it. We are in good shape. ~* r ~ ~~ ~s~ ,.,~~ ~, S~ 1~ ..sYr~c'~~• g*z4 - 1 ~f~~ !t ~ , i,. r 5 ~, ~m 4v i s ~" ~aP +~ y~.. x n idr o~7`"~. ~~ 1 ~ ~ E ,r 4~t~ f ~~ f t ` ~ x .~~ ~y ,+ n ~ 5Q +~,Eq ~x a.G ~ntr.:• ~~~ `~ ,. ~~" ,Y4 T" ^p~ i. r { F } f;. y ~~ a,, ~. 4y~ ~ i. ~ a, '~ ' 'k'~' ~ S + {f': ~ rtt may t x :~ h ~ k L4 1 ? N 4~~ r1~ ~ f ! i~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ 1 r` tir T ; ~1 YX, ~ ,~ ~' r » - . n '~ f ~~~ »w c.. S~ t'Y ~ r 4 r r ~F ~ 7 t: ~ Kt c r, ~' E" 4 r ~`'~' ' ~~ ; ,~ ~ y Sit, : 1 ~~~~! '~ ~ " ~ } ~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ~`" March 6, 2008 Page 54 of 80 Anderson: Great. Moe: After listening, do you guys have any problem with making revisions to the site plan in regard to showing where the emergency access is and -- ~.~ Anderson: No. We have no problem with that. We still ask that we proceed with recommendation to City Council tonight and we would be happy to make that change. We feel, again, that it's such a minor change to show that in there -- we have the room for it -- for the emergency access. It's such a minor change we feel like we could proceed with that as a condition. ;a~ Moe: Well, our biggest concern right now is the staff report is not complete in regards ~~ to, you know, what we are going to approve and trying to go through here now and just lining out here and there and whatnot, we, quite frankly, like to give the staff enough time to review it and put it back in the way it is and along with that we may as well clean it up and get the new site plan in there as well, so it's all set to go. And I think that's pretty much where we are leaning to right now. Newton-Huckabay: We don't have clear conditions of approval in the staff report and -- Anderson: It looks like we are okay with that. We've waited a year and a half now, waiting for Center Cal's approval, so I guess another couple of weeks won't hurt us, but -- Rohm: And our question is can you provide an updated site plan by next Tuesday or Wednesday? Hood: Mid week, anyways. Yeah. Wednesday. Rohm: Mid week. So, that they can include it in the revised staff report? Anderson: Yes. Again, it's such a minor issue, we would be able to turn that out. Rohm: And I think that we really would like to have that reference to that frontage road along that commercial property included in the site plan adjustment, too, just so that there is that ingress-egress and cross-access addressed on the plat itself. Anderson: Would we be able to do that with a note? We, obviously, don't own the other two parcels, so -- Rohm: Absolutely. Anderson: -- we could just say -- and we have said that on the existing site plan, that cross-access would be -- _ =° ,.~ a . ~.:~ f' . '° ~~ ,;~~~ ~ 'z Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 55 of 80 f'. , Rohm: Would be provided. ~'~~ Anderson: -- provided. Yeah. ;~{~ Moe: I guess one more question I do have, since you're up there. This is in regards to '~~~~~ your discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. I understand until you have your final plans and you're ready to go, you're not going to -- they are not really going to make a decision, but what kind of a time frame are we looking at to get that squared away with _ - Nampa-Meridian? Are we waiting until Council approves something and, then, you're going to finish it out at that point or have you had more than one discussion with John Anderson? ,~~ ~~ Stanfield: We had adiscussion -- Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Scott ~,:, Stanfield. We've had a couple conversations with Nampa-Meridian and various staff on our first go around and none of this came up. We had a new conversation just today with him regarding Nampa-Meridian's time frame. We -- I'm almost a hundred percent `' ' sure we wouldn't get anything in writing from Nampa-Meridian by Council either, because they are -- I have never known Nampa-Meridian to give any kind of written '.~~, approval without any kind of final design. In fact -- Moe: Nor I have. Stanfield: In fact, Mr. Anderson reiterated that today. And what Commissioner Rohm said earlier is correct, we are not asking for any special consideration on the landscaping. If we can't comply, we got to come back. Moe: Thank you. Anderson: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, if I can add to that real quick, Commissioner Marshall asked about the structures being in the easement and we have shown the easement being relocated to the south outside of the right of way and none of the structures are actually in the easement, only the landscape is in the easement -- in the relocated -- the Stokesberry Lateral. Marshall: My reference was the preliminary plat that you provided here, so -- Anderson: Yes. So, we may have mistakenly shown it there, but none of the garages or the buildings are in the relocated easement. But there are landscape trees in the easement. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just one more quick thing. And for the applicant as a request that I would hope you would make as part of your motion where you can incorporate ~,, ~ ~. ~t a -: ~~~ ~ ~~: :.' ~ rt ~ i, ,- i ~+~ ~ 2 ,~.+a.:: 1. ~ ~ ~~ . ~~ >~ :~ ,~ ' ~ i '' ~; rfyx 1 ~ 4 ~atr ~ ~ .. ~ i~ {qa 3 p' a , `7 w '", .~ ,, , ` d .J.~:4o.. $ ' ~.ti ~ 3" ~y i~ ~~; y~ '~~ L ~.~~~ S ~ f ' ~r ~~r ~ t.i ~r~G r h~ +.~ l ry. P' 33 d ~~ qY~' ' ~~ . y,C i ', 5~~ ~' {r ~y. Y ~,,s,~ 1 '7 E ~ ` { aa~~~ rf~~ :;~, ~ ' ~ wN ~$ ~' ~.. ~'~ti~ ..._ at ~ifli ~- ~ r ' ;, i Tr _} 4 ~ ,~:r, , Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 56 of 80 this. I agree that the access -- the emergency access is fairly minor. However, revised calculations explaining what you did with parking, if you lost any parking, new calculations as far as that goes, we are going to need that, so even a quick narrative or revised calculations stating how you kind of approached that angle would definitely help, as well as revised plans. And, then, while I have got the mike, Commissioners, there are some, too, that -- a couple of conditions that I would ask you -- that we need direction even tonight on. 1.2.3 talks about submitting a private street application prior to the next meeting. Just clarification. If they need to put that together -- it's not very difficult of an application to put together, it will take some man hours or at least an hour or two to put together, but that is something now that we are requiring as staff. We think it's the cleanest way to go. That way we are sending on a complete package to the City Council, but need you to kind of either confirm or modify that, whatever you choose to do. 1.2.6 you just talked about, so you may want to modify that even now or give us direction how you would like that to read regarding the letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation or not letter or whatever. And, then, 1.2.8 talks about parking standards. I think staff is going to come away with the same, even though that's your direction, unless you tell us right now to remove 1.2.8, that I'm taking away that if you're forwarding this on, then, you're in support of the variance. You can read between the lines on that one, so -- but I need to hear that from you if that's the case on 1.2.8. And, then, there is no 1.2.9, I just realized, but 1.2.10 -- I guess we have talked about, so that doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. But those other three Ithink -- again, those are all bolded, except for 1.2.8, if you can modify those and we will get the rest. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. 1.2.3, a complete private street application for streets within this development shall be submitted at least ten days prior to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Twenty-six foot wide private street shall be constructed within this development in accordance with the standards listed in the UDC, I believe that the position of the Commission would be to leave that condition in, but I don't want to speak for -- Rohm: Yeah. Ithink so. Newton-Huckabay: -- the four of you. Okay. 1.2.6. So, leave it in on 1.2.3? On 1.2.6 the applicant should submit a letter from Nampa Irrigation -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District prior to the next Commission hearing documenting that they are amenable to relocating the Downey Sub-lateral and easement that currently exists along the southern boundary of the site. If NMID is not amenable to relocating the easement, the site plan shall be revised so that structures are located outside of the easement. Additionally, if NMID will not allow landscaping, for example, trees, within their easement and there is not sufficient room outside of the easement for the required street buffer along River Valley Road, an additional five foot wide stripe shall be provided for street buffer landscaping. Would we just preface that on an agreement with NMID? Moe: Yeah. That pretty -- they are not going to deal with anything unless they -- ~ .~ x ~' ~ ~~ F i ~ ~~' r { e 3, +n 4i ~ r ~. ~,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~Y March 6, 2008 Page 57 of 80 rA:. Newton-Huckabay: So, leave that one -- that bullet in there. ,:,y~ Moe: I'd just leave the whole thing in. ~'~`~~'~ Hood: Except for -- excuse me. Except for prior to the next Commission meeting. The ~~ intent of this was not to get that approval letter from NMID, but just something from them saying we are going to talk with the applicant. They could -- they need to meet all f-"~~ of our requirements, but we are not saying no. _,~ Moe: Right. Hood: We are at least going to work with them on trying to make it a reality. Newton-Huckabay: So, if I strike prior to the next Commission hearing, that -- that -- ~'~ Hood: Yeah. That works for me. Newton-Huckabay: That should do it? Moe: Yes. ~"~ Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 1.28, the applicant shall comply the covered and uncovered -~ parking standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-3-C-6. The requested ~~<~ ~ variance is not approved. I believe that we could leave that in there, as that will remain staffs position on this and our forwarding onto City Council would be our recommendation for approval. I agree with that, Caleb. . ~ Moe: Okay. '~ `' ' Rohm: You agree with the -- requiring the -- ~z: ~`~" ` Moe: That's a requirement. -- the a royal of Ci Council on the variance re uest. Rohm: pp tY q ~; ~`~ Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think if we just -- let me make myself more clear. I believe ~ 1.2.8 should just remain in the staff report as stated and our recommendation of E~~I ,_,. ~ approval to the City Council is our support of granting the variance. `_=' mr, Moe: Got you. F:.f~, Rohm: Okay. 1 ~~4~r Hood: And just let me hopefully clear things up. This right now, until you guys make a ~~. formal action on it, is staffs recommendation. ~~.;, ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~.~.,,; March 6, 2008 Page 58 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: When you forward this onto City Council these conditions should be your ~y'- conditions, not staffs original conditions. I don't mind leaving it in and you guys striking it through at the next hearing, if that's what you so choose to do, but (wouldn't -- I don't think this condition should be in there, if, in fact, you guys are supporting the variance. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted it left in there for ~';F'' that record the other way. ~::~,; Hood: We came up with it, so I do prefer that it be left in. I'm trying to now craft conditions that reflect what I'm hearing from you guys. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we'll just strike 1.2.8. ~ .: Rohm: Strike it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to make a motion for continuance and I'm going to repeat myself on all of these. Rohm: Go for it. Don't we need to close the Public Hearing again? ~ Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: No, we are going to continue the Public Hearing. Moe: I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. Rohm: I think that is right. Yeah. Good job. Newton-Huckabay: I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, VAR 08- 001,and VAR 08-002, to the hearing date of March 6, 2008, for the following -- Moe: We already struck one variance. Hood: March 6th is today. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it is. March 20th. ~ Hood: We need to do at least the 20th. Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Start twitching here in a minute. Okay. Rohm: I think she is turning into a pumpkin. ~~ '~ ` ~ ~' 'k~~ x _~ r '~ ~~ u 4 - .' ~ ~~ ~ - N - ~~~k., 3 F i ~~~ ~~ yyy ~ uR ~~ S x E 3 „ y r., t ~~~ ~ t ~~ K ~ J,' ~ .(' ~r~ ~`~/ y I; ~~..'?„~ ~~ ~ ~= F ~ t~s, - - ~_ ~~ ~~ r ~t `~ ~' ~f ~ yE fa .~ ~ ,~~ ~ w~ * ~: ~ 3'- ~: ~. ~ t' 4t ~ 3 }, 4 6l ~ F '~tFS ~ ~ k, ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~~f 5 ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ , K yi,y~. 4 k F ~•-7.CZ 2 , M1 ' ~' ~ _ ~` ' - ~ y yE ~;~ ,j. , T:, ~~. ;~ °.;~ °; ~~ ~3~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 59 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: To the hearing date of March 20th, 2008, for the following reasons: The applicant will be removing the request for -- removing the variance request VAR 08- 001, which variance for access on State Highway 55, Eagle Road. We will be adding the condition or adding a pathway with the cooperation of Meridian Parks Department. Be adding an ingress-egress on the east property line to Allys Way. On the staff report, on condition 1.1.2 we will be striking the word not from the sentence the applicants request for annexation and zoning of 1.5 acres to C-C is not approved -- will read that it is approved. Condition 1.2.3, there will be no changes to that condition. 1.2.6, we will strike the words prior to the next Commission hearing, so the applicant should submit a letter from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District documenting that they are unable to relocate the Downey Sub-lateral, et cetera. That's how that will read. Condition 1.2.8 will be removed from the staff report. Rohm: Emergency access, did you -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I did. There will be an easterly emergency ingress-egress access. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I'm not sure if I stated, but our recommendation for approval will also be prefaced on an agreement -- an agreement to be reached between NMID -- I think we -- NMID and the applicants. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-003 and CUP 08-004, along with the variances, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of March 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Those have been continued to the 20th. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern $prinAS by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing CUP 08-002 for Sonic Southem Springs for the sole purpose of continuing it to be regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 20th. Can I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 60 of 80 `` Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing CUP 08-002 for ~~ Sonic Southern Springs to the regularly scheduled meeting of the 20th of March. `~ Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Do you need a motion? E~"~~ Moe: Yeah. ~` "'~ Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Item No. CUP 08-002 to the regularly "~ scheduled meeting of March 20th. -_ti~, Moe: I think we probably moved it twice. That's good. ~~~~~"! Rohm: Well, I think we did. 4~'i Moe: Could I get a second again? r:r~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: All those in favor say aye. %'`"I MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. h ~~F' ~i t% ~ Y ~~~ Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3 ~~"'." ~ acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for ';r;;'';' Villas Cc~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North Linder Road: I ~ Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 08-002 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval r 4~~ ~_ _~ with 1. residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone " `' for Villas ~ Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 North " , ~ , I ```Y` Linder Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 08-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for ~< ~~F 21 multi-famil dwellin units in a roposed R-15 zone on approximately 3 Y 9 P acres for Villas Cad Lochsa Falls by D.T. Campbell Investments - 5555 ~' North Linder Road: Moe: Okay. I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 07-002, PP 08-002 and CUP 08-003 ~s;'; for the Villas @Lochsa Falls and start with the staff report, please. " "~~ O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, you said Public Hearing AZ 07-002, instead of -t, 020. . ;~ ~ "~~ s 1~ ~r ~~r Y` Fi+ ~~~ x ~ 4' ~~ S ~3 ~ .t ~ ~ l ~' f, F~ t~ },, I ~"~ c ~ ~ 4'1' uo-~ ~ 171 7 '' ~ rn q = .k a f t 0~n s i y '~ tom' '9~ { ~ i-. ~ ~ t~ c ~',~ l 4 i ,J ~~ r£ xF k ,' t :~ "~~ ~. ~ ~": ;~y~ ~ ~` e t ~`~ix ;y.~~ { .tom ~r~1", ~ } ~:- k~3F 3 R ~Lyy ~~~< { Z'F ~ 1ti _ ~.. ~P ~.'Y x k Y i~~ '; ~~~~~.. S~ ~~ 4~t+~ A~ C ~~ rt ~ ~Y ~ « ~u ~ }~ • ~^~ N f `•~~;i . ~ ` cW i~. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 61 of 80 Moe: I'm sorry about that. 002. That was AZ 07-020. ~i,Y~ . ~ `^,. ,.. ~,: >. ~? ,:, . :::. ,-; ;. .`~ O'Brien: Thank you. Parsons: No. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman annexation. It's supposed to be AZ 08-002 for the Newton-Huckabay: A misprint. Moe: What's that? Newton-Huckabay: A misprint. Moe: It was a misprint. Okay. So, it should have been 08-020 is what you're saying; right? Marshall: 002. Moe: Okay. Well, let's open that thing, along with the other two. