The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 01-04~~ - ~, -17~Y ~~ r ~ ' / MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING >~ ~'ll~' ~~ REGULAR MEETING r°~-;'_~~ ~ ,ta~~r,a ~~ AGENDA Vie:. ~ ym ,,~+~`' CA~~. Y ` R°~T~"`~`4"`"`vµ° `y ~'`~~ ~ City Council Chambers - ,. ;- 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ~> <~:'. I >: ~i ~~~. R. r""~t -,, ;~ 'i Thursday, January 4, 2007 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 Keith Borup X David Moe O 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman A. Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: Approve 4. Public Hearing: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: Approve -Prepare Findings 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects - 1760 S. Meridian Road: Approve -Prepare Findings Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 1 of 3 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. ~F,.-' - 1+ t {.V ~t ~, ~ F ~ H{ ~ I I 4 ~' a f~~ 4 .~,} ~ 1 ~ {` - Y'. J... J :.,5 ~+b t f ~ '' C ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~f~fi~~^ ~ ;p FIB , . z ~~j~,_ ~ r ~c, ~''„,1 t ' ~t r xwt'v ~~ '~~a++,,+C+rrx~~~~~4~,~ is c .. + ~ fn ~i~ r ~~ E: .fi ~~:~:~ ,~, ~ ; a w ~ i „p,+~ ~~< ;. ' 4`:. ~ i 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-036 ~~~ Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects - 1800 S. Meridian Road: Approve -Prepare Findings ~~"~ 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14 building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe -..> Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick n~?~ and Eagle Roads: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 _ acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 1, 2007 ;; 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 ``~ single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the proposed R-15 zone plus 2multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 1, 2007 10. Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440, ~~;: 1516 and 1528 W. Cherry Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west. of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 15, 2007 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 15, 2007 `it t ar' ' i' - 'l iti=, 3 r _ '.. g~ ~, r ~r'~n7}~'`~ ~ ~ a a ~~`. . 4Cl ~ ~ ~ry,~~h.: .4 ' ~ ~ is-?J.~;-. ~ . ~. `, ~ ~ ~ Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Recommend Approval to City Council ~:_. 15. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030 r~` Request fora Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family ~~~; development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation a_ Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Recommend Approva to City Council 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of Yz>.,;. 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood :; Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 15, 2007 ~,~,,;= k,., 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of _ z. 115 single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing ~r , ~' to February 15, 2007 Adjourn at 10:20 p.m. a :a :;4. ~....;'::tti:: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 3 of 3 .`~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ', t~ 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. . .';~ y_ > ~~'s i-' D dt:' .1. r i _. .. ..N. 3•x•.~l l ~ > . ~ -f ~~T.L. x ~ ^~, , .: i _ ? .s3t5 S ao~'; F ~f. k {:. ~+L1 t `Yr:~ ~~ ~ rn " '` ~:: 1 'I` i 3 dJt ~~'~1FMS ]..t ~S ~$~('1'k. l ~~~ Ss } 4 ~ ~ ?'~. ~'a~ 1 . ~ J S^.~~4,~ ~ YrY A~}i ~`~-. ~ ~`~ E,~ r ~ =' S ~r i+F f ~ + c ¢- s ~r }Y,. ~„ ~ 1 .t a'Ttk". a .;:?y~' 11 ~„ ., + y., ~i i f3 ~ ? y i r+^~ ~t. ' ~ a -.~~~ t a ~~n~ ~~TYOF ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING C i~~erl~lcn REGULAR MEETING IDAHO ~~ AGENDA ~y ~'c ~~R ~.rv~'` City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 4, 2007 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: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Vacant Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: 4. Public Hearing: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 1 of 3 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. ~~. • 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14 ~Y. building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe '~ Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick and Eagle Roads: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 z s b acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR ' Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat ~' Road: s: ~, 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the proposed R-15 zone plus 2multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR ~~' Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: 10. Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry. Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440, 1516 and 1528 W. Cheny Lane: 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle `~ '' Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west of S. Eagle _ Road and south of Amity Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of ' 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047 E ~ for RUT to L-O zone res from Request for Annexatlon and Zoning of 5.3 ac ~' Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. . ( Magic View Court: , ~. I ' }: 14. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049 ' rr~ ,i Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6multi-family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3 ~.-/I common /other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;:2 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. ~r ..L ' l~.v~'C$; . ~ ~ '.i ~ L. ~ ~, „'.:' 7 ,' ~i~ "y,5, ft,.'s. ` r ~-T ~ [~p~r~ J ~ 4~1y}'^~'. ~r 4 y . , 4 Tr+ ~"f y , y ~~.~ 'j; :' .• }.• Lip ~:'. ~' !-~„_ ~ " j y ~~ ~ t . ~ M . b~~ ~ 4 !'~,~.ts. 1,Hly/. ~! 1~!~ ~ t~~ a ', ~~ r. ~ b t * .- , ~ V ~ ~` `, rt ~ y -~ kF { ' - FH+~' 't'XS 1 L~k 'Y*'f'T`.'' ~ ~- e_{ i~ t i' ` H ~ 19 ~: v V ~i~Y ' j;. 4 ~~; ~ C t l.. ~ f p ~ "'.'r f: !!~._ fi,t } ~~~~~ f ~ -:"~;t:F 'fy' ~ ~~ - 15. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030 "~' Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family '.{'' development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation ~~ ~ ,,, Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: , ~,~:~; t ' ~ ~~ 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of ~.~~; 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood r~.3` Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: ~~~ 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of ~~ ~; 115 single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H .~ ~, Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: ~ r~~" ~ r5~': ~ 't '-CJ,~ . 1f a i x i~: - t :. y t _tilr~? •`f° yk} ,~ x_ Y ~i ~r `F +' ~'~_1 ~ is ' ter: .r'%~ *. ~:~ Vii `=M y'k e1* ~,! r~ c`--'.z* ,A~~' %`5:, rr,! ~~if} 1 ~ ~: ~ _ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 3 of 3 -y:~ 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. ~~~ ~, r ~;~ :E~:r? ~`~ Date/Tme Local ID 1 Local ID 2 01-02-2007 2088884218 ~ Broadcast Report ~ 05:19:38 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" '''~~,~ 0171' °il° dA6RIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~/ YLG~i'GigZQ~i ~ REl3lfLAR MEETII~iG wna-ro AGENDA r• City Councfi Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, fideridian, Idaho Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. °Atthovgh Hre C!ty of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, aU pr®s®ntaflans before the Mayor and City Coundl ere expected to be trutrifu! and honest to best of the abNlty of the prea~enter. ° 1. Roi!-oali Attendance: Kerih Bonip Wendy Newton-Hucicabay David Mae Vacant MCI Rahm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Conaerrt Agenda: A. Approve MPnutes of November 16, 2008 Planning and Zoning Cammission tlAeet[ng: B. F'Indings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: N1CU 08.004 Request for Modiffcatlon of she existing Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detatied Condiilonal uss permit approval for aq sbvdures within ilia L-O zone for Reaberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and t3onnie Reltemtan - 1434, 1483, 1492.1585 E. Star Drive: 4. Publk Hearing: CUP 08.03® Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drivva~hru window in a C-C, zone within 300 feat of a residential use for Dlcicey'e BBQ Drive-Thru by Cocpar Indusriies - 2846 E. Overland Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 18, 2008: CUP 08.035 Request for a Condittanai use PemM for a drive-thru eatabtishment within 300 feaQ of another drive thru fadtity and a resldetrtlal district for Southern $prings Buliding A by SRS Ardrite~ -1760 S, hReddian Road: Arsazidlan Planning a~ Zoning CommLSefa7 NreeBog A9~- denuary 4, Z~r Page 7 of 3 A6 mater6ala p7eaentsd sl prdi8o rrazaUr~gs a4wU heoame property orthe CBy or Merldl~. Ntyone da~g eo~mms~tian 9R' dlsalr9itbe r¢~ted OD doeunreaYS alldror hearing, plaoMaG the Cat Clerks O}Roe at 888-4433 a0.least 48 hmes P7Eor do th W+bDe rtree9ttg. i vwl rn No. yna ~ca Job nnou . v Remote Station ......... ~y_.. __........__ . _ Start Time . Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 489 3810160 04:51:49 p.m.01-02-2007 00:00:00 013 1 - HS FA 002 489 8989551 04:51:49 p.m. 01-02-2007 00:00:48 3/3 1 EC HS CP21600 003 489 8848723 04:51:49 p.m. 01-02-2007 00:01:15 313 1 EC HS CP14400 004 489 8886854 04:51:49 p.m. 01-02-2007 00:00:38 313 1 EC HS CP31200 005 489 8985501 04:51:49 p.m. 01-02-2007 00:01:16 313 1 EC HS CP14400 006 489 8467366 04:51:49 p.m. 01-OZ-2007 00:00:40 313 1 EC HS CP28800 007 489 8950390 04:51:49 p.m. 01-02-2007 00:00:39 3!3 1 EC HS CP33600 '~~ ~ .... ~ .. ,'~ ~, ~F;X> ;, ~;~~k ` $?' F~;J }' ~.