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, there is --one confusion. Is it AZ 08-002 or - - because on the agenda it says 020, on the report it says 002. Parsons: It is 002. Moe: And that, I do believe is -- it does say 020. Okay. Let's start again. We are going to open the Public Hearing on AZ 08-002 -- correct? Okay. And PP 08-002 and CUP 08-003. And now the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of three acres from RUT Ada County to R-15, medium high density residential. Concurrently the applicant has submitted for preliminary plat approval of one residential lot and one common lot. Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 21 condominium units and 120 square foot cabana. A private street application for three private streets within the proposed development and altemative compliance for two UDC standards of one to allow for an altemative design from the 20-by-20 parking pad requirement and the other is to allow for an altemative design for the five foot landscape strip adjacent to pathways. The site is located at 5555 North Linder Road, approximately a half mile north of McMillan Road on the west side of the Linder Road. The property is bordered to the north by Lochsa Falls No. 1. To south with a single family residence, zoned Ada County -- Ada County RUT. To the east of the site is Rocky Mountain High School, zoned R-8. And, again, to the west of the site is Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-4. Move to the aerial. The site currently contains an existing single family home with associated out buildings. The submitted plans indicate all existing buildings are to be removed to make way for the proposed multi-family developments. So, here you can :~ <.~ i~ ~ y ;. x ~ "' k ~ IQ ~`^ r y p ` ~C v~ N. t~ S `r.f~ 14'' a. ~'< P ~` ', i~ f ,.;° _ ,, d ~ ~ ~S f f t ~~:..r riY ~, 'r t ~ '` ~ ~ ~~,=..e ~- - a ~ j '.3f.~4f a• J r. :." ~i C G ~ v. .~~ ~; F? a ,~. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 62 of 80 ~~~ ,. ~~;.,. ::;' i r'_' see the site is pretty much built out around it, except for this parcel here. The map's a little dated. This is under construction now. And one thing I'd like to point out, too, is this section or roadway is also under construction -- ACHD construction right now. The applicant is requesting approval of two lots consisting of one residential lot and one common lot. The UDC requires all residential street buffers to be on a common lot. On a submitted preliminary plat the applicant does not show the street buffer landscaping within a common lot. In addition, the site connection to the existing Lochsa Falls sidewalk on Cedar Grove in the southwest comer of this site tapers from five feet to two feet. Staff has conditioned the applicant to revise the plat to show the landscape buffer in a common lot and the extension of the sidewalk, maintain a five foot width to the property line prior to submitting for final plat. So, here is the plat that they submit. Here is where that 25 foot landscape buffer is located and it's not indicated there and, then, this is what staff is recommending here as far as the tapering down from five to two feet here and connecting to that existing sidewalk. Primary access to the site is from Cedar Grove, a half street section via a cul-de-sac that will be dedicated to ACHD and will be extended if and when the parcel to the south annexes into the city. In conjunction with the public streets, the applicant is proposing to construct three private streets to provide access and circulation within this development. The proposed private streets are all internal to the development and are to be constructed as a 24 foot street section that includes a four foot wide sidewalk on one side. So, here is kind of the entrance way into the development. Here is the partial cul-de-sac that will be dedicated to ACHD. And, then, entrance into the site will be through this 26 foot throat and, then, the private street's kind of going in an I shaped to T shaped if you will. The applicant is proposing several different structures on this site. The site is expected to develop with 14 buildings, including the exercise cabana. The mix of the buildings include five single detached buildings and eight bi-unit buildings, totaling 21 units. The product type will range in size from 1,500 to 1,750 square feet. All of the units will be three bedrooms, two and a half baths, with attached two-car garages. The applicant is proposing an altemative to the 20 by 20 parking pad in front of the garages as required by code. The parking pads located in front of the garages are 20 feet wide and tape down to ten feet. The roll into the driveway is at least 40 feet and the first 20 feet incorporates a five foot landscape strip with a decorative trellis that highlights the entrance of the driveway. The four detached units intemal to the development do not have the expanded driveway, but have the trellis integrated into the front facade of the garages. Ten guest parking stalls have been provided for the four intemal units to provide additional parking for the development.. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. So, here is where they are locating their guest parking here and also north of -- of the intemal units. These are the four intemal units that I had mentioned earlier without having the parking pads. I know in past projects we have discussed this issue quite a bit about having the two.car parks or the two garage car parks and a 20-by-20 pad when they came into condo the project, so that applicant's have come in with aunique -- I guess altemative to what code requires and so they actually provide this pad space here and, then, you know, additional pad space behind there, so tandem parking. Again, you can see where they had the landscape strip and there is where the trellis is located to highlight the entrance into the garage. The landscape buffer and proposed plantings around the foundation of the units comply with the UDC. However, the UDC requires a five foot landscaping strip *:- ~ ;~ ~k z, f °~~ "~ ~ _ ry. ~ ~~ ~_ ~, r y r s ~~ ~~ ! ? 1.{r e ~_ ; +~ c, , '~ ;~ ~ > p'a y d b ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ yy,, {:: s ~ 1 c~ ' ~ ~' 4 r' r.. .: - ~ i ~.,~ ~ ~r i > 5ui ~ ~Y ~~ ~~' ..t r .fin `Y ~ ty ~~ ~T ~ i1. y~ 1 h' ~{ a ~Se i£ ~9`r ~~ n c, /~ i r t ~ ~ tri J~ - 1y ~' ~ ~ q~ ri ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~,1' >. ;4. 3w. ,hyh-4 - ,T ,. ~ aY k.+ ~ ..., F, Y A, ~~ ?~ ~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning r ~`, March 6, 2008 Page 63 of 80 along both sides of walkways with trees planted every 35 linear feet. The applicant has ''; requested altemative compliance from this standard. By requiring the five foot walking path along the west side of their property, would either be placed along the existing ti, fence of the single family residences or adjacent to the garages of the two units that parallel the pathway. For the esthetics of the project the applicant is proposing to vary the widths of the landscaping strips along the pathway to allow five feet for the planting of trees and narrow to three feet in areas to be planted with shrubs and plants, while `~= maintaining the five foot pathway. Portions of the path -- walking paths would still be at _ the back of the residential fence, however, the impact is less than having the entire 'y`:4 fencing located along the west property boundary's fence line. Staff believes this is a better altemative, because it limits the impact to the residents on the west and meets the intent of the landscaping ordinance. So, again, this is the walking path that staff is k~8 referencing. You can seek how the applicant has varied the landscaping width here to allow for the trees to be planted, so you have it five feet here, opens up five feet here, a^~ opens five feet there, five feet here, and, then, opens there for five feet to allow the required trees. And, then, along the property boundary here it narrows to three feet in there to allow for shrubs and other plantings. The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multi-family development. Amenities on the site include a walking path throughout the development, berm landscaping along North Linder Road, with a central '' plaza and water fountain. A neighborhood fitness pool and an excise cabana with h~=~ outdoor patio area. So, amenities are provided here. Here is the walking path around the development. There is where the cabana is located. Outdoor seating area. And, ~f then, of course, the fitness pool here. Again, here is where that fountain is located with the plaza for residents to use. One other thing to mention, the applicant's also provided ''' that 80 foot -- 80 square feet of private usable space and, in addition, they try to incorporate private usable backyards for future residents of the development as well. ~' Those average roughly 400 square feet. Because the site is less than five acres, the xt~~ qualifying open space requirements of the UDC -- of UDC 11-3G-3 are not applicable. However, the multi-family standards require a minimum area of outdoor common open ;,>,:? space of 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living ;~~ ~' area. The units for the proposed multi-family development range in size from 1,500 square feet to 1,750 square feet. The minimum amount of open space required for this development is 7,350 square feet and private usable open space is not considered common open space. Currently, the applicant does not comply with the UDC. Staff recommends the applicant lose one of the northern units adjacent to the cabana and 4~~ incorporate this area into a common area lot. If one lot -- one unit is lost, the applicant will have to provide 7,000 square feet of open space. In addition to providing an ~ additional common area around the proposed cabana and pool area, staff recommends ~ ; ~` that the applicant provide an additional amenity, including, but not limited to a gazebo, barbecue area. Furthermore, staff recommends that the square footage of the exercise ='~ cabana increase from 120 square feet to 240 square feet to provide for a more usable space. If these changes are made, staff is supportive of the common open space for ~y~; the site. So, what staff is actually proposing is one of these -- preferably one of these _ ~' units to move or either rotate, turn, and try to just provide some more usable space here. The applicant has provided staff with an additional rendering that we passed out ~~;; ~~_' for you tonight. I'll let them do a job of explaining that to you, to kind of go with what ;,~ . ~, ;.:~~ ~. F Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 64 of 80 ``` ~~ 1 they are proposing to do with that. But right now staff has asked that one of these units ; : ~~ ` be removed and additional open space be provided. The applicant has submitted front, side, and rear building elevations for the housing types and the cabana. Building ~'~Y. materials are to include stucco, stone, and masonry, wood siding, rough sawn -- rough sawn timber, stained black, brown, Carmel or natural finish and fiberglass shingles. All of the homes will be two stories with covered porches, private courtyards, and own private backyards enclosed with six foot Cedar or vinyl fencing. The cabana is to be ~~~r; constructed of shingle -- stucco with slate the banding along the top and bottom of the structure. The same architectural shingles will be used as proposed by multi-family units. In the narrative submitted with the application, the applicant states the project ~~_' ' does not propose to repeat two exterior styles side by side. Staff is supportive of the , varying -- staff is supportive of varying the exterior styles and elevations and has conditioned the project as such in Exhibit B of the staff report. And that's also been included in the development agreement for the site. Staff likes the appearance of the proposed buildings and any future buildings on this site shall substantially comply with a~~; the construction material and design elements shown on these elevations. Staff is ~;~ recommending approval of the Villas @Lochsa Falls with conditions in Exhibit B of the staff reporter. With that I will stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? ? := Rohm: No, sir. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Grime: Good evening. It's still evening. My name is Evelyn Grime. I'm the architect. I'm the architect and planner on this project. My address is Place Design and Planning, 100 Main Street, Suite 201, Boise. 83702. Nice to be here. And my coach turns into a pumpkin, too. So, I have amended my comments just to stay as short as I can and I would encourage you to ask lots of questions. There is a lot of detail in this project, there is a lot going on on three acres, and we have spent a good almost a year exploring different layouts and approaches and design schemes, anything from a standard subdivision to what you see in front of you today. We have had four pre- application meetings and we have really tried hard to work with staff before we ever got in front of you tonight to see if we have got a winner. There is one other thing I'd like to pass out and I'd like to do it now before getting into the discussion of our features. So, if I may, I'll give this to Nancy. And just quickly, what I'm handing out is an enlarged plan of our entrance knuckle coming from Cedar Grove. Two of the items that I have included with this plan are a shaded box representing a car as it can travel around this directional island and into the private streets. In addition to that there are some 45 degree angle lines near the T intersection showing you the vision triangles. So, I think that will be a handy reference when we get to that part of our discussion. I have two other boards I'd like to put up. And my only concern here is I don't know how well Commissioner O'Brien can see and so if I need to move out of the way or if you want me to pull something up, I would be happy to do so. And my caffeine probably has not worn off, so let me introduce you to the Villas @Lochsa Falls. What we have tried to do ~:, v,,, i ~ ~ . - e ,.« 3 gyp,: ~. r ~.. 1 ': t ~!'~ t a ~~~ i s ~~ ^,p .,{2 .;:, r ~+ '_ '" i 1• ~5fi I~ r 1 ~. ~_ Y. S .. ~ ~ ~. v ~f : l~ '. ~ t."i: 1 ri r'~ ~~ '{~ t. 1 - ~; ~1 ~~~ ~_ , I - :~~ ~~: s:K; Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 65 of 80 here is look at our context and our context says that Comprehensive Plan shows that this could be, you know, up to an R-8 in density. Part of the reasons we have combined this with an R-15 condominium plat private street application is our ultimate goal was to be as -- condense the hard-scape as much as possible, condense the streets, and open up the open space as much so we have a neighborhood feel and rather than coming in here with a public street, which we tried different -- different layouts and every time we tried the public street approach it took up so much of the site and created a very unpleasant condition for any of the neighbors, because you would end up with a street running north-south right along the western property line here, which is very unfriendly to the three neighbors. Now, I'd ask you to look at this plan. You have three neighbors along your western boundary and you have three neighbors along your northern boundary. Across Linder Road you have got Rocky Mountain High and this lot remains a tree farm, I think. So, the design goal here was to integrate with the existing Lochsa Falls and to be similar to the existing Lochsa Falls as far as buildings next door, massing of structure, heights, architectural finishes. And our solution to this created a knuckle here where you come in at a directional travel and you go around a tree island and you come into the site -- this is where the private roads start. The next design tool is to take these twins and complete the architecture of these twins in such a way that they look like a single family home from the street. from either direction. So, if we look at this home, one of the front doors is here, coming in directly from the street. If we look at this one, the front door enters from the side. So, when you look at this front elevation you see a single family home. Another design to take apair -- or I call them twins. I have twins. That's why. And put it next to a single. So, at any point in the development, except right here, you don't have any pairs that are side by side. This is some of the way that we go away from that look of row homes. I heard Mr. O'Brien's comment earlier that he doesn't really like the look of row homes, but my goal as an architect is always to say this lives and breathes like two homes, but it looks like a single family on the street. And based on what it's next to, it also reads like a single family home. The other design tool that we use were these driveways. One of our challenges, given by staff and one that all of us agree with are recess the garages. Well, when you come in with a public street here or you try to lay this out in a standard traditional plat, you force your design into front loaded garages. By using the private street layout and by pairing these homes, we are able to push the garage to the back, have a ten foot wide drive here, this is an old fashioned ribbon strip driveway, with the landscaping in the center, but you can still go to the back here and flair out and have a full two car garage. But the emphasis is on the front door and the front porch and on trellises that, again, bring the attention away from the garage, but say, you know, welcome into my side yard. In this plat what I have done is all of the light green is public outdoor open space or front yards that's not private space. Everything that is dark green is meant to indicate that private outdoor space, as you would find in a single family home. To talk about the different amenities and follow up on Bill's presentation, I think starting, again, from our entrance, what makes this unique is we have a way of coming in and traffic calming this, you know, what would otherwise be a very wide straight shot through, by putting a tree island in the middle we are able to direct traffic around, slow it down, at this entry. Another amenity is the walking path that he mentioned and this is where we are asking for alternative compliance here. The idea r . ~`~` ~ ~ rr,, f t ``{y.~ ~` ~ ~~~ F 2 _ t- tx, w r p +~ r ~ ~~~" ~~,~ c .~,r d;` ~~ t ~ ~~" ~ ~~~~ L C ~. ~ ~.~- i, ~ S ~ ~ r.r ij . . ` r ~1 a ~. ~ ~r i -:A tir ,. _ 4,: S~ 5[:... ~(` r ~ t ~a'41 r ~~. i i~~ ~,^' + ~ ~ '- ~,~! t Y~3 ~ ~~ t i n - '{r;N.'.. 3Y ~~ {~ ~" - . t 5 a ~ t Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 66 of 80 was to connect this neighborhood in a more traditional fashion as you walk along the <~ ~ sidewalk and you greet your neighbors. So, there is a dedicated walking path this way. ~~ r And this four foot pathway is in addition to the 24 foot wide private street. And I think when Bill described that earlier it almost sounded like it was 24 feet, including the sidewalk. It's actually 24 feet plus the four foot walking path. And, then, when you reach the intersection of this T street, the surface area of that walking path changes just ' t , ': to say pay attention, you're coming to an intersection. When we come towards Linder Road, you know, whenever you have a landscape buffer here you have a choice of saying we want a ten foot buffer and we want to ignore the rest of the world. That's not ~~; our choice here. What we'd like to do is integrate and connect with Rocky Mountain High School and the rest of the world, but do it in a softer way. So, what we have is a three foot berm, plus a rock wall fence that runs the length of this and I have included ~'' tonight -- Bill was so kind to put these in with his report as well -- sections of this berm to <~ show you how the pathway works. Thank you, Bill -- with our area. So, if we look here th thi h t rth d appens a an sou , s at my board, this landscape berm picture is heading no -,~. r''`~'` the north end section and at the south end section where there isn't a pathway and what ~, ~ you have is Linder Road, it's proposed with a bike lane, a detached sidewalk. These ~~-~' '~ are based on ACRD plans and Scott with Mason Stanfield can correct me if I have this incorrect. I think this is the most current plan. And, then, we raised a three foot berm and, then, this -- a rock wall that takes this separation -- this vertical separation to four `~` ` feet at this point. And, then, that berm falls back towards the structure. And this berm all along here can be landscaped with trees and bushes and shrubs. When we move forward to where the walking path occupies part of that landscape buffer, this is what it looks like. So, again, you have got your Linder Road bike lane, sidewalk, that berm ~_ comes up to three feet, this is a rock wall that comes up one foot above the top of the r; ~--~. berm, plus another foot of wrought iron. And this pergola structure that you see in the background, there are two, there are these entry pergolas here and, then, a central fountain pergola here. So, what you're looking at in this picture is the fountain pergola you were walking along the sidewalk towards that fountain area. IVow, for open space requirements, part of what the code says is that you can -- you're required to have this ~~ landscape buffer along an arterial, but in order to count that -- and I counted this ,~; towards the open space requirement, because we have a greater than four foot vertical '~; separation between the road and the walking path, because at this point this rock wall, ~s: plus the wrought iron is five feet. However, the wrought iron, I personally still like, ` ~ because now walking along this path I can still look out across Linder Road, I can still ' ' . ~ m walking in a tunnel. And the idea is to open look at the high school. I don t feel like I ~=~ ~~ this up and create a very nicely landscaped parking -- you know, parkway path. The ~~~' third point of our berm section is right here at the pergola over the fountain, which I have '~~' drawn here, we have our Linder sidewalk and our berm and now this wall is curving out to create this semi circle plaza. The pergola is above it. In here would be the fountain r~ `- and now, you know, you have got a larger gathering space. You know, this gathering ~ ~~ space is -- you know, if you were to take this curved section, plus the sidewalk, is about _ 500 square feet. You know, it's not a courtyard size, it's large enough to have a group of people stop and sit and talk. So, I imagine you will have some questions about the berm, because I had some questions about the berm as I was designing it, but we come '~ back to any of those as you like. Bill, if we could go back to the elevations, please. ~: +. :.~: ; <, ~:-° ~'`~ -''. 5~:~~~'- ~:~: x iir~~<,3 ~~: J.. ~~t.~( ~. L-`,~a~~ .:~K ~,~1 ~~ i ~° ~>~ ~~~:: t,..3 ~i ~' ~ _~ ,~~; ui t, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 67 of 80 What I'd like to point out on the elevations, because this is another really key component with our design -- in respect to neighbor privacy -- and privacy goes two directions -- the upstairs building footprints are darker than the one story footprints. So, what I've tried to illustrate with this rendering is the upstairs massing steps back considerably from the property line in all directions. So, if we are along the western boundary, you have got your -- a one story garage and, then, your second story starts here, so that between this property line and your home is close to 30 feet. And the same thing happens along this northern boundary. The distance from the property line to the one story residential area, not the garage, but the master bath, actually, is 18 feet and by the time they get to the second story, again, you're close to 30 feet. And this is a design tool to keep this compatible with the neighbors, which are a lower density, but we are trying to make it look and breath and feel similar in density. So, if we look at elevations, this illustrates our side elevation where the garage is one story and, then, you go to that second story mark, these are the interior courtyards that every home has and, then, this is the front porch. And this is a front porch that shows that door coming from the side. In the rear this dashed line shows where the six foot fence would ride. These windows are true, because if you look at this roof line, this is coming back down, which lets us put a full side window in here for bedroom egress, but from the back side protects the privacy of that bedroom and protects the privacy of the neighboring property owner. So, if we look at this elevation or any of these, you could imagine that this is my property line, I come over ten feet, here is my garage, now I'm close to 30 feet. Here is my second story. So, to go through those items I hope that it illustrates just how much thought we have tried to work into this and meet all of the different code requirements, but still have something that I think is unique and that doesn't just give up the landscape buffer along Linder to the car. That's another -- I think that's a personal thing that I bring to this that just says we are creating neighborhoods here, we are creating avenues of cars. So, I really like that in the code where you could say I can still use the space for people space if I have four foot vertical separations and there is our walking path. So, aside from that, I would rather just go right into questions, because we are short on time and energy. I think I clarified the street widths. ACHD is already constructing Linder Road and our preliminary plat -- originally when we submitted it we thought, well, it would all be one common lot and after we submitted it was pointed out that we needed to separate the buffer lot from the residential lot. So, I do have that shown on this plan and I know that Scott's already addressed that on his plan back at the office and I don't think that's an issue. If you look at this streetscape here, this is looking directly -- directly from Linder Road this is the straight elevation, but it also can show you -- here is my property line. There is the massing step back and I step down, here is that entry pergola that allows some pedestrian connection through a gate to Linder Road, so it doesn't completely block my connections with the outside neighbor, besides Lochsa Falls. And, then, I have two homes here. This is our central garden and plaza pergola. And, again, then, this is our second access pergola to Linder Road. Now, the streets that you see in the I shape, they are happening right here, so, you know, this a to scale real depiction of the space we have between our buildings. And, again, we do actually want to design every elevation different where there wouldn't be any repetition, not just repetition side by side. And Dustin just reminded me that our major topic of discussion is the idea of our open space with the cabana and if you have ~~. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ , r.~~~, ~.~,_ r - t~: ' ~? ~° '~ {':~:ly ~-.. `.^h~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 c_, Page 68 of 80 the site plans that Bill passed out, this side plan study -- so let me briefly say how came up with the open space math. From my perspective I felt we had met the requirements, because I was including this section of area along this walking path, plus the area about the cabana, plus this section of the walking path, because it completes >~~=<k ~ ~ our recreational walking path around the neighborhood. So, I added all that up and ~ . came close to -- well, I think I was about a thousand square feet shy of what Bill said I ~~'-' needed to come up with, so I said, okay, well, how about we add to this area and we -.: ~-,~' ` meet the other requirements of enlarging the cabana and enlarging our outdoor amenity space and that's the plan that you have in front of you in an enlarged plan. The - differences are this: This home has gotten smaller. One parking space has gone away. To meet our parking we are required to have eight, with ten, so I don't believe r~-y<~> the loss of one space here is a detriment. And in your plan you will see the cabana has `~ moved forward to meet the ten foot setback as requested and it has been expanded to 240 square feet. The trellis area has shortened this way, but enlarged to the side and ~~"; this is a location that would be a great opportunity for a barbecue pit or something else that would increase the gathering space amenity. The pool has remained the same 'y' ~~ ~ size, but there is more open green space here. So, if I do the same calculation with this ~`~`:* ~ area and this is just -- when I do that calculation I'm just following the line of that wall, I'm not including this. So, if I take this area, the expanded area, and this section, we are ``"~-'I actually 50 square feet over -- 49 and a half square feet over the 7,350. So, one thing ' t allow us to do is count these private backyard spaces in any way. that the code doesn So, I can say that this site plan is 30 percent landscaping -- 30 percent soft compared to ~~~ a lot of this density that wouldn't reach that by any means. In addition to not being able to count these, though, I feel we are meeting our outdoor open space with this change ~ and doing so in a way that doesn't require the loss of a home. So, what I would ask you ``` ~ to do is give us an opportunity to take this to Council, understand that we are going to .~_~ continue to work with staff and come to a compromise that we are all happy with and I'd >~; like to stand for questions. And, forgive me, I'm tired to, so I'm really trying not to '~' ~ ramble, but -- ~u~ ~'~ ~` O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have one. ~- ~ '~ Moe: Yes. ~~~~ ,,> O'Brien: The fire egress, did they have any questions about the fact that these garages ,~ '~' ~ i::~,. right here could potentially be a problem of interference with vehicles -- ,,4 ;~~-~ Grime: Actually, no, because -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm ~, E_ - tired. I have sat down -- and, actually, Scott Stanfield has also sat down with Joe Silva - on some different occasions here and these are private streets and anything narrower ~;;'~ than 29 feet has to be posted no parking. So, parking is not allowed on these streets k just because they are 24 feet wide, plus -- technically, they are 28 feet wide, but there is y. t .a;~~: no parking allowed on either side of the street, hence, the guest parking is a must. In - John Overton, we also talked about addition to that, when I spoke with Joe Silva and including signs for towing and this something I think has been recently done where the homeowners association just steps up and says we have a towing agent on retainer and ~ ~ t , '~N: ~ ~„ ~ ~ ~* ~,. ~ ~~ ~' •. r~~'~ a r ti i r , a°, r ` r,~ , ,~ r L~, ~:~. ~ ~~ - ' ~ 5 $4Y r~'{Pt.~" JV ri ~ . y' x y c i ~ , ,+ ~ ~ ~y. µ l ±~~„ ~ ~ 4 . ~ ~'~ ri `~ ~ f Y M~ i ~ 't ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ` r { y ~,; ;~;.: ~- ~ i Sat Y [[[qqq~~~ 4 !~ - .~YYti ~. ~ ~~,. .~ ~ ~ w . ,~ ~7~ ~ ~fv ~ g ~y{ ' A ~ yif i~. jj [[ ~ +r~" ~~ ~ ~ ~ fr t ~ -} S~' t ~ : F.: ~. ~f ~ Sl. ~ ~jp ~: , ~., r s ~~_:'L ~: o ~~~ ~'- ~ Meridian Plannin 8 Zonin 9 9 March 6, 2008 r~.~ Page 69 of 80 if my neighbor doesn't like where someone else is parked or there is a problem, you call ~.. the towing company, you don't have to work with the city or call code enforcement or "A`~' that type of thing and if you come out and your car is gone, you call the towing ~}; r company. The number is right there. It's kind of aself-serving thing. And so far as emergency service vehicles, you know, the idea is, actually, you could park three cars in t'° many of these tandem driveways -- interesting to see who draws the short straw, but, `j .~ you know, there is -- there are places to park that are -- don't require you to park on the '~'"~' street and the other concern I know that Joe Silva has just been verified that we meet w`.,,.> ~*r <~ i the minimum maximum turning radiuses for emergency vehicles and we actually have -~ - several drawings now that show that we do, in fact, meet that. I think it's a matter of #'''~ testing the built product in the end that -- on paper it's working very nicely. And that's one of the reasons I included this enlarged plan, too, showing the parking and the vision triangles, just to give you a sense of it, because you look at this and you think, well, that's not very big. Well, you know, this is 53 feet from there to there and only ten's _~: "'$'I taken up by landscaping, so in most of the cases this is 29 feet here and it just gets ~~~~j wider from there. O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. ~' - Moe: I'm kind of curious, this area right here, is that new open space here or what is that right there? `~:~~' Grime: In this first plan that was private space for this home, with their front porch being here and a little bit of a front yard, but I felt that with parking here it might be kind of obnoxious, so originally it was fenced yard with a private space. Under the new plan s,v, this is reduced,. but this could be a four foot fence, not a six foot fence, but it's still R~.. private yard space to this home and in your new plan it's moved over about this much. So, if you take this first parking stall, move your sidewalk over to there, and all of that t; area now has gone into that public open space. Does that answer your question? }g'~' Moe: Well -- and, then, what kind of square footage are we speaking of in there? '~ j Where I'm getting that, I understand that your making the common space all over your :,,-J1 project, but I'm not seeing any dedicated space for a gathering spot for any sizable ~'< group, other than on, you know, pavement and whatnot, no real big green space. That's ~~`~~~ what I'm looking for. ^ `5` Grime: Okay. So, to answer that, in the amended plan that you have in front of you, _- this area -- going from memory here, but I believe this is 2,675 square feet and this whole side of it here, there is a large patio for gathering space and, then, as the trellis wraps around, there is a large area here for gathering space. Moe: Plan of the trellis looks like it really starts going towards the home quite a bit. Okay. Well, we can review that. ~~ Grime: And I think those are some of the finer details that we can -- we can continue to refine. t ,[y , i ti ~ 4. ~ "'rpm ~ l :. 5 Y K~C 't _~;. ~ ~-~ ~ '~, a ~y,~x' ~~-r +i ~~1 .' ` - ~ ~ ~ ~i'3 5 ` ~. ~ > ~ ~~ i~ ~ {{~( ~Y i ' .1 }y, . ~ j~ ~4F }y .~"~ Y ~' ~ ~~ ~~ V t~~~ ~ 7 ~_~ i~ ^.,N j ~~ y } ~ ~ '~~~ t ~ h3LS ~ z f ~ i rater it p y H 4 '~y t l zNY~ ~ ~, i t k: $~ ~''?i`~~, ~ ~~~~ ~~ ff~~ ~ ~ ~ ^ F 3~' ~ S~ ~ ~ _ a 1.' s a~. ~ ~ i ~,„C r. a ~ i~ ~:. 4 1' ~'~ t ~~d +y ~ t'.. ~1,,' ~., ~' ' a f ,~ t1 ~;4 - ,j?' } .,~ `„ Y i-. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 70 of 80 ,~~. ~~~ Moe: Are there any other questions of the applicant? >: ~~-: ~ O'Brien: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Grime: Thank you. ~~~ Moe: There was no one signed up, but if there is someone that would like to speak, _~, you're more than welcome to come forward. One coming up. ~~ ~ ~ Stanfield: I'll make it real quick. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. Two things. In our neighbor meeting there was no opposition to this. Second of all, on a condo plat we are controlled by state code and anything that is not aunit -- in other words, a living unit in this case, is automatically a so you don't differentiate a landscape common area along Linder Road. ~~~ common area , ~'~ The whole thing is a common area, except for the living unit. So, we are pretty sure the t _ i county surveyor will bounce it back if he sees a lot line right there on the common plat. ~3;:.' So, that's why the preliminary plat doesn't show a dedicated common lot, because it's not a unit there, it's a common area. That's it. '`°~'`~ k ~l Moe: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to come up. Okay. No s~ one's coming forward. Any questions of staff, Commissioners? Bill, I guess I would ask °`~~ based upon the new plan that you received in regards -- I'm just trying to get a handle ~~~ on the open space. What is staffs recommendation based upon the new plan? ~ . ~C~ 'F ,_. Parsons: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, staff still would be supportive of having -- you know, maybe not losing a unit, but still having some kind of open space if they were -;~' ~ ~ I able to maybe turn that building 90 degrees that one single unit there, tum that ~;; r i somehow and make it still work and provide additional open space on that side -- on the a ~~ -- I guess the west side of the cabana and pool site and try to have some kind of ~,k~;~ additional open space for residents in the area to congregate. Other than that we still feel like there should be some additional open space, even with the revised plan that } they provided. ~Y~ ~ s , F r:. =, Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? tt f ~-? i Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. z "-, ~~ x ~~'`' Newton-Huckabay: So, the personal -- the dark green -- the dark green areas here in = ~ ;:~ a . ~~~` ~ between these -- these four units -- this is for all four residents? ~~ ~~~ Moe: Yeah. That's basically private space inside, it's not common space. ~ ~ ,z ~'~' ~ ,;~, t~ r`: s .'~ rI ~' ~~ ~ ,T e ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 71 of 80 `~°~ Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand that. But it's for the use of everyone who lives in ~, -- either here, here, here, or here. It's fenced -- it's private yards. Oh. Moe: From the audience the applicant said it was private. Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Okay. I would be in favor of a little more obvious green gathering area, as Bill stated, too. That is my only problem. It's a lot going on on this small piece of property, but I think it works really well. I'd just like to see a little picnic area, something like that I think would be really -- really nice there. But I do like what you did with the berm along Linder. That's very nice. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. ~`'~ O'Brien: Yeah. Along with that I think that if you expand -- if you expand that area, I'm ~~~ concerned about the lack of parking there for guests that may want to utilize this with 4`:- the owners of the -- or residents there. I still -- I think that's -- the number of parking -- excess parking is lacking. I don't know what the number is, but if you add more space "'_''I and have more functions in the larger functions, where are they going to park? ~, ~t Moe: But per the code they only need eight and they have got ten. ~y:-. ^;~~°~ O'Brien: I agree. That's just an observation. Newton-Huckabay: Are you thinking -- Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, are you thinking that like these people are going to drive up here? .r ~I O'Brien: Oh, that could be, but -- ~ Newton-Huckabay: Rather than walk? O'Brien: I don't know. But if they -- if you have a function going on and people from the ~t" ~~ outside that are family or friends stop by, I'm just saying -- suggesting that along with ~;~' F' normal visitors you're going to have an influx and they can't park on the street, so they -. have to park outside of the residences or -- I don't know. It's just a question. It's just a e-~~~-~ concern, I guess. But if it meets code, it meets code. -'~:r: Newton-Huckabay: They could park over at Rocky Mountain and take this regional r~ ~ path. ~;t; O'Brien: There you go. There you go. I'll shut up. S! ~, J yYw y;;, - r,.y r.,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 72 of 80 r, Newton-Huckabay: No. That's good. ~~ Y'~ Moe: Are there any other comments from the Commissioners? ~~ Marshall: Comments? Moe: Comments. Marshall: I'm especially -- I especially like the way the garages and things are setback. I really like that. I like the streetscape. I don't have a problem with the parking. I think that's a very good point that Rocky Mountain has a huge parking lot over there and it is right across the street. I am concerned about the open space, because I used to -- I mean this is a pathway, this is not a gathering spot to me. I think -- I like this, but I'm not going to gather next to somebody's garage to sit and talk to my neighbors and stuff. You know, if this -- if you had a large area where there was a barbecue pit and stuff like that, but your new shows more space here, your new design, but that ten foot if there is any kids in there, you're still in the splash zone. I mean this -- I would want to be back away from that pool if I wanted to sit and watch kids in the pool or something like that. I -- again, I would like to see a little larger gathering space. I really like the architecture and the way the garages are setback and I really like that, but -- I guess that's all I have. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohm, do you have any comment? Rohm: None. °' Moe: Okay. That was quick enough. Quite frankly, I really like the project. It's got a ;: =~' great look to it and everything else, but I, too, I have one major problem and that is the gathering space, you know, there is just -- something needs to be done up there. I don't know whether we -- you know, this building turns, therefore, allowing additional space here. I don't know whether you can do that. We are still open, if you could come up, ~~~ maybe, and address that I would appreciate that. _;~' Grime: Love to. Evelyn Grime again. And, actually, there are -- I'm a firm believer that 4, -; we can solve everything through design. So, again, we can take the plan that we have - already started to amend and just keep working with it. As far as the area here for this square footage of home, we can still meet our promised goals of three bedroom, two and a half bath, master bedroom down by changing the footprint on this. Originally I was trying to keep this wall back at this 18 foot line, simply for being considerate of the ~~ northern neighbor. But we can go over the garage a little bit and we can come a little bit closer and square this building up, as opposed to making it elongated and still have very ~~` good private outdoor open space, a great front porch and front entry and I think we can ````~ do it with only losing one parking space and adding quite a bit of green space to the pool and cabana area. I think the plan that you're looking at that shows the expanded trellis -- and a part of that trellis is over landscaped area, too, and that patio -- I'm going from memory here, because I don't have it front of me. The patio is this way and that °~ ~ plan is 13 feet to the apron. It's still another five feet to the pool. But now it's close to -- ...,-r L F 43.f ~` -y. . ~ y ~y~ '~V -_ S' ~F ..: ~. ~~(( ~k~ ~' f ~.H N S Y 4 y S ifl ; a~ , , ~, ,, i i ' ~; r ~?,s ~E °` ~L. - -. 3k+ l'r r~ ~. ~~ ~ tr ~ ~'~ ~ ~ y ,~_ ~ ~ t~ i k _ i ~ Y '4 , u l ?~ ~ ~~' ~ 1 ~ti ~ ~~ G ~ r~ 3 r ~t ~ ^ ~ ~~: 7 ~ f 4 {, d 5.:1, ,~ ~ ~ S1~ } t ~4!L~ ~'yy~ i> T R?' L`f ? ~ ~ r C7 ~lr ~ r ~' ~ ~ ~'~ ` 7, * 'r f Y k - ' _ _ S f ~ 3 . ~ ' ~ h ~ r k ~ '- x r~ h. { '~ ; „7 ~li , i~, ~~ `a t a' . Mn„ b ^f i t'~~~ , ~r ~,_ ' ~~ nr. yitgc 3 y ? ~S "' f 11 z ~. ~q: ~., Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 73 of 80 I want to say 20 feet wide and that's just in this area. And when you come around the ~>~ side, it's showing a ten foot section of landscaping that can be widened, because this t can turn and this building footprint can change and so when this changes, this goes from dark green to light green and, then, we achieve that gathering space. The parking -- I'd like to address Commissioner O'Brien's question -- and I think it's a good question of any neighborhood, you know, what do you do when you have a party. The idea here is, you know, these four guest spaces are to compensate for these four homes -- these four and four of these, so that these have guest parking spaces within 75 feet of their front door. However, you know, the likelihood of everyone having a party at the same '~<:_ time is kind of remote. So, I think that, you know, parking here and parking here is ~;a, available for those types of occasions, plus if I -- if I come over and see this guy and have been here before, I know that I can park in this driveway and walk over if one of `n ~ these isn't open, and I can come from across the street. So, I really do think that through the redesign of this home we can achieve a really nice open space here that retains the intimacy of the neighborhood, but still -- you know, you could have 30 people. I don't think we are too far away from that with the site plan that you have in front of you. If we -- you know, to take us out of the splash zone we could also scoot ~'' _ the pool over. You know, this pool is intended as a small pool, an exercise pool, you '~~, know, get wet, have some fun. It's not a municipal pool. So, with that in mind, those dimensions in the standard industry are, you know ten to 12 feet wide and 30 -- about 30 feet long, still plenty of room for kids to play and -- you know, or for you to do a few laps. Moe: Okay. What kind of a time frame would it take you to see what you could do and, then, show us a new site plan with that? Grime: Well, my concern is this: I know -- and I'll just be candid, I think my client -- again, we have spent so much time in some of our four pre-application meetings in really looking at different options that, you know, their option on the property, we are running up against a deadline and that's why if there was any way to say keep working on it, this is the condition, go onto Council, knowing that we are going to keep working on it as we have illustrated, we would ask for that, because we are running into our option deadline here. And so I asked this earlier and they said, yeah, two weeks puts us into trouble with that. Moe: Well, let me ask staff. I'm kind of curious of one thing. Bill, do you have an area as far as the square footage -- additional area that you would be looking for? In that area where we are at. I guess my point being if anything we could do a condition that they require an additional X amount of square footage and that be shown prior to Council. Hood: Mr. Chair, if you don't mind me fielding that one. I guess I'd put it maybe back on the applicant with the revised layout of that house, where does that put the -- for the ~~}~ ~ east -- you know, property or building line, so how much room, then, are we talking between that building line and the trellis area or what's available there. I mean you're -`='~ looking at a small yard for whoever is going to take that -- in fact, they will probably have ~ k , ,~ ~=~ ~ ~ a K tom, ~ : ' -. ,~ ~~ ~ .~~. ~~ , i ~~ M1 ~ 4 L( ~ rs, ~ _...,~ ~ - r m ~'7~' f ~t*`~y, i ..~ i?s ~F', .~.. Y~'~ x' R ., ' ~~, ' i , x ~ C~ j , , ~~ ~ ' k~ } ~~ r 4 ,~ r ~. 'Jt T~-~:. 4 r t - (~y +. ~. J J ~ ~L ~- ~~ ~ ;~, ~3 Lt .. 1 ~fti r. ~ p!.k. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ty ry +r-S F, M ~lY •• 4 ~ +._..F ~ ~Gg,I ~e fi t~, . ~,~ „ ~+r. ~ ~ ;~,. ~ . sw. - _ ... ~ ~~ ,~ Ptx~~i , . ' - Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 74 of 80 virtually no front yard and no rear yard. But they will back up -- they will be right next to ~< a common area, so -- but that's the dimension we really need is when you go with livable above the garage, how far over are you going, because I'd like to see all of that, '~'~ ~ then, included into the -- the open space, whatever is available outside of that. Grime: So, looking at this revised plan, the open -- just to clarify the revised plan, the Y open space between the apron of the pool and the fence of the home number three -- if we were to take that another five feet, that gives us, you know that's like 12 feet. So , , you know, a considerable area of open space beside the pool. Also, we can take the ~`' pool and we can push it a little bit further to the right to increase the green space ,r ~" between the pool and the parking and the fence line of the home. And, Caleb, I think \ ~~ that the back yard space, even if we push that rear building wall to the north a little bit, F t~ you know, I wouldn't feel comfortable going with less than 15 feet, which in an urban ?~'- condition is a backyard. So, I think they still can have a very nice private backyard and think we can still create a great front porch, front yard, with this court yard effect, you know, still happening, but give another five -- probably no more than ten feet, but I think ~? five to seven is easy and still maintain the quality of living around home number three. ''` But, again, realize that between the apron of the pool and the fence right now there is 12 feet, so if you add another five feet, that's 17 feet. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, just to kind of put this in context to some of our other code and ~=~ most of it revolves around subdivisions, but for it to even qualify as open space in our !~ residential stuff it needs to be at least 20 feet wide before we even start to count it. And ~ .~ _, I'm thinking of -- you know, if I want to go toss a frisbee with my buddy, where am I ~'`' ~ oin to o. Somethin 20 feet wide ma be, 25 is robabl ideal b the len th of that ~f,; 9 9 9 9 Y P Y~ Y 9 k"'° from parking stall to the north. So, you just asked what we would be looking for, that's what I would be looking for is something that's usable, maybe something in there. Because it really isn't anywhere like that on the site. So, if we can get a couple more :~> feet, you know, again, from the edge of the pool or the decking of the pool, 20 to 25 feet Y ~ of green space in there, if that's possible, I mean I think that's -- that's ideal from a use standpoint. I'm just saying if I lived in there I would want something like that. And I don't know what the length is of that from parking stall to your north property boundary ~~~~ or what that gives you in square footage, but - Grime: May I answer? Moe: Yes. Grime: Okay. So, actually, from our north boundary from -- not from the parking stall, `~ but if you look at this from the street, you know, you have got 40 feet there by the time r:'' ~~~' you come to the trellis and, then, again, I think we can go wider. I would like to point out, kind of like the parking condition, we have got Rocky Mountain High School across the street, if you really want to throw your frisbee or play football, I'm probably going to go across the street. But for a quick run around play tag with the little ones, I think we are close to a solution there. I am trying to keep it so that we have enough frontage for ,~. home number three and have that master bedroom down, just from a house plan design ° ~ ~•N ~ i i` ~ t 1. is j `1 ~~ ~~ ~~ { }i I ~ t~s .4 ~ i~ ~ 4 ;.~. t ~~~w s, g i ~ `6 `# ~14h. ~~fv, M F~~ y '~~" 24 x~-0'k p,~ a;-}, µ ~~~. y ~ , i r ~ r i ~ ~' ~ y ~ 7t ^5 :~' 1 V ~ 2 ' Tc, s4 ~'{i:t' - f ~~~ ~' k~$ ~, t ~~ ~ { { l~ ~ .'z c ~,'j ` ` Meridian Planning & Zoning '''" ~ March 8, 2008 Page 75 of 80 point of view. I'm just trying to make sure I can still deliver on that promise. However, `=~h:'> you know, I think we are really close. Again, we could create that 20 feet of grassy area ~~~ by moving the pool to the right, maybe we even bring the pool down a little narrower, make it a smaller size width of pool to increase our grassy space to the left and the ~'~' apron -- standard apron is three feet wide. So, that's a safety concern, because that ~~''s needs to remain three feet wide, but you can still take your pool to the right and increase your grassy area to the left by modifying home number three and I would say, you know, if we could achieve an area here that's 20 feet wide between the apron and the fence line for the home of number three, you know, that provides one large area ~~~` space, we could shift the parking lot to the left also. One reason I did not do that is my ~~~~' pathways look so pretty here, but, you know, really, that can be done, the whole -- that whole section can shift over and we still have enough room there for a class two tree, ~~=~'' ~' possibly a class three. ;;,,. Moe: I guess my biggest concern -- ;,~ , ~~;.:;:~, Grime: And have a nice front point entry. Moe: -- right now is -- is that we are not able to really define what we are going to do to resolve this, so, therefore, you know, I think we are going to have to continue this thing. Grime: Okay. Moe: That would be a recommendation that I would give the rest of the Commission, would be to consider a continuance if, in fact, you think you can make this work, you ~~; ~ know -- ~: °'~ ~' Grime: Or could we suggest that we will meet 20 feet clear between the apron of the ~~ ' pool and home number three, the grassy area, as a condition, because I think we can meet that by the adjustments that I have mentioned. And if we can't meet it, then, we are going to be back here to see you anyway. But I mean just working through that, you know, give me half an hour and I can draw it for you, too. I think we are that close. But ~~ I guess Caleb and Bill would want to concur if 20 feet clear grassy area would work for you. Moe: We are speaking of 20 foot and, then, all the way up. `~~.