~ ,, _ :_n °r (4Yf^S?i ,2. r -~w ~. `3E;,; :' ,; .;41 EF, ,.~3'~ }, s, } ~`~ W ' r P~ W~.' ~~(~ .. • i ~~~ `~~ n~ ~~. °'T'' °F ~''~' ~ ~. ~ - MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING C~.~~Vtl'YI(/ll~l'I ~ ~; REGULAR MEETING IDAHO ~ AGENDA Jy / F / c~ft ~Tv~Y ~ Ci Council Chambers ty x 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 4, 2007 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: ~~ ,, ~~ ~ Keith Borup X~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe ~_Vacant ~-.S-~~d-~ ~,°cl~d,~7~.~Jc'~-~-~' Michael Rohm -chairman ~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: ~=; ~~> : ; r, A. Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning ;.. Commission Meeting: ./~~,~~„ ~~ ~_ ~` :: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use ~~~ Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use s~ permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry ~~ Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, `°" 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: ,~~~~-u ~~ '~` ` ' 4. Public Hearing: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~_ ~ drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for G' Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland ~~. ~, Road: ,~,~~~-L c~-~. ~r ~~cv°~ 1=FGL_ ~~, ~, ~~ ~` ` 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within €~ ~ 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: '~ ,,_ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 1 of 3 ~ 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. ~- C,' ~, ~~ ' ~ ' i . r' ~, ~i;, n a rt s a ;'`' ( 1~ 4' ~ 4'' t ~ rC.t~1i~~ r * 1;c ~i~ y~~yn Y~~' Y '- i _ I ,µ'^.C3 ei~ v'+`~'!~- }-~ 5 G'~ 4r1 hf -st ~^. ,~, ~ .; ~l ! ~,xS i f ~~ ~t~ f' ~~~ Y ~ s, ~ ~ ~t~~~,i: r ~~ ~ y '. _ _ `~` ~ t}a4't.~t ~, ~ n ,± ~ r - ~ ,I -. s~-r~^rS. 9Krr€!v ~ . 1 y ~ : 9~ { rye ~.t.:~ .. . ,,pp~~v J S-' ~,~ ~ ~'-. SY~SF ~ 3"4^ Y jf~ F T - ~1 ~rt F ~ ~]~ I ~j Y ~ yj. ..-. - ., , ~ ~ ~ ~' I~~ ~~ ~~ - M," e ti: a i n~$ ~ al v s~ '~ = - ~ r ~' r.. 6 ~ ~ ~ ~r~1sS' e. -y ~ ~ ~~ of ~~ f~ ~ , 1= ¢ ) L J, ~ ~ ~ ~ f'.'i;ro~Y } y r ~~' P, -~~ • i 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern y BRS Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: Springs Building B b ~ 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14 ~, ~` building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe ~~ Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick ,~ and Eagle Roads: -~~ ~~~i-Z-~d~~ t~k ~;~,~~%~r~ ~ ~ ~- . >. 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 : acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR ~ ~. Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat ~„ Road: ("~~tit-4- ~~G~ ~ (~"3-~ (~-~`~`~ ~. ~~._ ~,~~. ~~~ ` . Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the ~~ ~ proposed R-15 zone plus 2multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: 4 ~ C ~~-~-~ ~Pl~~ ~~ C:'~3-~~ ~ -~-`? ~ s~ 10. Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an ~' ~ R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440, `k 1516 and 1528 W. Cherry Lane: '' " 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of Z ~j - ~ 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision b Providence Develo ment -west of S. Ea le Y p 9 Road and south of Amity Road: (yC1~~ . ~~G~ . J-,, ~, ~5 -~:~7 `:.,,~. 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of ` 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by '~ Providence Development -west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: ('EV~°~- . hlL~ ~0 2°l ~-~'~) ~" ;_ T- 13. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: ~ G~,-titiw~u; „~ Lk ~~~ l~, ~~ -h.~ ~-~C 4~ ; ~'~: - . ~ 14. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049 . . ;, ~_ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6multi-family residential building ~a =5 k~::3. lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3 common /other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly ~s: Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View 1' court: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 2 of 3 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, °`A<4" please contact the Citv Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~. r. t~ '~. --.' 4 L M r .t T M 1 ~ f+"•1 1 ~ k ~ t~ a !A ,^f^.: f ~ t 1 ; ~ r ~ s~,~ 9 'i! ', ~ M YI`7~' f t.~y~ '~ ~ ~~~ Ass ~i .' . {~ ~.`t 1. '~, it '2. 'f~i r!' ~: M~ l ~ ~ ~-• 1 ~,,~ ~t $ ~ S a ~~1 y ~ [ :~ ~# ~ ~~: ~ 1 y~*`~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ • i 15. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: ~~~~ ~ . ~lGt ~~ 2 - / s -~ ~ :- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 4, 2007 Page 3 of 3 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. ,` ,r 5, ?~ w- '~'jj$y ~,, ~~i31 }~` /` { -.. v !+ 1'.~ -vim: >:~.. x ~, ,5: d , ~~~~~ '.;"':? ;r;,: t; ~r ~ ~`~ DateTme LocaIID 1 .~ Local ID 2 1 01-05-2007 2088884218 ^ ~'" Broadcast Report - ~ 00:09:06 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" ''`~.,Q,~°^'°" MERIDIAN PLANNINti AND ZoPittyf"a C/Yi.U'~G!'l~Z RBGUI.ARMEETINti usnrto AGiENDA City Couatcl! Chambers 33 East fdaho Avenue, RAaridlan, Idaho i'hunsday, January 4, 2007 at 7:A0 p.m. °Ahthough the Gfty of Meridian na urger regobes sworn tesllrraorry, all presentetions before Lire Nlayar and City t:ouncN are expe~eo' ro be trutlrfui and honest to bed of the atsltuy of the presenter. 1. Rati-call Attendance: ~- Kefth Borup ~„ Wendy Newton-tiuclaabey X David Moe _ 3C _Vacant -~~fc:vc .~,cidAUlat~ _~,,,, Michael Rohm - ctaaltvnan 2. Adoptlon of lira Agenda: 3. CoraeeratAgenda: A. Approve Mtinrtes of November 16. 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: f.~ y U.e., B, Findln8a of Fact grad Gonctuslarts of t-aw Yon Approval: MCU 08-004 Request for Modihc;atfon of the existing Condittonal Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use pennft epproval for alt stauctures wkhtn the L-O zone for Razz~rry Crossing 3ubdivisfon by Carl and Bonnie Reltenrtara - 1434. 1493, 1482,1668 E. Star thrive: f-~~prpu c.. 4. Public Hearing: Ci1P 09-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit tar a drive-thru window in a C-G zone v~ithin 300 feet of a residentiei use for Dickey's f38Q Drive-'rfiru by Coci~r industries -2845 E. Overland Road; ~P~°"4 - i~r~,~. FFGL- 9. Continued Public Hearing from November 19, 2006: CUP OBd139 Request for a Conditianaf use Perrnit for edrive-thrv establishmer-t within 300 feel of another drive-thru tactiity and a restderatial district for 8autiaarn Springs ®uiiding A by SRS Architects -1780 S. Meridian Road: u~, - {nf~c+A,e FFCL Planrdrg one zj Cormh~lon stealing Agen<aa- .larnorty 4.2007 Pe®o 4 ors P.4 matar>afs Presorted ~ pub8c meotlnga oteae betrome property ofUre City o114Aealdien. Anyone deatrLcg exom~de0an for d~flgdes related to doaar~arta and/or hearing. piBasecoma ftm Gtty dara<'s otttrs a189H-x433 at bash limas pdato Uie~bik nree8~. T..1..1 0..w..n l+....Arw..~.J . G•1 , v.rw, , rw No. tlvv vvan Job , .......... Remote Station _.-... _.~__ __.._.__.__ _ _ Start Time . Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 504 3810160 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:00:00 Oi3 1 G3 HS FA 002 504 8989551 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:00:51 313 1 EC HS CP21600 003 504 8848723 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:01:20 313 1 EC HS CP14400 004 504 8886854 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:00:42 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 005 504 8985501 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:01:26 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 006 504 8467366 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 OO:Q0:42 3t3 1 EC HS CP28800 007 504 8950390 11:34:20 p.m. 01-042007 00:00:42 313 1 EC HS CP28800 %~5~::. ~ ~.,r' .r. v~9 -:c~;- ~.-' "t N ~~ ~' ~Ys'. ~. ~; ~ .': y Z - a ~b. rc r'`•'~~'~r ~,a: r ~ ; -;'.~;~e! ~~ ~K? T%' ,~'~'S. ~'k;. '~~~irc ~,..;. • 4l _~ ~. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 4, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 4, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Moe. Members present: Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba, and David Moe. Members absent: Michael Rohm Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Wafters, Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway 0 Michael Rohm -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning regularly scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007, which would be the first one of the new year. Along with welcoming you folks, I'd also like to welcome Mr. Siddoway to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Good to have you, sir. Siddoway: Thank you. Moe: At this time I'd like to go ahead and ask for roll call, please, of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: y'~;~z>~=~~~ Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is a '~`>~:' couple of items that we want to change before we go with the adoption of the agenda. . F ~.` First items would be items number 11 and 12, which are Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision and Items 16 and 17, which are Sagewood Subdivisions, we'd like to move those to the front of the agenda. Staff has a request that both those hearings be ~~ `"~?1 continued and we will act on those at that point. Also included would be we'd like to ~:, :. , <<~ ,~;¢:, move Item No. 10, which is the RZ 06-012 for the rezone for Cherry-Linder rezone up in front of Item No. 8. No. 10 is going to be an item that won't take a lot of time and we'd ~```'~'~ like to get that one up above the longer hearing. So, having said that if I could get a ,: motion to accept the agenda. ~:__ , Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? ~~; ` ~ Moe: Yes, sir. i~~ ,~~ s ,~ tr `~t~~ n ~ ,, ;;a ~ s n `~~#~' t f~,, s ~r ~~,: r ~~ '- ~;tip `~ ~i~ ., ~. •c.; ~ '~~~ : . 