~ Grime: I understand. ~. Moe: From the parking all the way -- Grime: Correct. And I would even adjust the parking. If I can bring it all the way to the street I'll do that, too. Without losing anymore parking. :''fit'. ~ • 4~=:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning '~' March 6, 2008 Page 76 of 80 ~% s,.. ~'~ Moe: Well, again, on most projects that come through here, any type of site change and whatnot, this Commission has not gone ahead and approved things without seeing the revision prior to going to City Council - Grime: I understand. ~~} F.M Moe: So, I'm going to ask the other Commissioners what their opinion is of this before t.`,; { we -- because I'm only one. And I will just go down the line. ,,. Newton-Huckabay: I don't really have any issue. If we get a commitment for -- I'd say ~~~~_ ` we get a commitment of total square footage or total foot, move on with it, they have t,; - done a great job designing the rest of the site, I'm pretty confident that whatever house '~"` three -- the footprint's going to be fine, because I don't have any problem really moving it forward. It would be one thing if we were moving a lot of buildings and that kind of thing, but -- Moe: Okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think that I would concur with Commission Newton-Huckabay, as long as we get a definition from staff to what their expectations are and as long as they can make their architectural changes that match the staffs stipulation, then, I have no problem moving it forward either. `~ Moe: Commissioner Marshall? ~: ~ Marshall: I am of the same mind. ~~ Moe: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I, too. I think there is a myriad of possibilities there of getting that much space '~=' `~ and I don't see there is any issue at all. ,F; Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I would actually agree and I'm just -- I am just -, wanting to get staff to give us a little bit of direction, so that when someone makes a ~: motion we know where we are going. r Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Could we recommend if we form a motion in a form that the applicant will add an additional ten feet to the -- to the existing open space or increase ' the existin ten feet from the a ron of the ool to 20 feet to the west would that be 9 p p ~_~, sufficient? That will give us the 20 foot -- ~. '~ Marshall: Through the latest -- .> - . ~~ p ~>'.'~y F.#' Ss t a QF ~ R ~ 1 ~'3e i i 3 a i ~' 'F ~ ~' ~ `'S:: }• k f 'c'. '~. 1 s ' i2^:: ;Cy ` S * », x yt k ~ , ~F G ~ .t n ~ t ::i " I. •.+ ~ ; . y-' l ;,iwS~; ..i. .i ~,. „ ~ ~ e . .z 1 rf 4~.i!°4 - „;t `,Y .,.~ :`. irR ~'1~,r~~N,Ryy abt.".. .`}~ .. hV.' . E L.~ .`3c;2 j';': t i .~ F l~ f ,. . ,„,~Y Y ~ '~ ~ [r ~ ~ I { ~. ~ ~ ? 3 ~ i l~.'.~ F ,5 ~ C . i3 X+~ . 4w ~~Y", l.': ~•: ~~•~~ X 4 1 . .• : x. ^ ~ ; ; ^ ~ ~~ .~~,.;~ ~'. . { ~ ,, N `~ .. ; -1 ~ ~ ^!` ;4.s yA~.''% 'MA~ :• ~ llr~: ~ :.a SF'vKM. 3 y ~ , ~ G ,. <r ~ .. ,: ~~ I ~ m~ •A ~ 1 rye,' 4^• , ~,,,`~~` f'~ " , 'k 7• 'I, _ fi••'rrii'~.~; ~~ t -r. ~ 1:. ',.` s• ~ : + a 5%m.A.v'~^~, `l `#' :L' C i ~ _, r nb•" ~ :,. F;T.$•~ 9~d'~t'*t tf: u:;~"t~,.~..'+<`~ 'm .,t {~'~~ •~.'. ~'~ [ ii: F ~ .f"~' k.~~ S ' 'r 1 ~.. "~ fs, :.'E* i #., _ X141 .g' ' i•~.ii~k I• .i;: .~ `7. i- ,,.- 7•'•. t ~l`c. : i 1 ~ k . C ~ '',~ tY. v ~ ~ A ' ' 'c' .1 1 .. z~ :S%:r-~ • 4 .. ~s~' 4, .] i ~~y : :.~;~ . .:; ' : `~ ,^ . ; ~ I ,tt 5t 5 r . : (' r t.. t li ~, nrrri~ y I ~ I ~ ; '„', . , 5 x'r.h~ ~ S v .~' .' 'h t 'rxc• t; t " :'S' ' •~ / t. a 4 ~ ~ ' ~4 ' '" ~ t 1 ~ ~ . a ~ .scil,~, l ., I'.~ t s~ . 3~ d 7 ~ '~`a~ ~ ~ 5 + , yam', ,3~-t. ~~, • ,:t.w ~ :-:~Fa :,^~~:: ' y Y , y ;~. ~ .FR ",~ S I'KT y$' :i`:^ ~ i,Y. w ; •'. .': .~ r' l 1 { ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ ~ i' :j; j~{F. ~ I :: ' A ' i ~ ~ 1 _. ~ •) t . :.~'. •: u. .:• i ii-Pi: k .. :..x.' Y `. d- . v v .:.r' '. .i .l .. ~~. ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • March 6, 2008 Page 77 of 80 Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I'm sorry. This revision. -`~ Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff originally just request that we remove the t~ whole -- one unit altogether and so if you guys are so inclined, feel that you want to add that provision to that, we will let you decide on that. But right now it's -- we leave it up to our -- we don't design the projects, we -- basically, we are just saying, okay, this is the easiest way to go with it, remove a unit and provide an additional amenity and the tir: applicant didn't want to lose that additional unit, so -- and that's understandable. I mean they spent a lot of time and effort on this project. So, I -- at this time I can't picture if you guys are so inclined to do that, I guess we will do that, but I'll leave it in your court. Moe: Any recommendation right now, it's -- it's to delete one. ~;° Parsons: That's how I wrote the staff report, yes. `'{;' ~ ~`'°"' Rohm: We are not closed yet, so -- Moe: No, we are not. Grime: So, I wonder if that condition can be amended through the motion to -- you know, along the lines that if the additional open space if 20 feet of open grassy area on the west side of the pool can be provided, then, a unit doesn't have to be taken out, ~Y. along those lines. I don't know if you can do that and in your motion amend that ~'~' condition. I don't know -- so, that be would my -- my thought is can we take that condition and amend it so that we are not taking a unit out as a solution, but rather r''° ~ ~ providing an alternative solution with a minimum of 20 feet of grassy open area to the ~~r~ west side of the pool. You know, modifying unit number three as necessary. ~`;:~ Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that, just with the exception of I don't want to see the ~;. -~r} pool moved to get that. Grime: Okay. ~ '=ti Newton-Huckabay: I want to see you gain the ten extra feet from this revision, but I don't want you to get that by getting five of it by pushing the pool over. ~``: Grime: I wouldn't have that much anyway. Talking inches. "~"`~I Hood: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to jump in real quick and comments have ~! been made about the open space -- it needs to be common open space. That's the ~'I whole driving thing that everyone -- it shouldn't just be a rear or side yard for that building three, it needs to be open for the general community to use. So, if you could ~'Y. ~ ;, 4 ~ ~;~f'jb{, a *' L~'e ~.~ ~ a a ~ .:.o_ 4~I-'YS ~'~ __ f ., ^_ I ~:r;' ;~, ~1~ ~ ., Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 6, 2008 Page 78 of 80 use that language, common open area of at least 20 feet wide, so it's not their backyard or side yard or however that units going to be reoriented. Grime: That's certainly my intent, yeah. Marshall: An expansion of the current common area? Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everyone in agreement with that verbiage, basically where we -- Rohm: I like that. Marshall: I think so. O'Brien: Yes. Moe: Bill, do you know what condition that is in your report that would need to be revised? Newton-Huckabay: I don't have this one printed out. Rohm: While we are doing it, let's close the Public Hearing, do you want to? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, go ahead. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020 -- well, excuse me. It's, actually, AZ 08-002 and PP 08-002 and CUP 08-003. Moe: Love to if I can get a second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-002, PP 08- 002 and CUP 08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I'm still looking for that condition, so bear with me just a minute. Moe: We are bearing. : ; ~ :p ~ . '~. ~ of y fi~.~ ~ ~~i. ~, ~ ~ § ,3 ~ =W ~ ~; ~~ ~~J ~ `5.. P~ - a n ~ 'y~ '~` ; f c ~ fi~ ~'rfi=' ,~ ~~- ~ ~~=` ° ~ ~ ~ 3 J~S?] si -.. ~. r Y9 ~r, ~ ~ ~~~ $r i„ L~ i ~ ~. ~ `7 1 I ~ d ~ ~~t ~ . ~ . ~r ar ~ .,{i~ !1 1 ~ ~ ~ i ' -;Y Y ~" ` ` ~ ~~ ' ~ 'Lr;:y f ~ 1 ~ ! ~.. k '~ 'F 9fv r ~ ~ y i J .; 4 h~ ~ r~!Y3, i ~l ., ` 'y i 4'f'~T . , .. v "Tyr 1 ~ '~ ut4~r# .'. ~~ f~TG ~ ~~ t s e~ a ~ y ~~~~~~ ~. .. 1 ~~5 - ~ T ~ k{~r , . l h t - S a / .!~ g b }.. ~ ~ y j ~ :,, •. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 79 of 80 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, one bullet point is in the development agreement requirement provisions. We said construct a maximum of 20 units. That's condition 1.1.2. Newton-Huckabay: If I amend that one will that cover it? 1.1.2? Parsons: Yes. And, then, also in the Conditional Use Permit section, condition 1.4.1, bullet number one, it also references removing the one unit to the north and incorporate more open space around the pool and cabana area. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Parsons: So, if we can change that to say 21 units, possibly, in the DA and, then, just revise that to an additional 20 -- your 20 foot common area, to the cabana area. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Will do. Parsons: And I'd also like to point out which are you preferring that additional amenity, too, as far as the picnic area or anything in that open space? Or do you want to strike that requirement as well? Newton-Huckabay: No. Afire pit and kind of -- a barbecue area. Marshall: A barbecue area of something like that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: An additional amenity. Newton-Huckabay: Additional amenity. After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move the approval of file numbers AZ 08-002, PP 08-002, and CUP 08-003. Do we reference the two -- the public street and the alternative -- it's not -- as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 6, 2008, with the following modifications: On bullet point number 1.1.2 in the annexation and zoning conditions of approval, bullet number one, construct a maximum of 20 units on this site and comply with the site landscape plan and elevations submitted with the CUP, should read construct a maximum of 21 units. Okay. And on the Conditional Use Permit, bullet 1.1.4, revise that bullet to read that the applicant will increase the open -- common open space in the northeast area of the property by increasing the area from the apron of the pool from ten foot to -- from ten to 20 foot west. Is that clear enough, everybody? And, then, bullet one that reads revise the site plan by removing one of the units along the north boundary and incorporate the area into common open space around the cabana and pool area, a maximum 20 units are approved, a minimum of 7,000 square feet of common open space shall be provided. Change that to a maximum of 20 units are approved -- 21. And strike the first sentence, revise the site plan by removing one of the units along the north boundary. And change that to -- Y ~~~. r :. 1 ~ ~.: r ~ ~ '{ _ A .v. f 7 ~ r ~ ' _ r ~4~ r, i ~~ yy *at „~'~r ~ c~ •r ~ ? R i ~ f yC ~. ~p ~ - W .~~~~(' a ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ti ~ : i~ ~.c- ht' , n. . ~ ~ a , w ~. r -. - ~R y-,1 tt li,~a~ ~ r,.a n ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ....3; ~_ { y.~,~y "1 J ~ ~AM' ~ z ~ 1 , p a .yk ~R}. _ - ~ ~ j, Uh5 r T , . ~ 4'~. ~v ~'t 1 C ~ '. ; f VF# t!S~ ` Ty'ta k~~.i. Yr. ~ x ~n 4 ; .;r y 4. ~.,.,,y Fy,~i ^^^^ "'' y 444 t f~i "~,n k1~~ 3 ~ C " X~4. RGL` Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2008 Page 80 of 80 ~`' Moe: And the amenity? Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I guess a third bullet there would be to add an additional amenity in that area such as a barbecue pit or -- is that what we -- such as, but not limited to, a barbecue pit. Rohm: Second. "=' ;~ t '>--;; =~' ~. ,$ ~~ <~ ,~ Newton-Huckabay: I do believe that's the end of my motion. Moe: Are you done with your motion. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approving AZ 08-002, PP 08-002, and CUP 08- 003, including all staff comments and modification as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and second to adjourn. In favor? Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: 11:50. We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVE DAVID MOE - C M N DATE APPROVED `\`,~~~.~ ~ ~ "''~%,,~~~', ,. d~ ,, °q'9~`0 ,~~ ~~ SISAL OLMAN, CITY CLERK ~ ~,~ . 7 ~ T 1/'~ ' ~j a .. ATTEST: JAYC ~~ a-,,. ~~s ~ ~~ ~~'~. ~~~. } r~ fir. ~~: T ~ is .; 'orb. t X ~ r~ N ~ ~~~ ~ ~ y. . V ; - yy~y 1aQ~ -~ 1 Z~ ;~^ i a!.' y ~ ~h - b l~~ ~ t 7 ~ 111" ~+ ~~ ~" C re7 C r ~ f~ 3y ~yi', ~;'` - a~ r x ~F; ~!~? w-~ ,' ~' 3 4 '4•j. C,'.i ~1 S U [~ ~ . ~ 3 od id'- i, t ~Y~ ~t C~... ~~i Y ~ A~. t ~~ ~ t r - ~ ~ ' - ~ ._ ~ ~- -~- - e5+"S hS ~ ~ ~P~ • March 3, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~A REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 7, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: GITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: COMMENTS MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~, ?~^ ~ ~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~ _~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: E, °'>--<-~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ``~<`t--$ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~ # ' " SETTLERS IRRIGATION: £~'; ! IDAHO POWER: K,'-~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: P~~~;;._ OTHER: ~~ Contacted: Date: Phone: "- . ~' Emailed: Staff Initials: ';~ Materials Presented at public meetings sha0 become properly of the City of Meridian. fK ~,ti 4 ~i~ ? { ~i. 1 ~ ~G L ~ F } . ti { '- ~ -, r7F3:r~C• ~ 'rti ' r~ ~k* ~~ '~ 4r .y.~., F f s 4~ , t Y ^ ~ }tM} r4 ' Sp. ~~,.. V T- [yi. Y~ i 1 ~ .. <T r~.~~,1. } 3 ~ , p +' JJ~ yyy~~y5 ~ t ~ ~.~, ~~ rt ? p,~'K A~j f ~ l~ ... i 1,x.5 ~ v 1~ i ~3'li ~ < _ fi +.~' ~, ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~~ ~ . ;;5 ;i t f f ~ .~O..~Y ~~ f* ~ ~ ~ ~ :i i ~~" ~i• aa~~~kL, i' Y iA #.''~. March 3, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ~ CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY "~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ~r =~` CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ SANITARY SERVICES: '~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: <<t CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: " NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: °~s~;t IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ,_ ' ~ ? OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: `k~''~ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubOc meetings shail become property of the City of Meridian. ~ y'i ':::r '; ® • March 3, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 CUP 08-001 ~., t << ~,..r~ Y ,:>~. APPLICANT Annette Reed REM NO. 3-C REQUEST findings for Approval -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-School and Daycare - 3150 North Biairmore Way AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Findings AAaterials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. .: ~' ~ ~ c " . ' z~ ,. ~~ ~~~k } / ~ ~,1} e+x~ x~y d ~ra!~~tk~ 4 r ~ , t ix ~fi r t'~~+ f ~£J}i + r ~ _ 1~ -.~~ a art 1 ~.~~:.'. ~ ; ~ J ~ ~C { ~ ~ +'yy~ h~ ~ ryJJ ' T t 3~ 4~ V r(;`~t^ ~ K ~y ;.x ~ ~ ~ ~. €~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ r 3 7 o- i ~ ~ ~3 ' ', ~ ~ ~ ~,~.~ 4 ~R ~ . ' ~ r ~ r -~' gy~.~ X ~ ~~,, -. fR+ 3 ~ "~r" ~ i'f +'SFF ~~r ~ ~, ~ ~ ¢~ ~ ~I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIAN~--- LAW AND ~ u ~ ~ Q DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district, for Blairmore Pre-school, by Annette Reed. Case No(s). CUP-08-001 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 21, 2008 (Findings on March 6, 2008). A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). a:~~ 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified ~`~ Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps ~' ~ ~; ~ thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the ~''' ~ Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, ~_ ~~~ ~ 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. ~;' 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § - =' 11-SA. ~, •~"A~ 7 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental ~ = ~ subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. x:- ; II ~:':`;~ y ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-001 :;-~ Page 1 Y Y~ ~~ t , '~ ~ ~ ,.'Y YYY..'...ill .. X ' ~ ~ k --~ L ~ Y ~ t ~..~ y ' ~ v ~y ~~;~ bi: - ~r~ -'~ ., h~ n ~ , c~ ' ~ ~~ 3 ~ ! r z~ ~-' sd t6~hFi _ 4 r.,. ~ ~~ r ~ ..~;~ ~ ~~~~ ~ e . ~ ~; r ` `s~G' i ,?~`~- '' ~s >,- : ~ ~ '' t ~ ..~ s ` ~~#~:: /.. x~ ~ I ti ~ ~~~~: ~4' i t Y ~ it v• ~ * , `a ~~ ~ ~"'~ • 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site/Landscape Plan dated February 12, 2008, prepared by MCHD, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration ~' 7~ Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a ~~ maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the ~k conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, „~ and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the .~ final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the '~~ event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the -'~' ~ one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and `,, I void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the °~`-r period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the ~';±~'~ ~, time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the ,~,~ Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may ,, ~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER '`"''" ' CASE NO(S). CUP-08-001 ~'~!~~r Page 2 ,r ~' ~:+, ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~r" o-_ ~ ~' ti ~~ ~ F ~- pt~ 't yy Gr^ i 4: ~;~ ~ i T ~~, ~~ r ~ ~e - IC .Ry+~ F k' - ~,~y, ~ ~4.~. ~~d 'kRr ~ ' ~• ~ ~ x ~ r~`t.~, ox i~L k fG~f 1 _ 3 ~ ; ~1 ~ i~ ~i a4~ ~ ~ ~.k } k~ F rT P~ ~::. r~~}' - i ~ s.! s+y.,~~ l7„1.i ~d ~_~ ? ~. ~ q ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~¢ .