3 r,~r.:< ~ ' "~ ~ .~ z F x , ~jr,5 y t t~~~ r ~~~C"r' lr ti ~;a{q,,, Z ` 3Y r ~ t?, t r ~ 1 ~ ? fir':: _ ~ ~p~"' ~' ~~ j iAj ter ~;~^. -y"'. > ~ ~ '1 '~` , „ fn;~v-~ a ~ a.. 3, 7. r' -yam s" ~~ E~ ti~ . ~ ,.. a .;. t,.s.,r q ;. ~,, ,.. F rY c ~ < ~ ` i ~°*r~•~[~~ 3°71 ~ , rte. f b, yiri t` :: ~, `'z;. ~;. ~' %A .: 4 ~i ~''~ i.. ~` , ~, . ~~' °' ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 2 of 61 Siddoway: I move that we approve the agenda as amended. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: is }! rf. ,~ p. tp,) ~I.'.:.v~}~ti ~, ,> a;. Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Those items being the approval of meeting minutes of November 16th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and, B, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 06-004 for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. Can I get a motion to accept those or does anyone have any questions or comments? Borup: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe I need to abstain, as I did not participate in those -- inthe hearings, so I won't be approving those minutes. Moe: That has been noted. So, that would be three to one approval of that. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Having done that, before I open the first Public Hearing, for some of you folks that have not been here before I just kind of want to go through kind of the -- how we do this here. Basically, we will open a hearing, at which time we will, then, ask staff to give its report for that hearing, after which we will, then, have the applicant come up and at which time they will have ten minutes, I do believe it is, to explain their position fix. r .j_"sr .r` r ,e~°~dl%> ,~ ~ ~ ~sr r t a ~c r , ~ F ~ ~ i ~ ie : P' '~~ ~ ~' ne'C~=. 1 ~~~ ~° ~~=~, t~fi ~ y ~~ ~ cd;.. ~ ~ ~ A. .~Y~ 'ct, r: * .~ ~:~':. x I F e~k~. ` • ' f i , i~F~~. :4 ;• ~/r y - ,. i.. '~ .~~ 'i ~ ~ -~ ~ y'~ *e 4y',~~. j ~ rey y ~~ ~ ~-" ~~~ waf H- a~ , ~ ~~ S ~ F} t ~ ~ Y~"-~% C~~~f ~ ' f -N~...e^~~. ~ :,' . t - - ~' 1 b F i~: -~~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ¢, January 4, 2007 ~'~`~~~ Page 3 of 61 ~: , on that project, at which time, then, we will have -- the public has their opportunity. t~~ ~ There are sign-up sheets in the back. If you have signed up to speak you will have your three minutes to come up and do that. I don't know that it's going to be this way this evening, but if there was a group of folks that was in opposition or had comments to ;' ~ make on a certain project, if you had a spokesman for that group they would be given ~~; more time to give testimony at that point. And after all the public testimony is given and H~ .x that would be either signed up or we will also give anyone that hasn't been signed up ,. ~-~~" the opportunity to speak -- after that, then, the applicant will have time for rebuttal on ~., those comments. At that time, then, the Commission would act on that hearing. ~. `' ,. ~~ ~: _, ~.. ,. ~:' ~ ~- .:,, ~: ,~ e' ~` ._o ,. t~ K J, - .. {"k;> ~,. k- ~_ k" F . ;~ Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development -west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Moe: So, having said that, then, I would like to now open the Public Hearing for -- if I can get the right one here. That would be AZ 06-059, Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision and PP 06-059 for the same and ask staff comments. Lucas: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. I just want to give a brief explanation as to why we are requesting these -- these hearing items to be continued to the date requested. I sent two memos regarding this project. The first one discussed how we had not received ACHD comments and in that first memo staff requested that the hearing be moved to January 18th, which is just two weeks from now, but after that we received just yesterday, actually, another a-mail from ACHD indicating to us that they were going to hold an evening meeting for this Blackrock project on January 24th, which was after the 18th, and ACRD, basically, in their comments asked us to hold off on moving forward on this project until their commission had a chance to look at it and in the past the Commission -- this Commission has decided to wait until ACHD had kind of made a decision on a project before moving forward. For one thing, it gives staff an opportunity to get all the comments necessary to properly analyze the report and present -- and present all the details necessary at the hearing. So, staff has requested that this Blackrock Castle Greens project be continued until February 15th to allow a time for all the comments to be heard by both staff and ACRD. Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Well, then, can I get a motion to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of February 15th, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. 1 ,. ~ ,' ~ f ~.~~ $ S~-"'l iii ~ ~ ,1i . ~ i ~ #~ i ~~~~~ F ~' ~fi~. ~~~ - ~ _ ' ~ ~,. ~ .. ~; AE4:1~ ~t ~?~ ti ~' ~/t , .~7 ~ ~+V +~~ + ~ ~ I4 ° S_ ~,r ~ ~ j } N ~f %] k c h~ rF ~ i ~~ ~ ~~ :r r 1 .. ~~.; ' i~~ 54;i ~k ~, 9 , ; 'r-"YC 5 is 7 ~ ~, +:Zti,. t ~f. R Y~yrL~Y.,~;•. ~ ,~} i<L ~A't N ~+ i'L ,~ ~S f Y 3.,X, Siw ~~S t-. R . ,; ~ r ~ S!~ ~~~' 1 i ~ i al,~ io Fly}. r: I.. ~ Z~ e : at'fr'- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 4 of 61 ~:~: ;~: s <, '-; , ~~: ~° _; ,~~ >y ~~ ~- ~`, ~> ; ~~ ~;' r4r~~~~r.~~ ~. ,~ iF.,: Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~ Moe: Could I have that seconded? It has been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059 for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC -4435 S. Meridian Road: Moe: I would now like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057 for Sagewood Subdivision and hear the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. Basically, Sagewood Subdivision is also being requested to be continued for the same reasons as the previous application. We do not have a report from ACRD yet. They did order a traffic impact study for this project because of its size. That is going to a meeting -- a tech review meeting next week at ACHD and, then, they are planning on having a public meeting in the evening towards the end of the month, probably the 24th. So, the staff is asking that this project be continued until the February 15th meeting, because the February 1st meeting is quite full at this point, so -- does the Commission have any questions? Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Siddoway: I would just ask is the February 15th meeting filling up or are we going to worry about that yet? Moe: Actually, I'm just reviewing that and right now that would be the earliest we would want to see that -- Siddoway: Okay. ! ~ 777 i' ~ l~ k ~.~M~Y' 1 ~ ~ L t l` ~j'~~l,'t!~i; ' r "~ ~1`} ~.~ f 41 F i_. .,., ~ }f ~~-. Y 1 ~ ~ ~ ! Y 2 ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~°' ~~C ~ '' ~ 1 ~ ' ~'?~ 1 . J ~ 5 . -~~~~. l ;~ . t' fu~~y~~ . k.~€~i _ ,n rf .,,. ~ ~ 3 . ~ ~: ~,~ ;~;. ~ ~t E~ .~, * " ~ ~, a~ ~ ii ~ .,' ~i ' 4th t ..; rF ~~!_ a' S ,! YI rn4 t- ~r i ~n ~ LE?. `~{rt[ y )5 } ~ 3 T A ~ ~~~_.. ~~' f f~ 1~~` ~Ir" C~- ~ Ct e,. c 1. a ~ - Jk. ~~~~::. x, ,: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~~ i~ January 4, 2007 ~: Page 5 of 61 ~!~ Moe: -- come before us, so -- Siddoway: Thank you. ,~.~ . ,,:y ~~~~ ~~ Moe: -- having said that, then, I would like to get a motion to continue the public ~, hearings on AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057 for Sagewood Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Siddoway: Second. ~; ~~ ~ Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-058 and ~;,:;~ ~~~. PP 06-057 to the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for February ~;; 15th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion ~> : is carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ,_~ drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for '`~~'~ Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: ice; Moe: All right. Next item will be Public Hearing CUP 06-039, request for Conditional Use Permit for Dickey's BBQ Drive-thru and hear the staff report. ~= ~ ~ Wafters: Thank you, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a ~ ,. request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of an existing residence in a C-G zone. If you look on the overhead here, here is the vicinity ma The roe is outlined here. The roe is enerall located a uarter mile >2: P• P P rtY ~ P P rtY ~ 9 Y q west of South Eagle Road on the southwest comer of East Overland Road and South ``~ Bonito Way at 2845 East Overland Road, within Bonito Subdivision. Directly across Overland Road here is an existing residence to the north. It's zoned R-1 in Ada County and it's within 300 feet of the proposed drive-thru facility. To the west of the site is -} vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. And to the south and east is commercial °~. ,,. property in Bonito Subdivision. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional Use Permit approval for all drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of an existing residence. Here is an aerial map showing the property. Residential subdivision across the street " ~ there. Here is a site plan. The proposed drive-thru window is located on the west end of the building. The landscape plan. And here is elevations of the existing building. The staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated =~ in the staff report subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. ~ t ,~} .F. .. { - ~ y ~ 3 ~.?: ~¢ ~ R ~ ~ ! s 9f ¢ 1 ~~ ~~ 9 -. A~ 'w sN~r;~. s t' v ~ '' ~ ',,r y ~ x '; V' ~~ J y. ~.