~;~ i ~ 2cfgi`t- Y ~ ~,.. i ~ ~ } ~` - ` 'f .1 ~rf ~ ~ ~ ~ ], v :. rt ~El 3i~ ~~~~w a ~~ A ~ S1 ~ e ..{•. Cam.{ray l:~ require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-001 Page 3 ~„ x f, 4 y ~ b qI ~ .'`r / ,SSA +4 t} 4 1 ,i ~~ }}yy,, Ji~T { - ~~1 h`W - /. ~' ~ r ~ - t"Vt~fS yam`. L ~+Z` ~ ~~ { R. 4~ ip .~ ~ ,~`h '-~ _ _ . Fk-t 1 3f~ ~ . i 3 7 ~ y~, t k rye} {% Y r ~^i „~~, , ~ {~~ ~~ f' ~ F. ~~+~l it Y {F...Fi, X74 ~~ ~ ~ " ~~~ y S' ~ ~~ - + , 1 t~~ ~ ^ + r _. qSF ;_ P~ r.]~1 / y~r~ 1 ~~ 1~2 f '1 ~. ~ }, ~ ~ yy ~ C . ~y' r'1 ~ _ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ln ~ ~ ~ . f ~ ; g i ~ o _ L ~ ~ a~ y .. ,~-,. ~~ ~r 1r ~ } n ~ ~ ~ i"~' i°. ~~ a*M ~` J 1 .~. .. ~T~ :~: 1c. ` ~. - y • By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ' , ( ~ ~~ day of ~~ ~ , 2008. 'I COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED ~ (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ?~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN COMMISSIONER JOE Attest: City CHAIR]V~.~N DID MOE ,`~ ~"4 ~"'~. t '- a /' ~~~~ _ ~~~ ,~ ~• ~~ .~ Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Attorney. VOTED VOTED VOTED Public Works Department and City B Dated: ~- ~~ ® ~ ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER _ CASE NO(S). CUP-08-001 '' Page 4 ~r:~ °F ~ A,4i:~M r ~ ~ S' ~ jy`~,`_ S , ~ ~ ~~ 1 t 5 ~~" ~~ ;71e ~"x~~ ~,,,_y~~ '~ t, ' ~ ~'~ ~. rte- r ~ ~ ;?~~ ~. ;: ~ ~ri f k i. ~: _ ~nn r t ... ' ' ~ ~~ 1 "4.1.1 ~ f ~ )v ~tk ~ .. h: d ~' ~.. Q~ _ . '{~ ~ ' d ~ . ti ~ C } ~~ ~.~ I 'H ~~ ~ ~ 1 - ~ 7(~ ~~ ~ J.. ~ ~ 4~` ~~{( 3 {~` e ' ~;'~r ~~ a r ~,-~ b p .F ~'~' w~~~~~ _ _ ~{ ~ ~ ~.F ~ P I . ~:.F .-may .J_ ~t ~ ,. K+_ ArT i _~j~...'~'. ~~;: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN®ATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 21, 2008 E IDIAN'%--~- TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Blairmore Preschool and Daycare • CUP-08-001 Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district, by Annette Reed ~.. ~~~~r. ~'cr °,K' ;~,-~ ,,;~, 's I R ~~Y:`:f ,~`-~'' ~;- ~; t s~,., ~~.- 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Annette Reed, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to operate a daycare center for up to 40 children in an R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. The proposed daycare center will be operated from an existing 2,700 square foot home within the Crossfield Subdivision. As part of the Crossfield Subdivision approval, the existing home was proposed to be used as a daycare facility with the approval of a conditional use permit. If the subject CUP is approved, the site will have to conform to the daycare standards in UDC 11-4-3-9. The applicant is proposing to operate a daycare facility for children ages 3 and up. The facility is expected to operate from the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. to provide child care for the parents who work nights. Access is provided via a one way ingress/egress drive, with a total often parking stalls adjacent; 8 general/surface parking stalls and 2 stalls for employee parking within the existing garage. An outdoor play area is proposed enclosed with a six foot vinyl fence to provide an area for outdoor activities for the children. Indoor the proposed facility the children will have a plethora of learning activities to choose from. The applicant will have 30-45 minute instructional activities ranging from learning how to read to learning good nutritional habits. In addition a separate office and sick room will be provided for the children who are waiting to be picked up by their parents. The subject site is located at 3,150 N Blairmore Way in Section 1, T3N R1W. The property is currently zoned R-8 which requires conditional use approval to operate a daycare facility. 2. SLTNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject application (CUP-08-001) was submitted to the Planning Department for review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the CUP application. Staff is recommending that the CUP application be approved with the conditions listed in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning and Zoninss Commission heard this item on February 21, 2008. At the public hearine. the Commission moved to approve CUP-08-001. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin i. In favor: Annette Reed (A lpu icant) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting• Cindy Jones and Terry Farnham iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: None Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE1 `' ~~ ~; ~~,~ . ~.~ , „ "f~' ~. µ ~ x. k ~~ky `~~T. +d ~ d . 1~z ~ y F`C ~i1 ~~ ' ~} ``. T h ~ . ,. ~ r ~~~: ~ ~~ 4 '}'q[~; - ty - ~ ~. # 7 .t tM~. ~~ A a !" ~x.1lf-. y,, ;;±r' ~~ ~ ` z r~ , ~ s < ~~. '~ w~• 4 ~ 9'l.f ~ S° y P ,z Y: ~` 7t $~_~~~. i y '~ ' b 'M'~'~b~~ x~x a s~~r+l`i° 6 ~ ~? M~~ I F r< ~i ~'. 'S x ' ` '.: r~ ~ ~ "K ~ ~j. i { 1!/ _ if ~ i~~h •~ a u~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ ATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Perimeter fencing adjacent to the common lot to the south and east side of the driveway. ii. Access to/from the playground area. c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify condition 1.1 rec~g 6-foot vinyl fencing along the eastern side of the driveway and 6-foot wrought iron fencing along the southern ~ro~erty boundary to reflect the pro osal by the Police Department 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- 08-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-08- 001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-08-001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) ~~~~ 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS ' <z; a. Site Address/Location: ~'z" ~ I 3150 Blairmore Way; Section 1, T3N R1 W b. Owner: ~' ~ `` ~ Annette Reed ?::' .:. k I 2645 E. Ustick Road ~~`~~ I, Meridian, ID 83646 'i c. Applicant: ~~:~, .:- Same as owner d. Representative: Mike Carroll, MCI3D e. Present Zoning: R-8 ti;~ f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed-use Community with a Neighborhood ~z~~'" Center overlay ~~ g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit ±~ ~ approval to operate a daycare center in an R-8 zone. The proposed child care center will be operated from an existing 2,700 square foot home within the Crossfield Subdivision. 1. Date of CUP site/landscape plan REVISED (attached in Exhibit A): February 12, 2008 2. Date of floor plan (attached in Exhibit A): January 22, 2008 ~t h. Applicant's StatemenbJustification: The Blairmore Preschool and Daycare Center will Blairmore Pre-school and Daycaze Center PAGE 2 ,~ r ~ y~~~,. ~~~~ ss ~~<z- ~_ ~.... ,. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 provide a safe and educational atmosphere to children between the ages of 3 and up. The center is scheduled to be open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with future plans to provide parents working nights care for their children from 6:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Meals will be provided on site and the pre-school curriculum will be taught in 30-45 minutes programs. Educational programs include the book nook, just imagine, love to cook, learning rocks and big city. All rooms will serve as nap areas and the center will have an on site office with a specified sick area for those kids who are waiting to be picked up. An outside play area will have a picnic tables and provide a playscape area for outdoor activities. There are ten subdivisions within a close proximity to the daycare center thus providing a well needed service to the community. (See applicant's narrative for more detail) 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission); c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 28, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission); d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 11, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission); 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing home on the site that will be used as the Daycare Facility. ,; ~,~ ;,~~1 ;: ~.: a ~~; b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into amixed- use area. There are various commercial developments that have been proposed and approved in this area including Settler's Square (recommended approval from P/Z) to the north and the Cedar Springs development to the northeast. In addition there is residential development to the south, Crossfield, which this site is a part of. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Proposed Settlers Square Subdivision and rural residences, zoned C-C and RUT (Ada County) 2. East: Crossfield Subdivision No. 4 and rural residences, zoned R-8 and RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Crossfield Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8 4. West: Crossfield Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-8; Rural Residences, Approved Southwick Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County) and R-4 d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was annexed into the city as the Crossfield Subdivision (AZ-OS-015) and no development agreement was required for the site. Along with the annexation the site was approved for a preliminary plat (PP-OS-017) and a planned development (CUP-OS-022). As part of the PD approval, the existing home was proposed to be used to operate a daycare facility with future CUP approval. The lot was final platted with Crossfield Subdivision No. 1 (FP-OS-080). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Location of water: Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center This site is served from N Blairmore Way. This site is served from N Blairmore Way. PAGE 3 .~;:: ~~ - ~. ?rr _._~ E4. K'~ 4 +~ ' ~ '~ a ~~ Ott; Y ~ ~~~r r '" ~ ~ ~ ~~; :.G o- ~.; ~~ ~ ~ Y IT , j`Y G~ -~ a s% ~ Y i~±.}E ~, + ..~ ~ k°~ni'r ~ F a r. y t ~` t A. i~.. F ~} *y ' i nti ~~ * Y ~ ,. a ? K Z ~ a ~ r i~', - - - ~y ~ _::~~ f.. L. ,,. _. ;,... ~::,~:. ~'- ,. . '~ ,Y..h ,'. I ~yy Y II ;:r. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 Issues or concerns: Sewer assessment fees. 2. Vegetation: Existing landscaping to remain on the property. 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Cana1s/Ditches Irrigation: 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: R-8 7. Size of Property: 0.59 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 2,700 square feet 2. Building height: 20 feet 3. Number of Residential units: 0 g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 6 2. Parking spaces proposed: 10 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The proposed project will provide one way ingress/egress to/from N. Blairmore Way. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 1, 2008 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is currently designated "Mixed Use -Community" (MU-C) with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) overlay on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Neighborhood Centers are anticipated to provide a blend of high-density residential, small-scale commercial, entertainment, office and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The purpose of these centers is to create a centralized, pedestrian-oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented focal point for neighborhood districts. The Comprehensive Plan also defines the mixed use designation as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The Mixed Use -Community designation allows residential density between 3 and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Sample uses include: grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional offices, medicaUdental clinics, retaiUgift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, public uses, clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE4 y'r~ ' ` ~ ~~ ~ :~~i. vim .. t ~L . h. ~'..;~t;. .~ ~ ..s } ~ ' L }~ ` g~ ~ ~~ ~' Y + ~~ S ~ ws . . . 21r~ - , ~ 4 ~ ~qFC .~: '~ ~ ~. ~~rF < Y +~.Y~i W , Y ~ 4n ~.~ ~ _ t~ Y 1 X~ y ~~*~ ~ _ ~ M ~ '-; ~= ~ ~ Z' Si ~ ~ e ~ n. ~~ s ~ 4. "k,`. 9 T. y~t~ 5 y'".- rit ~~ . f ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Yp ,t ~ ,~ F y.k. ~ -. ~ ~ ~ ~~ y~w ~ t Y ~ - t . ~~Y 1~. ~ ~ ~ a ;~;; i ~ ' ~~ ~ 1 ~ 4 ~' ~~ ' ~~.~ t ~ rY"'~ '. ` 1 f .i ~ 5. -, !~i ~y% Z ~ ky'&r, r o CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 drive-thru facilities, auto service station, department stores, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. The applicant is proposing to operate a daycare facility within the existing home. There are several commercial and residential subdivisions in the area. The use the applicant is proposing should provide a valuable service for the residents in the area. Furthermore, the area is transitioning into more of a neighborhood center with the mix commercial uses that have recently been recommended for approval on the corner of Ustick Road and Venable Lane. Staff fmds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service has been extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The lands are serviced by the Meridian Fire Department (MFD). • The lands are serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACFID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2) The applicant is not proposing direct lot access to Ustick Road with the subject application. All vehicular access will be taken from N. Blairmore Way. • "Identify commercial zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as office and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B, Action 7) The subject site is not zoned commercial; however a more intense use then a residential home is proposed. Staff believes, a daycare center can serve as good transitional use between residential uses and commercial uses. As mentioned earlier, the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Venable Lane is proposed to develop with a mix of commercial uses. The proposed daycare can help act as a buffer between the proposed Settler's Square commercial development and the future single family residences to the south. Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE 5 d; r ' ;~ ~ r~ ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~'~~ 65 .n - 1 ~"~ ~ a ` _ `°i ;~: ' t~ i ~ ~ ~ ';?~ ~ ~~ . ~ I w > . a f5 ,q~n~Z`~ : r: ' S ~~ ~ Y%k, l •x ~ ~~ ~,3 r' ; . J ~ ~T Q t'G lly. wZ%ry ~~ I~~ 5~ ll ~" IH/ k fib`" ~'~ ~ ~ ,~~~;~ - ~ ~ 4 ~' 3 M1 ~ ~. ~~ '~ ^ } ` ~ ~ ~ i aH~ r _;~ ..,~ p ,i,~ F. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 • "Require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties." (Chapter VII, Goa14, Objective C, Action 2) The existing home was platted on a lot within the Crossfield Subdivision. A 30 foot landscape buffer (common lot) was required along Ustick Road and a 20 foot landscape buffer (common lot) was required at the southern property line of the site and is screened with an existing 6 foot vinyl fence on the east side there is also an existing 6 foot vinyl fence and the existing home is approximately 16 feet from the property line. Staff finds there is sufficient buffering for the residential homes to the south and east. Staff believes that the proposed daycare center use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-21ists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the R-8 zoning district. Day care centers are a conditional use in the R- 8zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. c. General Standards: There are several daycare standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.9. Analysis of these specific use standards are provided in Section 10 below. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation UDC 11-4-3.91ists the following standards for all Day Care Facilities: 1. In determining the type of day care facility, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at one time, is the determining factor. The operator's children are excluded from the number. The proposed daycare facility is requesting to accommodate up to 40 children. Because more than 12 children will be at the facility, this is a daycare center. 2. On-site vehicle pickup, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pickup of clients. The applicant is proposing to designate a one way/one aisle driveway and provide a total of ten parking stalls on the site. The parking area located in front of the building will provide the 25-foot drive aisle/back-up area width for vehicular maneuverability. Fire has conditioned this entire area remain open and signed "DO NOT BLOCK F1RE LANE." Two of the proposed parking stalls will be located within the existing garage and be designated for employee parking. Employees will park in the garage to allow for the parents picking up and dropping off kids to use the remainder of the parking stalls. Two of the stalls will be parallel to the driveway (on the west side) and one parallel stall will be located at the entrance of the site just north of the 20-foot common lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a hallway within the garage to allow patrons of the business to access from the existing side door (facing west). This solution should provide better connectivity between the office area in the Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE6 " 'i ~: ~ ~ ~' ~~.. ~ ~~F ` I.ti ~.j ~! ~» J ~~ i q ~ , l: ~ G'f.$ . , ~r_ ~ .. e iy~,~, .. - d r { , , i ~_. jY ~ - . r '~:~ f '~^'' ~` '~ ti~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ „t ,~ t , Y 4 ,~,~r;~. ' ~ .~ ~ = ~' .;, . R ~ ~!