~r ~^' t ~~~. ~ ri,., ~i ~ 1 * s ' r'~ F ~ {{ ~ lei y ~.kJ ~I, ~ )3 ~E Y ~ .. ,, 'S 'tl9~. li i ~ ~ ~ ry_ S - ~ r f ~ ~ ~i I rC ~ i e -. ~'~ xr_c Ri 3 '~ _i >: _ ,Sd y. , ~ , i'~`'~r ~ ~ ~ i'C`4~.M .t: L rn ~~ e ~ ,Z ~ ~{ ~? ~->~~r7-Y ~ t ~ H 4`'-~~ ~ t ~ ~ i~~ ? F. ~ . ; . h ° ~ n r ~ _ , t ~ ~' r' . ~. ~~ ~ 5 t ~ Td~v • ~ ~°; Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 6 of 61 Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Anderson: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Eric Anderson with BRS Architects, representing the applicant on this particular project. I have reviewed the staff report and we agree to comply with the conditions listed. If you have any questions from me I'm more than happy to answer them. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: No questions. Anderson: All right. Thank you. Moe: Okay. I see no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to speak to this? I see none. Siddoway: I'd move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-039. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Borup: After considering all testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-039 as presented during the hearing of January 4th, 2007. I further direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting hearing on January 18th. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-039. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 '=~~ Page 7 of 61 Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-036 ;`~ , Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within :-: 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: ti Moe: Okay. The next hearing will be No. 5 and, Commissioners, we are going to open ~- both five and six together, but when we do that, when we do make motions, they will _„ ~'~~'`'' have to be motions separate. So, therefore, I would like to open CUP 06-035 and CUP 06-036 for Southem Springs Building Six A and Southem Springs Building B and have . ' the staff report, please. f~;. Wafters: Thank you, Members of the Commission. There are two Conditional Use ~~' " ~ Permit applications before you for drive-thru -- excuse me -- for drive-thru ~~' ~; establishments on properties adjacent to each other in Southem Springs Subdivision. The first is for Building A, which is requesting approval for two drive-thru establishments, one on each end of the building, within 300 feet of a residential district F;:- - and within 300 feet of each other, as well as another concurrently proposed drive-thru to ~~ '''' the south on the south side of Building B. Both of the buildings have received certificate ~`~' of zoning compliance approval for the building shell, but not for the drive-thru windows and has been constructed on the site, but have not yet received occupancy. The Y~'" subject properties are located at 1720, 1760, and 1800 South Meridian Road on the °` - east side of South Meridian Road south of East Overiand Road. If you look on the plat - "a - on the vicinity map here, the subject property is outlined in black. To the north are 4 " commercial properties in Southem Springs Subdivision, zoned C-G. To the east and . south is vacant and developing commercial property, zoned L-O and C-G. Further to r_~; a, the east are residential properties in Running Brook Estates Subdivision zoned R-4. And to the west is developing commercial property zoned C-G and residential property fit;:' in Elk Run Subdivision zoned R-8. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional Use Permit approval for all proposed drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of a residential _' ~ ` district and within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility. Here is an aerial view of the ' ~~°>:: s property. Here is the site plan. If you look at the building here on the north end, that ~: Building A. The drive-thrus are proposed on the north and the south end of the building . ~< , - as shown. Building B is right here. There is one proposed drive-thru window on the 4r, . south end of this building right here. The landscape plan site. And these are elevations ~,` for Building A. These are on two separate presentations here. Bear with me. Here is .~~ the site plan for building B that shows the location of the drive-thru window. Landscape ~~ Ian. And elevations for Buildin B. Staff is recommendin a royal of the re nested P 9 9 PP q ~~ Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in -~~ Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. ~~, ~ ~ Moe: Commissioners, any questions? ~~ ~~~ ..,~ , i ~ F.t. ~ ~f ~q ~ ~; t p- 'Y. ~ q F f ~ ~i ~i ~.~ Y, N ^ t } ~ _ ~ -`:l;i s. K ~ ~ ~ F~~w y~~,_ k ~~{;tL+E.~~. .y~ ty yf~! '3 er~~r` W Y r S'~~~~H: .gyp ~ C~_:'1.. ~~~~~, r ~ t'~ i i'~t1 r t ? r ~. + ~~ wF ~~K~#~ ~ s ~ yt,~T'-"- ~ ~ -[ ~ y ~ - S y; a .S ry{~~.+-. u f~ } ~ ~ 'fa . ,.5 4~ ' ~ ! ~ ti ~ ~~ t ~~ L' j v ~ 1 r a N ~ 7~" ~,~~.. a ' ' ,.'~ .~~; ~:~~ Y M^Y. yr+'! f r,~r ~ ~~" ~ .' ,,,.- ,~ .~r_ r v;;: _- ;k } ~-~~~ ~" ~~'g 'a s x , ., E _ti .,4,,~; , r ~, ~w'.t ~~iy , ~~~''_. ~.:. ~~ -' ~__.~:;> r _; ~,.. ti~ ~, w~ ~ ~~ ~~,a s Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page8of61 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Siddoway: Sonya, do the residences that are within 300 feet, they are the ones to the east on the other side of the canal? Wafters: To the east, yes. Siddoway: And do any -- none of the proposed speakers face those residences? They face north and south? Wafters: Correct. Siddoway: And is there existing fencing along that canal? Wafters: I believe that there is with the Southern Springs Development. I think it's six foot vinyl, I believe, and landscaping as well. Siddoway: Okay. That's all. Moe: Any other questions? Borup: One. Moe: Yes, sir. Borup: Yes. In staff comments it had some concern with stacking. Is there still some concern on that? Wafters: No, not really. The applicant has redesigned the site plan a little bit. They have worked with the police department to satisfy some of the police department's concerns with the property and the police department is satisfied with their revisions. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: No other questions, would the applicant come forward. Thompson: Good evening. Joe Thompson with BRS Architects here representing our client. I did want to clarify one thing about the buffering to the east that was brought up. What we have is -- this is our site. This was the canal you're talking about. This is also part of -- I don't know if it's part of the subdivision, but it's commercial and it's right now empty and right along here is that fence that was discussed and some evergreen pine trees as well. That was required as part of the subdivision approval. Other than that, I '" Meridian Planning & Zoning `'' January 4, 2007 ~~~>``' Page 9 of 61 don't really have anything to talk about on it. Staff did a good job, so I'll stand for ~: questions. x ~~ -a'~ Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? ~' _ :: Newton-Huckabay: I have none. ;, Siddoway: You're in agreement with all proposed conditions of approval? Thompson: Yes. k', '"'~` Siddoway: Okay. Y: _ ~~ ° Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, again, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to speak on this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up. Seeing none, then, Commissioners? ~~-~- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd move to close the Public Hearing. ~:;: '°5` Newton-Huckabay: Second. '< Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing CUP 06-035 and CUP 06-036 for Southem Springs Buildings A and B. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. e, ~` '~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~, ~, . Newton-Huckabay: Two motions? Moe: Yes. They need to be separate motions, please. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to -; approve file number CUP 06-035 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of y January 4th, 2007, with no modifications to the condition of approval. I further move to ~~ ~" direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next ~g Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18th, 2007. ~-' Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-035 for Southem ~;:: ,: Springs Building A. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion ;: carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~. 1 j [ ~ r ., ~ y~ '; '~ h~ 'h'f' + i '~ A :. r ~ atrsrt'~:.. ~: h Q~ Y x _ .~ t , ~'+ _ .p 1' ~ .5~ v.~.. ~~ ~ { y ~ ,»r t; i t8+ . ~ ~~ F ~ ~ i x C ~ * T J :` Y r ~1..:;. ; x .. z~~: .s"~*r airs ~. ra .~ i ~ !'. x . z``~` a ~t "~ r , ~~x ~.,., ~, z r, ~ ~~: r ,~ ° -- " ~k h - ~a~~ J 4 ~ r " + ~~. y~{~ x sa x • T'-. P ~~k ia ~.u. a` ~;f-" ]ilk{-~',i::'~~. ` J, P ~- ~ ' ~7 ~ r ~ ~Y~,' s~i a ~"F '}~r!' ~u3 - t ~ti~ ~ 4~ ~} ~~ t e~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ . e f ,~ ~ i `_ti.. _ ~ t ~ y b apn.f~i- - } ~~~ - ~:. i~ =;.. .1 Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~,` January 4, 2007 Page 10 of 61 t`' Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ".r. approve file number CUP 06-036 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications to the conditions of approval. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next '`' ' Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18th, 2007. ', H~ . ~ Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-036 for Southern Springs ;,Y~ ' Building B. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~'~~ .',= Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14 ~~~ building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe ;r Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick and Eagle Roads: Y~; Moe: Next item will be the Public Hearing for PP 06-063 for Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 2 North and we will hear the staff report, please. ~,. r. Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Centre Pointe North Subdivision. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for 14 commercial lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone. The proposed subdivision does not include 8.33 acres previously approved for Kohl's Department Store and 31.37 acres approved under Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1. The entire Centre Pointe marketplace development is zoned C-G and totals 59 acres. Centre Pointe North will be the final phase of the Centre Pointe marketplace development. Centre Pointe North is generally located at the northwest comer of Ustick and Eagle Road intersections. To the east we have the Smitzger commercial subdivision. To the south Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1 right here. To the west a residential subdivision Champion Park, which is zoned R-8. Staff would like to provide the Commission with a little background information related to these applications. In November of 2005 the 59 acre Centre Point Marketplace development received approval for three access points onto Eagle Road. Two are right-in, right-out only accesses and one is a full driveway access. One of the approved right-in, right-out access points falls within the subject subdivision and that's the northernmost one right here. In October of 2006 the applicant was granted approval to modify the existing development agreement for the Centre Pointe Marketplace development to allow construction and commencement of principally permitted uses in that C-G zone without detailed CUP approval. The applicant Winston Moore submitted a master site plan, which is shown on the Powerpoint presentation right now, which defined building layout and pad locations for the development. As per the conditions of approval for said development agreement modification by City Council, the applicant was required to supply three public gathering areas with continuous internal walkways on the site and one of the gathering areas -- Y nY __ i , r. A ~yy% L7i t. x~t 1 J '.. ^~•. Y~ ±Yi: ~C ~ r`~ ~ ! ~~~~ ~ ~., 4~~ I ' ~~ w`~ x~~. . , l~b~. t 4 , ~ y'i'n ~~.,~', ~~ 5 a.~. . {~ h - ~~! i 1 ~~ f ~ %r ~F ~• Y ~ ii`i `'~ ~u'tr: 1 Y ! X1 U Y' `~. .. yafi f:: ~ fit i ~: 4 ~ i~ J ~`~w~~ r 1~ SF t {. i`.i} . .i`t '~i~3~. ~'S~ '~. ~-4 ~ ~~ f 5~ iti~~ ~ .~ l ~ , . '. '! r'}r~! '. ~ ~ '{ t ~ y~ ' ;:> i .; - ~ l (h F y t ~~ S ~. ,y ~Yt: i .n - ii Kii nj."~i a ~ . '~ Y4 ~kyr t ~41~.1: T } ,.G ~ t v. s ~~ L ~- x 1 ~. k~ ~+~~ t "fit W,.~, S ~ ~ i~' d + ~. a> ~ t 6 yy.~a~. ; w fk ~ ` r i { >p; ~~ s ~~ ~' . I ~Yi i - r~`~:J ~~~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 11 of 61 one of these gathering areas is proposed within Centre Pointe North and I have here on ~` ~ one of the slides a gazebo that is proposed on this site. There are several issues to ~_ x;~ mention here. Staff has not approved the submitted landscaping plan. The primary reason for this is that the applicant proposes a 35 foot wide landscaping buffer along Eagle Road where 15 feet of the buffer is to be located within Eagle Road's right of way. City code requires landscaping buffers in entirety to be located outside of rights of way. However, in June of 2006 the applicant applied for and was granted a variance from -, these standards for Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1, which is just to the south of this ~~~ , subdivision. And this allowed the applicant to count adjacent ITD right of way towards ~,; ~ ~~ ;. the landscape street buffer width. The landscaping buffer was approved at 20 feet, with ~_ = 15 feet constructed within the right of way. The Commission should note that the ~' applicant has not yet, but is preparing to also submit a variance application, which proposes the same reduction in landscaping for Centre Pointe North and the staff has also received the applicant's response to our staff report. While the applicant would like to eliminate cross-access between several of the commercial lots, staff is still supportive ' ~ of this interconnectivity and asks the Commission to uphold this condition. Staff is also 5~ aware that a family care center will be constructed on Lot 3, Block 1 and that's this large one here, due to the expectation of substantial traffic volumes this type of use may ~a.:: r~' `'' bring, staff believes that a small knuckle or a cul-de-sac or some other turnaround should be provided at the terminus of Centre Pointe Way, which is, essentially, stubbed at this point. Other than those issues, staff finds the preliminary plat application to conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and the UDC, as well as the development agreement in effect for the site and we recommend approval of the subject application. So, that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. t,: `' t _ Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant come . forward, please. ~~~ , Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. If we can put the -- Amanda, the other -- the concept plan up. ~> Hess: Sure. ~~ Seal: Just very briefly again, just to give you avery -- little bit more information on it. k As I mentioned, this is the platted areas that we are looking at right now. We have =`~ come to you for this already. This portion is complete. In fact, this road is complete up to this point. As Amanda said, we did receive approval for 20 feet of landscaping here and as I will mention, I will be coming back for a variance in this. I originally was thinking that the variance that applied to this would also apply to this portion up here, ~` ~~ ,,. but have been advised otherwise. So, we will come back in for a variance so -- on that. ~ I think as far as the landscaping plan not being approved, we -- I have instructed The Land Group to go ahead and resubmit a landscape plan that would reflect the conditions that were requested, so we will provide that prior to City Council, so that's not ', ; an issue in there. As I mentioned, this is -- this is generally a concept plan. And, again, when we -- when I had the previous hearing I have discussed about this is the intended I think layout of the buildings. They may vary somewhat in size or configurations, but, ;~ ~' ~:,~ ~ ~, -' ,~ ~ ~~. ~ w~^: ~, , - . } ~' ~'^~n : a' - A ~ l - ) - ~ ~ • \''§~': ~ ~! "x,.Fla' .y Jo~i.cf~l~ t 'S " . '~ ~:: 2 :aa>.!fi.;~r ~„ ~3, .~ G.r ~ ..~` ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ l tlbl9. ' ~~ E a6r •~`~ ~°~~_ ~~yy~., ,} s '~'~ ~ ~ ~',~-- r'•' ; ' Y I ~ .~. i Q„w-,*~:'~ $,~w, e~;~r, ~rd^~? ' ~ l.v. .va , y k•= r.~.. ' ;'I:.3: ~'~~'~: ^~.kw..~y'" • . ` ,~~'vtk if ,r.,e~ V ~~,.: ~ »,;.. `l 41 ~: 4Yt^n:=+;„] a :,#, ~ •^I 4.,` :;4, { . e ~ • ~ ~ ~ £ ` V ~ I.. , I~.Ff ~~~%£S'7,~., ~ ' . .X ` l.~~^s~ jn >h~ Jl ` ;.., ;. ` .• J . . ~ ' s ,~ ,."~~ ~4x ' ~ ~: + Q;a i .,sc~ .s} T x,. 1 : ''~ Jam' '. ,:°;r= z~^ ''a ~; ""t'4 ~~~( r,".:~~ ' ~~.a ,~~"'','~°,~"~.#~~°t~3 49~P.P' f ~ F, P l 3''i ;• I z . ~ ~ ( ~: ":ag g? .. ~ _ ?r.~.,,~r v fy •, .3 ? 7 y~~¢! ~:ri r,.. . ~ iF.?L 0P' ~.4 rr•+~,.. d r ; a t o , .' t ~ . " r i .Y ` ~~ ~ ~ i , . , . :,. v.. • ;. F ' ''~Fr a : t I ~ ~. shu ~, . F.:r ' :; t. L. .L - . jf '~ ,>: t ~: ~ ~ ' ~ ~.Ss:~•Nbli{ yYRt'Y~4.: ~fra^ .E1. , ' S : - , n~'~r i'., .s~•a^.h; .Xe 3 ' x L ~ ~ ,. ', ` ' '~ ~ k ~ ` t say. a:[5-' b' :e: .. .ix "I iY f{4. k' ~, ,^~I+~Wy^^'' .~,e ~ ~s . - .i. .it,.F `a o ! 1.~~ I ;' ^;uk' ~ ^K` py iF ~:'~~y y.~:.p ~1~Q'~' }~ ~:. ~ Id4~,r,: =F •~d..i^.:`:fi:, FS~F""'q ` ' V i. .- ~',' ..v;2 . t i s i:' #~ 4 t x' ~ 1F- ~t - u..w ;. `tk~ig4 , y~. 1 ?~ _ . .. .. - , R ,. s ' °. .t. ~Jq:,S ski' .T: Yy f dry.. .], ~;j.Y ~'Q. ' .1` .' !TT~:d'~~,~.fn:,=,'6...,..-i. n~i-~... '..~ : ~~#•...~.'9. ' ~.. a~:.._ . .. ~.n,5 }r ~=jF~ M ..'~' ;"•S++o,~~::tf c''.p.?>, ._... ..~C: ... - ..k.. .. ,. ~`.~. .~f^. :p ,4.:: 'i. .. ~1,. c. ....v, ., .;:.'.r:• •~ .1~ ' ~).. ~. cr)~.TC~~ ~~ q ... i `:1 ~T S r. ,,` , w ~ ' ,~' p x'= G \ i n ~,1-.; 4ay i, t ~~ ~ >~ ~ . ~~,~ Fr u { ~ W ' n ~~ . i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 12 of 61 ;, ,~ . ~~ generally, this is going to be how the parking will be constructed. Again, we see ~:~ _ probably office or some type of quasi-retail back here and possibly the same thing here, ~`' with probably banking or some type of retail up in this area. This happens to be The Family Fun Center up here, which we have talked about in the past presentations. In .,:;- fact, they are getting ready to submit their certificate of zoning compliance. It's a family oriented facility and we think it's going to be a great addition to the community. One of ~' the things -- and the reason that we asked for elimination of the cross-access along H ~~:: , these particular lots -- we don't have any objection to it in this -- in this portion -- is t-~:;; because I think with the Family Center we would like to isolate the parking to here and not potentially have people down here that might have businesses and maybe have >' some of these up here and utilizing it. So, we simply ask that, essentially, we don't have ~`' ` cross-access, but we can restrict it to this particular area. Again, we don't see that as a ~'~° but we also don't think it's a major issue not to have cross-access. If you major issue ~.