~`, r a r^ __ `' . ~~~-5~ ~ tS~ i ~ .. ~G7 ~ S' S} .. ~ f ~ S1 5 '' , ' n i ' _ d~ ~' ~,w` ` t r,ti. W i t, .r... t f ~~~ c ~ r ~ ,~ ~. ' ~ ,cr F _ s~,; 7 F ~ £ ~ ~ ;?7. ~ 1 ~~ r ~ti ~~ its -~ r S~ ., ~ :-~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING 1~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 "'`~` ~"~ ~' home and the arents si their kids in and out of the facili However the a hcant P ~g ty. PP ~~ should contact the Building Department for code requirements pertaining to the site changing from a residential use to commercial use and using part of the garage for an ~ n~ office/check-in area. With the CZC application, the applicant will be required to pull any necessary permits for the conversion of this home to a daycare. ~` ~ All parents/guardians will be required to park in a striped stall and go in to pick-up and a'~ drop-off the children. The proposed parking lot is designed in accordance with the City's current standards for parking lot dimensions. In addition the applicant will be placing an entrance only sign at the southern driveway and an exit only sign at the northern driveway on ~,, the site. 3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. ~:,K~ ~; Staff recommends that the Commission allow up to 40 children to use the subject facility, as requested. The applicant is also requesting to operate the facility from 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. Staff believes there is a niche for this type of daycare facility for the residents of Meridian. r.`, Staff is supportive of the applicant's request (see standard 5 below for more analysis). ~';F 4. The applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Basic Day Care License from the State of ,'~:: Idaho Department of Health and Welfare -Family and Children's Services Division. ~~ Staff is including this condition in Exhibit B. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be -- between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. '''` Currently the existing home is surrounded by residential zoned property; however a majority of the land is still vacant. Staff believes it is an ideal situation to establish the extended hours of operation for this business now before there are neighbors to the south and east; this way ~;'~"'' r future resident will have knowledge of the daycare's business before purchasing. To ensure ~ that the noise does not become a problem, staff is including a condition that cars can not idle ~ on the property and kids can not play outside after dusk. As mentioned earlier there is also ~ sufficient buffering with the common lot along the southern boundary. Furthermore, the site is located along Ustick Road and is not internal to the Crossfield development so traffic noise ~;k,. should be minimal because parents coming to put up their children do not have to use any of the local streets. I Additional standards for day care facilities that serve children: ~ ~{ ~ x ~, 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot (6') non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The e l fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the Building Code in ~``~ accord with Title 10 of the Meridian Ci Munici al Code. tY P "`~~> ~~ :_ f ZY The applicant is proposing to fence the outdoor play area with a 6-foot vinyl fence to match ' "`' the existing 6-foot vinyl fencing akeady erected on the eastern side of the property. A 20-foot I ~" common lot is adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject site. Therefore, no fencing ~~~~~ ` ~, 1 shall encroach into the common lot area. Furthermore, Staff has concerns that the two ~~: ~? solid 6-foot vinyl fences separated by 20-foot common lot would cause a "tunnel effect" and may cause concern for the police department. Staff believes the applicant should ~, construct a 6-foot wrought iron fence instead of the 6-foot vinyl fence along the western ~ E;; and the southern property boundary (outside of the common lot). Furthermore, the " UDC requires open view fencing for properties adjacent to common open space. The "~. }~''F 4~'f "rr.- Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE 7 ~~~ rY A m; Ut ~ ~~ i{.. " ~'.' - ~ t -' s y ~ '"~' - ~ R jr. ~i. Y Y , i ~~ F 4 'i~ ~ , . ~~ ~~ ct ~ ~ h ~~J:t„ _ { ' 5.~~ ~'"` ~' Std ?.r°'i~i-: ~ ,.n., ~~ i~ ' a x ~ r ~ T.ti`~ ~ Fz r .R 7 i ~'9 f fi - '-3 e.S'f'tii„t - - ~ ~ ~L._ .. L y1iy' -- } *~ xi ~' ~'~ F ~~~'_>~ 'S ~ ~` j 1 5 ~ t 9j7i~ t '.v .. i r.'i~ili; - ~L IY ~~nn~y~~ . ~~ _ .~ ' 1 7~~ ~ _ .. t. ry 1 'k~~ +4k . ' .1L. ~,,3~r+?~ ~K° ~ 3i: ~ .. ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~' v CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 applicant should also be responsible for constructing a minimum 3-foot fence along the southern property line from the back of sidewalk to edge of the proposed siz foot fencing. If this change is made staff is supportive of the fencing for the project. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. On the submitted site/landscape plan, the applicant has referenced outdoor equipment area and it appears to be located outside of the required setback. Staff has not been provided with any details of said equipment to determine if it will exceed the 6-feet in height. Staff believes that playground equipment for this site should not exceed 6-feet if it is located in the required setback. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. Staff is including this condition in Exhibit B. as Site/Landscape Plan: The applicant has submitted asite/landscape plan with this CUP ''' application. After staff reviewed the original site/landscape plan, several issues were identified. Much of staff s concerns have been addressed through the revised site/landscape plan shown in Exhibit A. However, the applicant is proposing recycled asphalt grindings for the three parallel parking stalls located on the west and south sides of the driveway. Because these stalls will be used on a regular basis, staff believes the three stalls should be paved with a more permanent material (i.e. asphalt) and has conditioned it so in Exhibit B. ~._. Also on the submitted plans, there are several existing trees on the site. The applicant is not proposing to remove any of them. Any existing, on-site tree over 4" in caliper that is removed r. from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of ' ~' caliper inches of those removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as ', r ,;;~' replacement trees for those that are removed. The Applicant should coordinate a mitigation plan with Ekoy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department, for any trees that will be removed. In ~~ I, addition, the applicant will be installing the required trees adjacent to proposed parking stalls in ~' accordance with the UDC. The remainder of the landscaping is consistent with the UDC. ~I Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): If the subject CUP is approved, the applicant will be ~~;~`° ~ responsible to submit a CZC application to ensure compliance with the CUP conditions of - approval. Prior to certificate of occupancy being issued on the site, all conditions of approval should be complied with. ': ~ ' Access: The applicant is not proposing direct lot access to Ustick Road with this application. Access to the site will be taken from N. Blairmore Way via a one directional driveway. „.'~ ~I Elevations: There is an existing 2,700 square foot home on the site. The applicant is not ~~,.ti ''~ proposing any facade changes at this time. Staff has included photos of the existing home in Exhibit A. `` ~' b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-001 for the Blairmore Pre-school '~~,; and Daycare Center presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of February 21, 2008 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on ". _~ February 21.2008. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve CUP-08-001. }~~ 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN• TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 i 1. Date of CUP Site/Landscape Plan: February 12, 2008 2. Date of Floor plan: January 22, 2008 3. Photos of Existing Home B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Services 6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code •:~ II 3;QY+4~ ~ •,,: . :d .y- ,r .>;t II t,; ~.'?^ ;``'. ~~! 1 Y g,~: 2 R' ~ L.r~ . Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare Center PAGE 9 ~~ ~u: ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ;r ~~a ~ s~ ~~s~~. ~. ,:~ ~~ ~~ y~ ~ ~, v~: ~j ~ # .~ ~ ~' ~ ~Y~ } ..~a~ ~`~ ~ A~.Vw - . 7 Y _ _ .y;s , _ t r x ~ . ~s'• - ~r ~~; M.~ ~ ~ i C'~i 1V . ~ 5 v ~ i}~ ~ii{ Y rc . . ~ a ' a t; , ~~` ~ :.~. ~v ~ ~ `~, ~'` ~~ ° ~ ~ ~,,~'-,1 ~ ~ r t 5 _ ' { P ~ _ , ~ ~v.~ h C JYP ~S ~~: ' $' ~,y S~ ~ . s.l ry .~.~ a ~~ i i ~, ~/ 1~ ! / J ~ 7 ,~ :ry- ~L~~y I,L I•;''' ~. ?,F _~ 3'5;.:. i ,,,~ r~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site/Landscape Plan Exhibit A CWOfaN Lot jai o ~ -x-.-is -~ PLaN ,ma°~1mie~o i1i1 Page 1 . _. } ,r L 4 4 ~~~ ~ ~ b ~ tl T ~~ - ~~ ~a ~ ~:~• h. Y s 1.: ~°~.`~1F ' S~sf t ~° a, Rh t ~ 'C ^ tggoi~ ~1'-~'Y' _ ~'t " _ 'o , ..:H'F yyr'' _ 3Y s~~ f~ +~T ~7 i~ ~ a ~ ~~~f~. j~ 1 r t ti ~ y;, ~ ~ y ~iy~' ~LY• , ~" ~' 1~ ~ F NtM ~N ~~, r ~~~r ' ,, ~~ 2 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~y~ ~ rc~`t ~'s ~ ~.; ; ~ , ~::s ~ .. ', s, . . t --~ i r i ~. i ~~ lE i pii 1• I I I I I ~ t If CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 2. Floor Plan ... i I~ 8 ~ ~ ~t ~ d d~ I~ ~ R ~ ® ~~ ® 5 ~*'" -- --- ^ $ ~ t ® Q r I I I ~(.. Y@rWyd~ I; 16~ 1 ~ gHO °~ ~6 x i s _ ~~ ~kt i$ ~ ®...o ~~~. ~ a ~ ;~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~.ao. - ------- 9Q ; ; ~ ~ ae ~ s ~~ ~ j $ -- 4 ! ~ ~ ~_-_-_ _ Z oe 8 ---------- ~~ ~~ I = ~ o ~r ----- - - '4 $ i I ~ ~ ® ~ ~ s ~ ~a ~~ ---- ° - ~ 3 ~ .~». g ~ ~~ o R 5 ^ z I rain ~ ri mur N`ti s~~~ ^ MCHD.-= -_ ' . -_ ~ - -_ Archi~eekwal ~1d411~M~ PI~6CN~L - Design Associates A~iD DA GA ~~ ~~~~I a~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ Y ~ CEN7ER - - . rn~. wsacts . - _ _ ~!9 g f ~ _ F~~~le - - 9g ~ ~. ~ Exhibit A Page 2 -' ,. ' ~~, r~ c. r. A{'~~~ ~~,. w 2~ f k'~' ~ ~ S x ~~ ~ ~~«, ~G/,t X31 .t ~ A4'~ .. r~`~ Y s~ ,ptws~. v ~~ 4 ~ 4 ~'` f "~' ~ I ~~ 14~ r fi*1.~. ~1!. ~~ 1 r~ ~~. .. ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~ .~ { t ~ ~ ~ '` ~{~~.~ Y.. ~ _. hl ~ . s ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -'.+~ ~n~ ~'~~i T 0~ } .~ ~.j f~lf - • ~-. t ~ f ~ ~r~~ ~ 4 sjf ` - ~r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 3. Photos of Existing Home (front and rear) '~~ .~~ ` ~ rte, q~~~ ~. ~ _ , yS ~ 1 x ~yq ~/°~~' .. .. ~. __warl e ~ ~ 5 . ~ ~ ~ t 2 .. - rr _. r. ry. ,~'~i'+. a+` ~ ~ay..,~ - .. `~• ,cN'... ~ ;' 44: r pin 'Ey _ _.. q 2 w ~7 „ ..._ Exhibit A Page 3 "~ 4y~3wk=~. T }`~~i !. Y.i" ~~ ~y .y y~l 'i •~~ C §,:` .. ,+" u,'r' ~ "_~~_ i~r k ".,. «* ~ `' . , ~~,~~~' .t~ ~,.-, r T . .1- {r., -~'. ~~j~~ :~ ~~` 9`'i ~h,t j J S ~t ~~ /M ~ k ~~ S~ ~ r ' t~ f i ~y ~~~, hs :. - .. ~i ~ 5~ tS ' ~.: x ~'y,~ ~.~ t3 n7 j~~~, _ >~~''~ ~d ~ S t ..~E Ri;z .,a. w~ ~, , ~~~r. .. , ~ r ~'~ i ~ i~ fi y+~ i~ 1r 1 ~. 3 ~, t ~;tF s. ~ , X ~ T; h:' ~ ~ ~ ' i~ ~_s s; :~. ~~ ~} ~~,~T, , ~ ~ _ kCG" - .T ~~ ~~ ~~ . f .,. v~~. r F .~ ••,~ ~' r~ *~°i j~.. ~ t ~ r~fi{ a m~ 2 ~ 4 ,r ~ ~ a~t. _. ` C~." ~ yy ~ t'}~({ ~ ~ A ~~ . fit; 4:~_^ .~ ~~. ~' k. it ..-1 .,r 'k':~. ~, ~.1i~' i_ , _ ~ f ., ;..,~ ,yt,r; .L',. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 (Side) __ .., ~, _,. ,.. i Exhibit A Page 4 a~ka1":.••. ^ ~ ~ ~~~~ . ~+ ~~ , a ~'~- a 'r~~~ ~. ~ ~~~ , -a fF~ ~:; t ~c ~y,, ~y ~, ti 4 ~ ", ~~~ Yil~ r4 L ~:~ 'Y j~ITj{.~ r .. ~' ~ ~' y J t ~r7 } w} ~~~ ~{1 ~4 ~L ~ ~~ Y~:~ .: R. ~~F 1 ~ f ~ '~• h T ~ k '1 ~.ri'~l'~j7 Y. yS~.3 ;4F~ 6~ 1 ~~~Y~ ~ ~ l ~T x ,},. ,.y. '~ 5iY'~ ~ C ~ E7 + _ ~ ~~~e' ~ ~.i . ~i~'~Y:. ~ } ~~~~~ d w ~ ~~, ~~ ~~ ~ '.h: fy ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ q ~~ . I - ~ '~ i'G~JI'~f- ,.J R , : ; 1.f `{S ~'~~. ~~ ~ ~ '.~ ,~ y y5~ S ~R Tt .+.L ~f _ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN® TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 y="'`~ B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The site/landscape plan prepazed by MCHD dated February 12, 2008 is approved with the ~= following provisions: ~~ <_ • Construct 8 surface pazking stalls on the site as proposed. All parking stalls shall be paved with asphalt. All pazking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the UDC. ~~ • The applicant shall construct -feet 6-foot = vinyl fencing along the west side of the play azea and a 6-foot wrought iron fence along the southern property boundary (northern boundary of the common lot). The applicant shall '~ ~~ ~~ construct a minimum 3-foot fence along the southern property line from the back of sidewalk to edge of the proposed six foot fencing. `~,•~, ~'`" ~i 1.2 The applicant shall be allowed to care for up to 40 children per day. 1.3 The applicant shall be required to install an entrance sign at the southern driveway entrance and a ~~=''~ "do not enter" sign neaz the northern portion of the driveway, so that vehicles aze not tempted to ~.~.> _~ , drive south out of the one-way driveway. A "do not block fire lane" sign will be required at the edge of pavement of the pazking stalls located along Ustick Road. Submit a sign plan with the {'~~~:~ Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.4 The hours of operation for this business shall be limited from 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. :~ ~#y+"~-~.~~ ' F"ir k~ 1.5 Prior to operation of the day caze facility, the applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Y ~ Basic Day Caze License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfaze -Family and =~L~r I Children's Services Division. Proof of said license shall be provided to the Planning Department ~'-.I ~~-'~ ; ~ prior to release of occupancy of this building for a day Gaze use. 1.6 Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yazd or within any ~= ,~', required yard. _ - ~ 1.7 Outdoor play azea(s) shall not be used after dusk. .~'~> ~ fs' ~ 1.8 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-001 aze complied with, the applicant ' shall be required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site. This amendment shall ~~ `-' include all of the conditions of approval described in this report and any modifications to the RAJ; I approved site/landscape plan. Any modifications to the site design shown in this CUP application shall be cleazly shown on the amended plans. °~ 1.9 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of "'4~ ~ approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. ~F';, ~:~°' 1.10 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. ~~"< Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to j`;' be mitigated. ;'~ ~ 1.11 The pazking stalls provided in the existing gazage shall be designated employee pazking only. 1.12 The applicant shall educate the pazents/guazdians of the need to park and come into the office to check in and out the children; dropping off or picking up of children shall be prohibited. Cazs ~,~ ~,~ shall not idle on this site while parents/guardians are checking in/out children. Exhibit B Page 1 '~~ _ ~C i '~S ~'ji}' ~ ~ a' L.i~. ' < .. ~~ 1'M yy i ~~' 3 .y C " ~~ 1 ~ 7[~ 1 1 f ~ ~ R 4 ~} b~ M•~ , ~ ~ ~i' _ ~ 1 .' r'~ ~ - r, "h ~ 7: ~ T ~~ ~ .{y,T~ ` ~'~ ~ ` 1/ .~~ K ' ~ 1. ~ J„Tli J ~~E ttt K 5a a`.fryi: ~~- ~ l MYl - ~~ ~~rY. ., ^~ r ~.~~ a.4 Ts~ s :' ~~.. k ~ r33 ~ t _ "S'~; S 7 F~ ~ i ~. us +~ 'y~~li r ~ ~~ ~ ~ $~. ~~?~~ ~:'~-' i i v ~ '~.~ , t. ~~ ~ ~~ - :~ r ~ '~ ~' 4 ~' -; a f y ~~ A~ ~ ~~~Yi s :... ~';. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 ~: ~,, , ;~ . 1.13 The applicant shall contact the building department for code requirements pertaining to the site x ~' °`` changing from a residential use to commercial use. Any permits required for the conversion of the ;. home to a daycare shall be obtained. t~ 4. r :.;, 1.14 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. ~;: . _,_ ~ ,. €~ _` ; 1.15 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. #; ~' 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~'~k~' :~', 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this property was purposed with Crossfield Subdivision No 1. Water ~;>::.,' assessment fees to this property have been collected and the home is using city water from a ~ ' ~' E ~ xx connection in N Blairmore Way. This property is connected to City sewer from mains located in , ~ N Blairmore Way however no sewer assessment fees have been collected. The applicant shall pay ~;.;,,;_ I' all sewer assessments fees prior to the issuance of the CUP. "..-;k ix;'~ ,' 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ ..; ~ ~ :~~ ~I 3.1 Final Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department '~~`~'~ !, and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. z:: : ~ ~ } ! 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. € ~ ` `- ~~ ,.: ' a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. , F ` ~ ' ;'a,r~ b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. M ~ : c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. s;.<=. f. _~: ,~ ~~ i ,< ... _ d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. ~N ~ ,. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. .. ~~'' }'~ : ` f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. . : ,;,:.. j g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. ~~ ~,'"~ h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing =.=4 -; buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. -~ >i'~§', ``" 3.3 All common driveways shall be straight or have a fuming radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and >>~~', shall have a clear driving surface and support an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. ~~ ~`~ '° 3.4 For all Fire Lanes provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". ~. ~ 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire ~~ - ~ ~ Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. ~;= _''; F,~ ,~_: ~~' F ~~ ::. _ 3.6 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.7 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.8 All Daycares with 7 or more children must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal. If the applicant has concerns about meeting the State Fire Marshal criteria an inspection will be completed at a cost of $20. Exhibit B ~:~ ..; Page 2 _; ~= ~ ' r {{ ~ ~.