~ , look at these two particular lots right here, the way we have it designed -- and this will be an ACHD street at this end -- we will have an access here. So, these two will ~, : certainly share this already. So, we are, really, only talking about the Family Center. »: With respect to the tumaround up here, a couple things. There was a couple comments in the city -- in the staff report about wanting to do a tumaround up here, doing some type of easement. The distance from here to here is 140 feet. From here to here is 120 feet. The fire department -- in fact, I have the code and I can provide it to you, but the ~'`` `' fire department has said anything under 150 feet is not required. The other thing is, too, ,~~~ it just -- it simply adds more expense to it, instead of finishing our curb and gutter, taking ~;: it to this point and barricade it, we have to do some type of tumaround that will, ;. eventually, be tom up. Given the very short distance from here to here, I think, hopefully, if somebody pulls up here and they can see with the barricades here and everything that this is not a through street and, hopefully, they can figure out that they --,, shouldn't be going down here. So, we'd simply ask that that be eliminated, that that ~~ street be brought up to here and, again, that street will be continued at some point when ~, ; ACHD gets the rights through here to connect to an easement they have up here to ~~~` Wainwright, which comes back out onto Eagle. The final one that we had -- and I don't know if Amanda talked about it -- is the fire department wanting to talk about radius t`- ~; ' turns in this particular area. Again, in my letter I mention these are our concept plans. These buildings may change in configuration and size. I don't think materially, but they will change and so we simply ask that that requirement be eliminated. So, we will ~' > address that as we design these specific buildings when we know, in fact, what the size ~` :__ and configuration will be. Other than that, I think those are mainly my comments and ~' they are repeated a couple times of this public tumaround, because it was mentioned `~' several times in there. So, again, it's, essentially, across-access easement. You're going to have it here. We ask that it be eliminated, so the Family Center can be -- I ~. G .;:_ ~`' guess you could say segregated, eliminating the tumaround and, again, any type of concerns on the turning radius the fire department had we can address as we submit these buildings and as we know specifically how they are going to be. With that I would '" T-- be glad to answer any questions. d` < Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? <_.. ti,: ?~ ~. ~ t x ~~ - ~ y 4...Y $ ' 1~r ~,~ .k+ ~~ ,~,~ ~ !X ~~ ,j4 . P ,.'rT i ~' 4+Ms~.. ' k ~ 1'., Y ..11'1 ~ R ~ ~ ~.~~~' F "~ ~ _ ~ ~a s ~ ~ A ~ . ? ~}~ ~'7 3 fij w~ L ~~ F.C7>-. d ~. t~ oF.:. ti' >,~ ,~,, -?y. ~ c ~ ' r ,yt , y 'tir q~ x ~°£ ; ~~1.-''~ d. o R ~~ . .. aw ,. ..p~ ". ~ ~.. ~~'~~''.k r ~ K+4.~ ~. c" _ ~ v t ` ~ 1 r ,~~ 3 ~ s~. '~~ ' ~ R 1 tF ~t ;/'~' Ae a's J- .. 1I~f, \( ~ `'~. ~ h'.'' ~ 3 z. vit ~ ~~< S,~ ~,` ~, 43Nx~ i ~ ,~ F ~. t ~ '.'t ,' t~ ~ ~~ ~ ~y ~ ~~..- x ~ r 4+~ ~~~ S ~ .~`~ Apr , ~~ rF ~~ ;~ .t -e¢x^ i ~'i~ ~; ;: Y Y ... .. ._. _. ... p',,. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 13 of 61 Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. A question on the -- on the cross-access agreements. You're saying -- I mean I understand what you're saying, the one for the Family Center, ~```'. but the rest of those from that point south would all have access agreements? Seal: Commissioner Borup, we can -- I mean I think it's already -- it's almost implied there, because you only have one drive lane there and this plat ends right there anyway. So, we are really only talking about these two particular lots. Borup: But how about on the previous plats? They all did, didn't they? ~` ` Seal: You know, Idon't -- to be honest with you, I don't recall off the top of my head. ~~' don't see it as a problem. Whatever it was, if it was in here we didn't have concern. ~" =; think it's mainly with concern with this. And, again, it's not a hill worth dying for, but I don't think it's a major issue either way. So, again, we are just simply asking with this. You know, we don't have the cross-access. We are providing cross-access to the rest. ~~ We already have cross-access to everything. We usually -- we provide it to all our . - tenants and I suspect here and whatever was approved, obviously, we didn't have a a: problem with it, but to be honest with you I don't recall. _~'; ~ Borup: I'm assuming it was. Is that what staff recalls? Everything else has it, hasn't it? k- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't recall the -- there being a specific ~;... requirement for shared access or cross-access on those lots on the west side of the ~:~: plat. That Centre Pointe Way I think is what it's called now. I think it was called Sadie Creek the first time around, maybe. Whatever that public street is north-south, it is just ~'~ a local commercial street, it's not a classified roadway, so, generally, staff -- at least this planner has in the past -- if it's not a classified roadway, hasn't required them on a '~ °- ` regular basis anyways, cross-access. So, I do not remember that being a specific `~ ~ requirement of Centre Pointe South if you will. F`"` ~ Borup: Well, I'm a real advocate of cross-access agreements, but, then, I guess if that's the case, it wasn't required previously, has staff changed their position? Why are we asking for it now? ;~ ~: Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason it's changing is because I '' " wrote the first one and Ms. Hess has written the most recent one. I think it's -- you ;' know, it's a legitimate concern and requirement. It's nothing in code per se, so there is some human aspect to that and it's purely up to the Commission. It does make some f,'. _: sense to me, too, and in retrospect maybe some cross-access would have been made } sense there in the south, but I don't think it's -- either way, as Mr. Seal has stated, either way I don't think it's -- at least from my perspective -- and I'm going to back off '~' after this comment, but either way I don't think it's worth spending too much time over it. ~; y;~ We are not going to put up too much of a fight, so that's all I have. s:-~ Borup: Thank you. P .' , i ~4.~~v\ . T ~R ~ 'r ~~ y 3 Yy 2 t•W i r ' ~M i y . ~ .,+, t3' 1 T .E i `.YY- 4 ~ ` f .„~d K ~ ~ ~ $` ' k it "~ ~. y.~ --.:~ . JS l +6. x A'__~C: y , . k I s Pre, ''?; r{2i 'T tx` :~ ;A~: S S E _ is .'~. E, /~a .. I - Y' • ~, .. _ ' , ... , ~ ` •~ ^ 'x ~ `.~ ~.F w.:~`•~~6.>y`' 'f S t ^ S ..3AY ~ ~ ~C: n ~ k , k^ . : r ~S Yj j' N. '~ 'S~ 7..~ ~ X~[ ~ j{ I •- ~1 . ,.7i E a ~ ~ $~ ~~ ~ ,~~!! .. r , F . w ~~' •..y~"+,;.gwL:~~ .'~Sn7+`Z~ ~, .r? • P~: .~ '~. ..tea - '' , , • . .; ., T k, ., 'S' ~ } ~ .~i' : y:~ ..~~,y ., ~ !" t 1 ~ ' s .. .» ~.> ~ . "~ .:l .,.: i ~'z. i~ '~~ i. - ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ > . $ i..' 3+~, > ~~wt K%r !ki kr r ' .~ 'A~5 ~ ; iy~ f ^ $ F;"~i ~ ! tv ,F4 , t . ~ . t„~~, ~ . r F ~ °~:: r Z M. ~ ~ it r . Y :t r r ~-.': ~ m., 8 of ~R. ,Y ~~ ~ ~ M : ~ ~ ~.~ ' ,iY`~i`. ~~Ke '~i ~ ~1 *ln- ~rF ~ i ~ '~ ~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ ,~s r ~ . , . , ,¢fi F y. ~ ~ €. J~ + ' , n 4 • .y ` .7 t<'•?E.a {.~} ,tai^ ~.C A ..6 : Y, ~+; Y~ F r ~' E ~.+'~"•€ ~"'~ J .1' :}_i ii .~ .I ^r' ;~.r I .x i t l: "i- i` • mti ~ 5` ~ Y a !~ . ~ { ~ 4,Y .~ ~i m•~ ~• t b • r • ~ _ . . 9' t r ~. .v ~~~~ .~ • " ~ ~ ! z°'k .~~ f F '„ = ,r~•;~:, 1' . 3 v• ~ . ry ~ 'I 4 . ~, • .NA .x 1 . ' , - f- ` x ' :., ,. . . ~~_,: ~ Zi4 r: . i ' . ~'_~,;. :~` t x s ~ ^ . ;, ..,,. J ~ 4.. •N e~ ?? •r '~.i +.S' ~r ~ ~ *~^n'l n r P r , ? X 6@.~. I ~3 rl "~K ,F'^t ~'• -sr t 3 , r ~ . y~ 1+ i ' 4 ~ l } ~ • ..X ~).. . '. r r. ~... n x. " a ~ . . 1 F. .. !3Y$r• .. ~ l; } : . Jv .°.,<• r k. 1 , f i t ~ {i ~~ ~ ,~ t a r~ ~ J ~ 2 i~ :~ ti ~' s+~ j .; iP h y' f' P:e~ .L th r ~ ~ . .e. ,:, ,~ ; i r , ~ w•' 1.. ' ` ~r d~a~~~'~rr;,~. ! •;'`p/,1~,?~~'. I.. Y ~ w 3:~F 6 S ~ ~~- ` s • Px` S A.vi '~~ aa i' a.,f' t 1~ ~. 'y i ` ~ ~ S ~, . . y . . Y . ~ q. 5 o j Y: , x L r' - :.1:. . r. ~. '.:P~ ` .F !~. r ~ ~ 1 , .n~:'" " ~ ~ r e d, ~"~ f ii • t • . .-Fes y ~ ~ y. ~ :X:~ ~ ' *.: ,' k: I I .~~ fl r,.:;r ,'a;: ~ .~L~i,"! '6ti , • . ,~ , i I , ~ .7~ , '.~ 4 Z >S b y " 5'9 : ~~ J~ .j ~ Mi. ~~jggss rr,Ti° .,k~'ay,: nj~f:~ .+ i~ r'v '. ~. ..fir r~d q'. # •F~ ., 5 : .] kj . . 'lr. ^F ]~[' % d-T a ±•~' v,.H "~'~ .a.. ~~;~::j'.~'i,'.~~~~i•;w"~.?x ~Y, i~~& >':. .~.r r:. i'4 Y {! ~ ~ 'x _ y~ } 3'~°'~rx r t ~' 'n 'y%h l ~s• 7 J ~ . ~ ~ ~. : . x': I '~' f...: ' ,... ,; '~ ;~:'j~#K ~ry t Y 1 . y.. Y " ¢P .~ .~ ]~,r .. id ~ . „. , ;.. f1 1 ~'!5 xl .~ ~. ':i ,, ~,~. r;,a 2;~ i ~- yif' !~! ~;; ~~, K 4::: ~; ~_ } _ ,. F• ~,,. ~~: , x; ~: ~x <. -_ "/ y,, ~~ F'.~~. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 14 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Hucakbay: I was just wondering if there is any other access into this site if the main entrance were blocked for a fire truck or the driveway. Seal: For which particular building? I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: Where the Family Center is supposed to be. Seal: Oh, the family Center. Okay. Commissioner, the way this is designed -- and Comel Larsen is working on it -- it's designed such that the fire department can pull out of this access. I guess that's a question if it's blocked -- no, I guess, quite honestly, they couldn't, but if it was astand-alone type building and it only had access anyway and it was blocked, I guess you would be out of luck, you know, quite honestly, so, again, I don't personally think, either, it's something worth spending a lot of time on. I don't want to waste the Commission's time on this. I just simply think if it isn't critical we would simply ask that at least for that one it be removed. Moe: Mr. Seal, on that one there it looks like you actually have two entrances into that lot there. Is that incorrect? Seal: This is the plat - we have one here and, then, this is the family center right there. Yeah. Well, this landscape plan is not accurate with the site plan. So, no. And it's going to be revised anyway, so -- Moe: So, it will just have one access point? Seal: If we can go back to the concept plan, please. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the way I think it's designed -- and, again, the Family Center I think has one access up here and, then, we have one down here. I don't recall -- they are working on the site plan right now and I haven't seen the most current. They may very well have one here, but I can't tell you for sure. Moe: Okay. So, as I'm looking at that right there, then, it kind of looks to me like you'd almost have to have across-access on the two southern lots. Seal: Uh-huh. I don't have an objection to that. I mean the most southerly lot may very well become just simply one lot anyway, so -- Moe: Commissioners, any other questions? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. n ";, ~ 44 ,. -z f i ~+ ~( ~ v ~ 'F i T t~. t ~ 1 ~,~ r ~ ~e ~ ;: ,H, ~~.~S-i~ ~ ^ wyr "~ ik: ll ] T ~1~! _.i~. r, .n: ' ' } f 9 ~ ~ 44ro~~. t ~ S t h ,'MM~. ~. x.: a '~~~ a ~` ~~ ~Mi '~ f ~ A ~ ° ~ ~ r rfi.: c,X,~~: 7 . .t,~ `~~? ~ ~ ~ iF t L y s ~ -J ,p - ~ ~ ~ 4,Y ~ ~ t` ~ x f ~, ~ ti ~~ ,,`,. ~ Kw,~~s~t ~. Jr ' ~. J ,4 7x^r•~ 7~ l ~~ ~ ' i '~ F~ti~ ~^" ~ / ~ ^t f /~S ~ ~ '4! ~ ., ` ~ ~ ~ L v A ~ ; i~ ~i ~ ~~~ . ~ ~ k, .. f' f: ~~~ - :. ~'+ .:1; ..:4 ;: K. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 15 of 61 Siddoway: One question that I have is does the roadway to the south -- okay. This is the area that we are talking about for the plat and this internal road will be built with development. One thing that I'm wondering, just on the plat below it -- has this been constructed up to it? Is this the -- was this likely the only way in to this -- to the area -- the lots within this plat initially? Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, this road right now, which is called Centre Pointe Way, which is an ACHD road, is completed to this point. In fact, the only thing that I have left right now is some -- some punch list items on it and, then, it will be dedicated. In fact, it will be dedicated now if I could have paved my approaches, but it got too cold. So, it's done to this -- this is all --this is complete and this is complete. All of this is complete already. And, then, as they say with this phase -- and we will go ahead and construct this access. These accesses off of Eagle Road are in place already. In fact, all the landscaping, everything else is in. I hope that answers your question. Siddoway: And the northern most access in from Eagle Road will be constructed to this point before this project is built. There is not -- this won't be its only access in? Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the plan, at least the way I have it envisioned is we will submit, because we have a legal lot over here and we have a legal lot over here and we are entitled to construct one. We will probably be constructing this building, quite honestly, at the same time we will be constructing this. I am doing the construction drawings right now and I would anticipate starting this in probably late winter and I would anticipate that this would start late winter. They hope to have this open in November of this year and we would certainly have this completed by that point, so I think one would coincide with the other. Siddoway: And, then, my final question would be -- I'm searching for the fire department comments. Does the fire department still have concerns about the tuming E:,~: radius? ~- Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, as Jonathan was mentioning the •~ ' measurements I pulled out the site plan and scaled it off. It's pretty rough on this site plan whether it's 140, 150. I might issue a -- maybe just a change to that comment that upon final plat if the stub road exceeds 150 feet as measured by the fire department, then, a turnaround will be dedicated at that time. When the final plat comes in it's a much more precise surveying document and the length of that road could be very ~;,,., accurately determined at that time. Siddoway: And is that -- is that the turnaround at the northernmost point or is that the tuming radius issue that was talked about earlier? Cole: That would be the turnaround point at the very northerly point that Mr. Seal's pointing at there. r•" -: u Sk..~~=~~. x w7.. M:r:>~ s ~ ~ ^ yt r = $ ~~. ~ } ~` ,'j4 a'~ t' ~~ r '.~`^'. ~.' ,fi ;; a,.' d~4+ ~` f ~ t +fl N Y. ~~ N ~ Vii: tyoc a t t. Y : ~~ t krks y-i ~, - ~ 7,•~;e~, 4;'' < d4~Y5' ,~ r7 ; `; , ,~ i ~,~~ y ~F • 4 , ~ ,' { ~~ry t,. ~ 4 .~. ~ ' 1 ~ ~'i f ~ 4 - S ~ ~..,~. ~ ~ 1~~~~.. F~ h a ~. ~} ~4 ~"~ ~L ~ ~ ~. ~` ,. .i ' ~ ~1`~f" , t tX ~. s ` ~f ~'.. .: ~t +h..~~?L~: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 16 of 61 ;= ~_~. ~~; ~~ ~,. '-;`<< ~:; ~, ~:~_,. ~: ~:.:. ~. <:. T.' ~- ~~ ~r ~~".. y?'.`.,c ^'-,:. ~° *,• Siddoway: Okay. Cole: The radius issue would be him asking to -- to do that with each individual building. It's generally when that would be done anyway. This is a concept plan. To put radiuses around these conceptual buildings would be wasted engineering, because until you know the size of the buildings you're really not going to know the radiuses and the fire department looks at those -- Rich Green is our commercial fire reviewer. Siddoway: And those turning radiuses wouldn't normally be reviewed during a preliminary, that's a site development issue, is it not? Cole: On a commercial building, yes. They are looked at on residential subdivisions, because the road layout is pretty set in stone with a preliminary plat. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much. Seal: Thank you very much. Moe: Again, we have no one signed up, but if there is someone who would like to speak to this issue, please, come right up. Boy, no one wants to say anything. Thanks very much. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we want to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing PP 06-063. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-063. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Commissioners, I would assume you have all received Mr. Seal's response to the staff comments and we have gone through those as well. Anyone have any opinions on them? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for legal counsel, if I may. Moe: Yes, sir. ~ n i ~~ . ,~~ t, ,._ _,. t' ~+. '. 4ddE.. .c~x+lji ~,7: ~ 7 ~ f ~.~q5.,,.. ~~ 'P., tJ. _ bf _.t!~i-~. i ~, 1 ~ ~* Vii} ~: {` 'd u ~ ~ , 3!C'1~ ~" ! 5'" T~ _ ~ ; ~{ ~~y~ y~ ~1 ~.. 1At~ ~'n .1?c.~.' V'i 4 L ~y ~ ( ".c; - '~ nl - ~ 5 ~ t4.(;'~f' 1r ~i n' t u, r C~~ Z~ t ' ~ c ~ J f'; . ~ f ~...~ a ~ ~~l~i i i 'Ep3?' hh +r t S 4k j"f 1 of . U '", t > ~-•~ ~} . Y ~[ .. M. '%'.6ti1~., n r d~ •.r [r' ^. h i ,.... ,. y _.._. ,,. 7. p.:,.i L'td~•... I ~. :x:Y.~ :~::: . _~ ~:,_.: :w z Po, ~ . 4 ..~~I ,,.~,, v; ' ~~: ., `. ~. r ~~, ;.y`;,' ~~ ~~I ~;'~~~ I ;, .::: ~~ ' ~, i .-:~'r'.z '~ i I `F _ s ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 17 of 61 Siddoway: Ted, is there any problem with approving a plat that shows a 20-foot landscape buffer, assuming that they are going to get a future variance from City Council? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway that is an item that has to be put off for Council. I think staff has made mention of the fact that it does require a variance and that those items bypass this Commission. So, as noted in the conditions of approval, I think that it's -- it's assuming that that will -- that will be handled at the Council level. So, your action, your recommendation, doesn't need to be concerned with that. Siddoway: Okay. Baird: And it looks like somebody is looking for that mike over there to add to that comment. Hood: I was just going to -- thank you. I was just going to add, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, 1.1.4 does not assume that the variance is going to be approved. In fact, it requires a full 35-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the right of way right now. So, if, in fact, the applicant wants to get something less than what the ordinance requires, they do need to obtain that variance approval, so -- Siddoway: Thank you. Moe: Is there any strong opinions one way or the other in regards to the -- both the cross-access situation, as well as the tumaround at the end of the street? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I would be in favor of leaving the cross-access to the south. The tumaround on where the road terminates, Idon't -- I agree with the applicant on that. And, then, the radius of the fire department. Moe: Okay. On the cross-access, you mean just the two southern lots or all three of them have cross-access? Or Block 1, number 3 -- two and one are the three in question and what Mr. Seal is saying he doesn't have a problem with one and two having cross-access, but the one with the Family Center is he would rather not have cross-access to that down to the south. Newton-Huckabay: That was the one I was refemng to was the Family Center cross- access to the south. Moe: To have cross-access to the south. Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have an opinion on those items? 3 >, h z .x. -v ~. ~ ;. rt~+-r ~l ~., ~`ya~- ~w ~~ ` ;~~~, fiyj s y.r ~ T k. ~`% - 3 ~ ~ rte ;;: . a ~. ~~ t..vY~. -: rt 3' "~ „a • ~4~" J' ~ ry~ a , y~rv bC T 1'+~ h }~4~.'!iri~l!~~ [: R'.- _ ~ ~ r hf~,y,y~"~. a~ ~~ # y r ~ ito~~~ _ ~ F,?'? ~ ^4+. 11~tr{n rtd r ~ i ~ ~~~'~' `It`i , r '. ti u,r r'3 a e ,r}'r ~ .~. ~.; ~ n ~~E.q~F!~~ ~ .~~~~~ , '~ Y ~j ~ f .~ -.x.