~, ,t fib ~~~', ~ Ewa .~ ~' F~ yy ., i Y j~~i ~~~. ... T ~ , }~ Y 1 c _o- .~ { ~ ~4 ~~! ky edc~i ~~. ~ ~~'~ a+ ,r ~ ?~:~' ~~ ~~~, ~r~ ~i k ~L~Y~ ~ ~ ~~'7: fi ~ & tx .t:-__v. F~. ~^ t'j t E` i _ _ ~ yy ~"?M1~ l ~•' 1 j ~ r y a ~ F } ~ 1 ~~ a F• ~~~ ~ t,, s~:_ti i ~'K' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN• TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 3.9 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.10 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.11 50 or more children shall require a manual fire alarm system be installed in the existing home. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development does not offer natural surveillance opportunities of the public areas. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the John Overton to discuss features that increase visibility, including but not limited to: landscaping, lighting and parking. The site plan and/or landscaping plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. 4.2 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 5. SANITARY SERVICES 5.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 5.2 Enclosure Numbers and or Capacity: There is a concern that you have not provided enough enclosures to meet waste generation points and volumes that may be generated by the proposed development. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. 5.3 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 6.1 Applicant will submit plans for child care center to Central District Health Department for review. 6.2 If property is not served by city sewer, the septic system, if present, will need to be sized accordingly. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED COMMENTS) 8. PARKS DEPARTMENT 8.1 The Parks Department did not provide comments on this application. Exhibit B Page 3 ~v1~ r _ ~ 7 3""a f~ '~ f ~ j ~l ? r Y~. ~ ~` 1c~ Y7 t ii. l' ~~ ~3 ~~FF f ~~ - _ .. rcN;µ~~ - ~K ~_; ~g ~~~Y"; t a 'k~' .F, X, t ~ ~~. '~ ~ _~f k 1~ & -. i'~' ~` r~4,~ n '- ~~ 1~'~Y.~ ~. r - 1 r ~ j S'.i 4 'A4 ~. . 'r. _ ~ w e - K.rj ~ V h ~ ~7 t ~ 1 ~' h.,i~' ~4 jn it~3. ,~_ 4 }}~~,d, HhJ ? J~ ~ { ~ may: Y f~ t ~S$ 5 w1 :tr-j , ~~` ~ ~ i ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ xa ~ d ~~~ x! Nv '~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN• TE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed use on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations regarding day care facilities. The Commission is supportive of the layout for the proposed parking plan and traffic flow pattern for this use. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 6 stalls are required. There are 10 parking stalls provided on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. The Commission finds that the project should have ample parking. The Commission fmds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff s analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when deternuning if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in ~r accord with the requirements of this Title. - The Commission fmds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed "? Use -Community with a neighborhood center overlay. The property has existing R-8 zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the fact the area is to provide for a broad mix of - uses. A daycare center is listed as an example of uses for the area. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Section 10, Analysis above for more information regarding the requirements for day care facilities in City Code.) r 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the general :,,.,;, i vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. j ~~ The Commission fmds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, wz;y ~~~,~, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a daycare facility should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended ~;:>,' I character of the area. ~'~ 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission fmds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed day care use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission ,, Exhibit C Page 1 r _ , . ~ F~x::s " ~ ~ ~'~'' i ,~ 4E - rF~. _ _ rr~*.1~ Y r~ ~ n ~~ ~ T Y _ ~ .. ~M1~~ l l~ r. } ~'4 to '-' ~ ~~ k F ~~ ~,yA-'~~7G.' t~i ,' ~~.~~j, '~ M { ~i 3 ~~ 'S L L f f i y..^ ` ~ ~ ~~ •~ry~_: Qf M H ~4~'~,t. y r¢ ~h i ~ ' d~ t. f ~ ~ Fx .~~' ~.t k Wfti i Y` q. ~ 1 ~ F b„ ., n i ~ ~'` s ~ .~=ask; az 0.` C ~ { .V f '~~ f 4 y { ( ; , C W ~ / R_~~ ` ~I ~ f r {$ ~' f ' "^+ ~ ~ _ ~ :~~.~, r. ~ ~ ~~''~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008 should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are ~'-~ currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the f`', Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Staff fords that the r- u'`' proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and ~.,'~~ ~~ ~ services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. w -,r: If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The ~ ~`° Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the '-~;, proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. c>:..~. ~,- ~ : 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general '`' '-' ~ welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a daycare ~~'`~> facility in this location; however, The Commission does not believe that the amount generated F~ , ~' will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds ~`~`` ~ that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the W area. - 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. ~' Staff fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or .y~ historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C Page 2 :~ y ~ S ~tyrfFf~ ;:~: ~ ~'~ ~ + ; „~~ y S } 4 ~ '~~ PPd ~ 4 F~:~~~~~ (•r P '~ SFr ~`f~~~~- ,~.Y7,.. a ~ ~„~F,~~~ ~ ~ w t ~~'~~~:,i k~ ~ i~ ' ' 4 ~~4 ~. ~ x7 1 y t~ X ~ ~:~ 5 ~ ~> ; ] S iti - ' '~' , + ~Pb + ~ r ~ t~ ~ ~?~ F :`1~a`:. 3 ~'2 ~ i 'r f S i ' 1~ ~y { 1 Y a~~ ~S iF , ~.) t .w ~ r ~~'S ~-' ~~ ~: .: t . 9 J f 3 ,~ ~ t t~~ C,~~ ~~~ ~~~~, r t ~ : ~ ~ SafL' . ~:~-.~ 'I ~~: . ,, ~ i March ~~~. MERIDIA PLA KING B~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 AGENCY AZ 07-016 APPLICA' ;ovidence Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUE ,, ~ P is Hearing -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (4 :-.:.` _ _. rd R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Casfile Rock -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See attached Staff Report d~ No Comment ~ - See attached Comments '' See attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See attached Comments OTHER: Se attached letter from Hubble Homes / AHidavi~f lof Posting/ Letter from Citizens Contacted: Date: ~ ~Z ~ ~ Phone: ~~ ~ ~ I Emailed: ,(~ Gt~ ;J(, C8~ CCl Staff Initials: ~~~ Materials presented at public rneetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f 1L '~t` $~ ~ ~ e _F . ~ ~ u ! i ~ ti S + ~ - , i~ ~ sk ~ ~~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~'h )'~. ~' ~ ?:~7,i~ r ~ ' ~ f ~ ~~ ':.' 1 fi J~^ ~ _ ~ l r 4 F~3F. 4 ~r. ~ ~ ~ 'i~ k ~:, t p Q ~s~~^Y M ~ ~ y`' ~~S ~i ro ~ ~~G' , , ~ ~ 4~~.. ^!; < ~~ !k _ ~. > ~ ~Y~~ ~r~ Iq . ~ w~ ~ e ~ _ :~° a €'C'~t tilt 5, ~~ f'e +~ - ~ 7,. ~ tads ^ f~~ _. o k~ ~ ~ a ;; fix, ~`~ s F r r ~ ~ °~~ ~ "`ttt ~ r C '~ ?y.~~u'tiNi d ~ . s „~ ~:' v , f ~" f " .. ~ 1 'Y T ~ µ #F Ma _~. 3, 2008 PP 07-020 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March b, 2008 APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 794 residential building lots and 86 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R 2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock -south of East Amity Road and west of South Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: `'~' I CITY ATTORNEY ~.~~r, CITY POLICE DEPT: '~~ ,~ CITY FIRE DEPT: r z- CITY BUILDING DEPT: 2 ~`_ , 3 CITY WATER DEPT: r ;, . CITY SEWER DEPT: ~wi:.` ;,:~~ ; CITY PARKS DEPT: ``~ `~i MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: a ;;,,, SANITARY SERVICES: ,';-; #~, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~ ; `' ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~`:i~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~! IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See AZ Packet COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~, ~~~~,~, w , '~ ~~~' ~ ~~~+; s. ~, ~~: ~ ~'~i:. y5 ~t ~ ~'~ e.. yi s ~lr ~~ y ~° ri ~ ] i ~ 3y~ ~ ' ' ~ rR ~" 1. F; Snw - ~ ti 'ri .. 'J~ t ~ t' r 3~ r_ ~ i~~ip - S~~ ~~ ~ _ ~~ x ~ .it ~ - -, ~ A4.s . G ~ y, 1 ~'S ~.~ .. _, j ~b W.pi11.• ~'f t 5 ~~ 4 N V1 3 ~ } , ~1'~.. bf~:~5 - ~ ~ ~7c?~&~x`r ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~ ~ ri '. ~ ~ ~ f ~ e~'7;~,• I k k y~~.-t ~ ~y~' jt ~~ L f .~. n See AZ Packet March 3, 2008 PUD 07-OOi MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 6, 200$ APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC REM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development far deviafions from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock -south of East Amity Road and wes# of South Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~- CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ;1~;, N AMPA MERIDIA N IRRI AT G ION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN Gl~,S: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of fhe City of Meridian. ~ ~ ~ ` '' t ice . n sr r Y'h, ~~ . 3 ~ ~:~~ M ,M ~r r` f~:., 11 {2 f 3 ~,~: - ~ f ! Y.~yINS.`' f L ~~ },. C ~ ti i .f: y,~P 3 ~5 1 r' S ~ Yt A ~.c ~ h F i .r.~k:~ ~ ~ i, f ~ ~~ ^> i w~ ~ ~ Y ~,~.,.~y,, "p"y _ ~ ~ ~, r ~ ~ '. ~ ~ ~. xp ,\,~ !~ ~.Y, i ~ ~. - , ' ~ " 'f ~ t ~~ ~. ~l~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~Ii, ~ y ~ P... ~t rryt ~ ~ 9 ~ ;~ ~ti~'~' - s. of '1, - - ~ ~ ~ + - ~, t~e~iSS,' _~~k ~~'„ ~:~ ~~t' a;~'. ~' ,~~,.~,. } „~ I <~ =: ;~~~: I ,~:; ~~~~ i ~:, i r: March 3, 2~8 AZ 08-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING O G MEETING March 6, 2008 APPLICANT Mason & ~t field ITEM NO. REQUEST Public t earin ;Annexation and Zoning of 12.Ob acres from RUT to R-4~0 (10.5b acres) and ~::=~-~~.75 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley (Revised) - 2500 N. Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ITD INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See attached Staff Report No Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: See attached 14fRdavit of Posting /Supplementary Sub tttai Contacted: Date: ~ ~ f) o = ~~J ~ ' ®~CP Emailed: ~, ~ ~ a ~..t'~~C'~ (l ~ ~ ~ Ntt 5 St llnitials: J M®terials presented at public meetings shall become property oP the City of Meridl®n. ~k ~n y__~ ~ tr ~. ~ _ y ~~1 .l~ "1 , _ ~L~` ~C~f . ~ ~i ~" S(. y, ~n rx Wes;. (3 ri y~v i ~h.-j` SFI G ~ =I~ k ( '1 x ~(~!F` ~ ~ ~~~~i, ~ ~~ I ~}} 1 ;tom ~~t~ ~,~, ~~ r . ` r~ ~~'.~- } ? ka~ _ 7 ~k~i .. {,~L~p.. i _r . ~ r3: Ne ~ . SYe . ~i ~L ~ rt:~i4, Y P;'' } T S _ F ~ A+q ~ r} ~ ? P ~ ~'LS'~ ti _ ~ ~ T F H ~ T MY ~ . ,. ~C y 'tv MS\{' _ i NP~~ 5 ~ >~i.~ 1 ~~iyp ~ y l }}`~ ~ k F'h ~ _ .. +~~i, }c_ (~' 4` {{ ,rY,{ T- u.w'CY~b S., ~7 t': ti<~ y,?",.~,_ w ~~~ • March ~, 20Q8 CUP 0$-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 200$ APPLICANT Mason & Stanfield ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for a mul#i-family development in a proposed R-40 zoning district for Regency at River Valley (Revised) - 2500 N. Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~.;~; CITY HRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~ ~,:~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~~~~,' CITY PARKS DEPT: ,~. ~h'~:~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: :~'~ ' ~ SANffARY SERVICES: I~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: r ?, ~~r;3 i CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~:~ ~' ~~ ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~ . SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ;~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materlais presented at pubUc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x k `~ ~ ... J,~'2{~ r'" x~ ~ re`` °'~1• ~E ~ ~ ~~ - t r Y~..~y L:~ _ F~N>~f 5. hf i f ~~~ 4 ~i F ? ~~~ ,. z air ~ u e f ~~`5. ~. "E; .~ _ 5 S )t kJ} ~ ~ kf s~~: q y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ p k[` r, '~F ' ~! fi £ r,~;; fit ~ S ~ S t t ~, ~~ _ ~ ~1yN V yi f ,,~ yy r °~ ~hh } x ~~ ~{ `.~~ f ~~ fi k: ~':Y,~1~. F~y~ l C9 '' y t41 ~~~ _ , ' r Y y~` ~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ aN t3 f ~`qq ~~.;Cf 4 lzv:i~i. - Marc " r 2008 CUP 08-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING $~ ZONING MEETING Mafch 6, 2008 APPLICANT Boise Food Service ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for a drnve through establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern Springs - 1870 S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~4u~r l t:~ ~,~ zr' r;~,; ~r~. . :.Tf' i S k~:,:: ; •' w~ ~~~'~' ~' CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See attached Staff Report No Comments ~~ ~~a"~~ See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting /Letter from Larry Strough Contacted: °` ~ ~ '( '~ ~ ~ Date: ~ Phone: ~ -~'~`7® Emailed. ~,~,®, ~ Staff Initials: Magri®l~ pre~en$ed at public meetings sh®II bec®me pr®p~rr~y of the C(ty ®t ~AeridBs~n. ~. T - i, . ~ ~,.,, ~ ~ k l~T,..r2a.,.. ~ ^.r ,~ 'v ssF t' ~, s }! ~k+ ~~~eee >w 4~ ~ % .. r _ r x~ c, w ~s.r ~ ~ ~~,~_ ,;. bc'~ ''~" '~{.~ F ~ l { u ~ _ ~+~'YY ~! eSG 7 . 3 SC ,~,~ ~ ~~ ~il.. '1~~..~ i1~~1~i: 5 q ~` 3~. ~~S~S,~. r ~ .E ~~r~ .fi`}r~ ~ sr ~ ~ If! ~ ~ ~ ~, y ~~ Z1k ~1lT~U"t: u 'rG517t~ r.. hL - ~ i~ .~'Ylt!~KI'. y r z:,, ,.z. hi r 4~ ~ ~ 2 ~~ _ .may f, Y ~ f ; (l k i' , r€ ~ f~ 1 k ` ~f ~ ; FF~Lit /t~/J. J ;YN~r.: ~ . r K 7 ,i t ~~, ~ - rA '~~y'yt'`t".` 'r" s AZ 08-0©2 NG 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 APPLICANT D.T. Campbell Investments REM NO. 1 ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 3 acres from RUT to an R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for'Villas @ Lochsa Falls - 5555 N. Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~ ~:~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff-Report CITY ATTORNEY Y` YID " . ~ C1TY POLICE DEPT: ~ p Wye,. CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ ~~~ ~, CITY BUILDING DEPT: >~.: ~```~'' ~ CITY WATER DEPT: ' CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comments r~-:.`, : CITY PARKS DEPT: }~~, ~~;~_; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: '-"°' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: `~ OTHER: See attached Designs from Evelyn Grime ~ tr f '~ r+y„t~ ~^ A. fir{ ~ t "; i~ 4~ ~~5 ~~ +~, .. l S ~4 ~. r ~ 1~} )~~a 3 ~~~ ~'~~ Y` ~~ R~~ r,:~;~i r ~ its , ~ ~~~~., ~ i,F:., '~ t n .7q ,: ~`~;~ ~ r } -; x~ ~y tT j ~~,~,!' ~ .r yob ~~~ Y 4^''. C T*J }' u ~ k ' ` 4 _ 1r ' ~ ,~ f# _ _. Y h~rr I ~ ,. r ~• '~{.~ r t kL ~H~ F ~ -~~1 r` ~' ~ ~~:. .. { ~ -_. 5 Y 7~ ~ A~-~ `'. .•. 0 0 :~- . . March 3, 2008 PP (J8-002 ,~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March b, 2008 APPLICANT D.T. Campbell investments ITEM NO. ~ a REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval with 1 residential building lot and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Villas @ Lochsa Faits 5555 N. Linder Road ~~' '~ `~ ~'~~ AGENCY COMMENTS ,~, CITY CLERK: See attached AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ;~ '" ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~' -, s_: I 1 C TY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: r CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~; ; ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: r~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~, :'; ~; ; , INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Con#acted: Da#e: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: %'~ AAarterials presented at public meetings shop become properly of the City of Meridian. R: ~ } ~t~,:; i~~rv» i~`r ~!. • MarCl~l ~, 200 CUP a8-(~03 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 6, 2008 APPLICANT D.T. Campbell 1nVestments ITEM NO. ~ 2 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for 21 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 3 acres for Silas @ Lochsa Falls - 5555 N. Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUiLDiNG DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~~ ""`` ~~~ CITY SEWER DEPT: CffY PARKS DEPT: ~y,'I MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: `, ,r,;~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~~;I ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ;~~'~ I CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ?~;..,~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: "" ~~k'~ IDAHO POWER: F:i `' .~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: r~~ G ~~~A ~J c~ OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: ~` Emailed: Staff initials: ;~~~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~ ~, # s ~ ~~} ~ ~~=_ : ,: .,f e S~ N 7v k ~ ~ 4 ~ '' ~ ~~., J j , t~~t r ~ .7 + ~ w[ ~~ ~ S~' ~~~ } f.y ~. ~ { ~ ~'. f~°F t a ;. F ~ f ~~~~ ' ~"' ~~ 1. z. ! F~~:yf~ ~ Ir v' { ~ ~ 1~ ~H~+.IY' . k~ ( ~~. ~ Y f y }~~ yyyy ,, ,,, y' ~ AT y~rN its t~ ~~ ;x~ ~3 ~ ~„ i5 a ~~; j i~ '~ £ - ~..w~b~az,. i; w ~ ~~R .~ r~~. ~~ r d r ~,~ e~ ~, f ~ ~ , i i N ~ ~~~r e {~ _ sf E t'~ ~{Y r, r~q ~. COMMENTS See attached AZ Packet