+~S'- h L ~ ~~ ,. t a ~ ~ ti ~,: ~ `: C ~~" ^`t i;~~Jfs s '' r _' +.. r Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 18 of 61 Siddoway: I would -- I would prefer to see the cross-access continue to the south. On r°"` ' the tumaround to the north I believe that could be held off to the final plat and that a ~:'_~ tumaround would be required if the ordinance required it based on the length of that stub when the final plat comes through. E~' Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, would you have any comments? Borup: I think one of the -- one of the important reasons for the 150 feet is for the fire i= ~ department and that ~ oftentimes that may assume there is homes or businesses or . ~;~ s ' buildings on that 150 feet roadway. Here we don't have that. So, I -- I would think in : ~>`~ this case it would not be necessary. I think that's why sometimes it's good to look at things on a case-by-case basis. There is no -- there is no buildings that would access :: that roadway, at least the way the design is indicating. So, I don't think that's an issue. ~~ I'm conflicted on the cross-access. I'm a strong proponent of that, but the main reason that it's usually necessary, I feel, is entering onto a busy roadway. This is not that case. ~~ - I don't see where entering out on Centre Pointe is probably going to cause a delay for ~~>:, people, so I'm a little undecided, especially without knowing what we did to the south. It's -- I like to see things be consistent within the same project, too. And I'm not sure '° whether we are consistent here or not. I can see the comment on -- maybe not wanting to have overflow parking from the Family Center to the others, but, hopefully, that's not the case. If it is they don't have enough parking -- enough parking there anyway. So, that's an overall problem that needs to be looked at if there is -- if there is that problem. ' I guess I used a bunch of words to not say anything for sure, didn't I? ~`~ ~ Moe: Well, I think we are probably all kind of working that same angle a little ways. guess myself I have no problem with cross-access to the two southem lots. I mean ' ~ cross-access to all three wouldn't really hurt my feelings at all, but at the same point , ~ ~ with the Family Center I don't know that there is really a need for the cross-access down ~ into the other two southem lots. But, again, I'm not set either way on that. And in regards to the tumaround, I, too, don't -- I think that, basically, if people traveling to the north and they do have a turnout that they can make if they see the barricades up and F : whatnot, so I'm not so sure there is a real need for a tumaround at that point either, so -- . and, then, Mr. Seal had the other point in 3.3 in regards to the turning radius down at i= '~ $~ r, those buildings and whatnot. I would agree until the -- the plan is developed and we . ~;- won't know what size buildings are going to go there, I'm not so sure that there is a '~~ need to worry about that 3.3 either. Siddoway: I would agree with that. Moe: I would see that 3.6 is very similar to the 1.1.8. So, that would be addressed at ,1~.: ~ that point. So, having said all that, then, would someone like to make a motion so we -. can go forward? Borup: Have we reached a consensus on what we feel each of those items need to say? Y ~ r~ ;~ ~ •-~• ,yx r. ' t :a : ' F `iSi '~ {~: zi• ~ . ~ .ry. :s; ff ^,~i?.~1'.'~e ;. x ~ ' ~3 ro ~ k+ ~ r ";' - = ' 1 1 Z ~ C'~?~:$ . ' • . r a ~. .fir +y,y ...iS :.•?; .. ~ • . v., 1 .M -~~ s•~~ . { r. i 4 1• k y f • ~ r` ~ ` • ` ~... ~ 1 ;_, ..'J4;~. .'*il'ZJ' ~ ?..'" 7'I•: T.' 4 ~: F, x .{ ii$•'f ~ S +r ~~~•,'~S:+T"~: ~c; ~''. c:• ~ , &i),p ~. ~xf y.A '~ ~°{t/~bf~''~' '~;,3~ yy ' l ~ '~• y~ ~:. 1 f yb }+ti f ~~,r ~' ~ f f bI Sfl~~~t nr{~ l t . j ,~' :{:±' I ~ ~ ~ . ~.~.iv ~~s ; ~` '+ ' y y ,'. '~ ~ .F. }~ ~ ~'•ar-*3:~• Y )' ~ " ,, Jw: r' ~ z . ~ ~ t . r'Y. ' "1:T .T' .:Y~;:};:,h. w'4 '~~ i• b ~~ p ".y; '%,~' ~,:' ;f '~,e ~, HST'-. ` ,a r ~' • 4 .rte'; ;':,'.:r~ ^ ~ A + , f~ a kg' ~~x° t• 3t 1`;..", ~~~ ~ r, Y,,,. , , :. :,;,n M I , 5 . F y j , '~ k , '~ ~ ~ F g ~ ' ^~ ' ~E~ ~ i' 3' ~ ' r°.v ''~ ~ + ' . ~ y, . .y ~~/y~ . r. ,. •. z. r, I 4 . e ~ ~eY3m: M1 Y4n:;~i~Y ~y` '6' -£,." i ~ ki f~.ll^rq O L I Y ~~~pe t xti~;afy ~, n:r9'~A~` hW'Y u~ l '' 'gg ~ • „ ri ~ ~ ~ ~ GY .~ i•i +J3%~.'w4 ~~ .~';4• + . ; ; ti; i ~~ _ > J' ~At1; . . ~..y, ; ,Y.Y¢ i. i v. ii 1 ' a",`i`-'~f :L kt `X'' N Y~ " ~' , r,:~, ~ ~ L 3 ' : I ~ M . r irg.;` . ~.rl 4t • . r;F`, t ~ . 7 ~' v' ~ F: ". 1 b ,wy i 4 ~ I I ~ +. .. 1. . ' • , 5:..'~' x _ ~ .• ~' ` ~ ' 4 5 i ' • t ~ : ~ A ~ t. - fit L~ , ~ " ~ .,~ ~ I !1 ~~ T. ~~} f ~ •. ••l rF, ~' •P~• L, ~ ._ ' ' ~`d"°+~'~~ j C '' 1 5`. kc~ y° ^.~ ~~~` vP6 ~' ~`' ' ' ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~? ~ v :°°"~~ d .~ ~! JJ •g , ; . : .i~ ~ :~ ,. i y. '~4 i. . .„aF~~ ai~; y $ ~. ..; I :~ ~ •j.;~Yt., :.. ' •~ • • ` e l ~~~.~'' Jrr z ~ ~ ".+~'~~, ~~.t~ ~ ~~ ~•i,, k I k.. ~• ` .:. r h .FS 7a 4 , ~~ ~ '.Y, (; ' <: , h~`:'a'.4.1~ ~ ~Y . r''~;~' i i ' m ~ = ~" ~ r ~ yti•~= Y r. I. , S , :., t*p, ,.F., .~ ~ ~ i '3~ A#*SF: ~t ~. ', - g '; 4~.~~ t), `~~ J... ~ ~ ''' ?~ , ; k I • ~ ;,; „; .: .t~.<..r :ate ;4'. ~. ::7 €i ' _} }, - ,~•.,. rte. ! -, yr~'Si~i~~a~ '~' ~`T F',5~,~+~, tt :~'2 4 tG § t<rr +. 'y`~ ~~ ~::~SY fiy~~ ~a .~:. h % rt3 ~~ ~ x k : ~F k:'~ ' S ~ 1 I. ~,... I r ; ¢~ ,~, . .T. ya•~x lf ~ a ; 'ice ; I~', 4 '' ~ ~ •+-!?: ~ . y• '1~ £y iyc - T I ~5 ~~ a 'w~''~~`~'~; F ' '.I `fir ~ _ ~ Vin. ' ~ - ~ ' ' ' ;::tom ' ' •', . .r~ ~ ,~ v.. r ~ .. ,~„7~~ 1 '~ Y .~'~q ! .rte. ,f~!3x#~.`~i~%.'C 1 7 .~° ; .*Y x .<.1:.• {~, ~/,y~yy y ~', e,.,,°° ' . ~.'~ .::~ E'•~ ,k ` 6 ~ "•~ ~, ~~ '' 4 ~~ t W, ' { • ~v! ~~: ~ ~ ~ I4 S~'~T~,,~~ j;-, ~ 1 ' ~ l R y . ty4 4 , ,h'' K.•:*+Y4 r j. -Y:•'„ RP.X '~,_a:~..m' » 1. ~ y4, A r L p S' . ,4':'~ '!;~'n'~ e'.' ... ' zk' 'S+~-x: I V' ~ ~ M r "~' ° ; "';"9:~r V . ' ~ ,ss3'.n y.x_ :~W. 1. }. ~. i ~. 3.. r'S;.h ^:~ MY _ A 'C . w ~ ~ ~ z i 'r x"~ Yom • ;~ . t y ~ . . , Y ~{ t ''S .: ~ h at. 1 'a'C b ~S" T~ ' ~ . ~. , n ~ F J 4 . ~ ~ r - v s~ ¢ ~n ~. '~i `~i ~:: > , e • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 19 of 61 Moe: Well, I think what I'm hearing, quite frankly, is that we'd probably pretty much like to keep the cross-access in place, but the turning radius could go away. Or do we want the turning radius to be determined after the final plat has been submitted? Newton-Huckabay: That's what I -- Borup: Isn't that -- I mean that's an item that's considered at that time anyway, isn't it? And if there is a problem it wouldn't be approved. Newton-Huckabay: So, we just strike 1.1.8? Siddoway: We'd just strike the second sentence of it. Borup: And then -- and, then, delete all of 3.3? Moe: I would at this time until the plan is developed, so you know what size building is going to go in that location. Borup: Or just add that provide an updated plan at the time of -- of final building design? Siddoway: Yeah. Moe: Yeah. That would be good. Borup: Oh, that's what the applicant said down at the bottom. Moe: He has noted it down there below, so -well, do we have someone that would like to make a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Are we eliminating 3.6 altogether or -- Moe: Well, 3.6 is, basically, right in line with 1.1.8. They are both on the northern -- Borup: Yes. I just wrote down just delete 3.6. Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I just did. Moe: Pardon me? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Are we waiting for -- 5 l ~;t>< 5:. D .~ 1 • ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 20 of 61 Siddoway: A motion? ~::: Moe: I'm waiting for someone to give me a motion. ~ P;, Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-063 as presented in the staff report with the ~`~ ~ following modifications: On 1.1.8, to delete the second sentence, so just leave the first "~'` sentence, construct a public stub street to the north and 3.3 add at the end of that first sentence to -- that the plan would be -- would be presented and addressed during the `` ' ` design of each building. And delete 3.6. End of motion. ~:~: ~; Siddoway: Second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve PP 06-063 to include all staff 1 ' comments and comments -- revised comments from Commissioner Borup for Centre . Pointe Subdivision No. 2. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? , That motion carries. :' ;, '~~'~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~ ~°~ . ~ Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an _ ~~F ~-` R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440, .^ ' 1516 and 1528 W. Cheny Lane: i Moe: Next item, as we mentioned earlier, we are going to move Item -- within the '. ;I agenda Item No. 10 up above here and that will be opening RZ 06-012, request for a :.Yo' rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4 to C-C zone Cherry-Linder rezone and hear the staff ~'',;~w report, please. F ~' Lucas: Thank you -- excuse me. Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. As was ~' `' just stated, the applicant has applied for a rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4, which is the medium low density residential designation, to C-C, which is the community business ~` district designation. The applicant intends to construct one retail building on this site r ', and retail buildings are not allowed uses within the R-4 zone, thus the applicant has , a. _~,. ~, come in to consider this rezone. The subject property is located at the northeast comer ~: ~ , ~, `~~ of Cherry Lane and Linder Road, as identified here on the PowerPoint presentation. y ; There is three home sites currently at this location and this is the area that is proposed to be converted to C-C. Just a quick analysis of the surrounding area. To the north you `` have the Christ Lutheran Church, which is zoned L-O. There is, actually two churches near this property. The Christ Lutheran Church, actually, is to the north and east. The property that the church owns to the north is currently vacant and the church sits right on the eastern side of this site. And to the south you have the Cherry Lane commercial ~~`~: -- Cherry Lane commercial developments, which there is one existing right here and this ~~ ~r3 large C-C portion is currently vacant, it sits right next to the school, the Meridian Middle School. And to the west you have the Linder Road and Cheny Crossing commercial development zoned C-N, which is this area right here, and there is also commercial '~ .w t 3 ~ " ` ~ ~ ~. ,.,~;'o-.. " 1 f,. S N .. n'!3 i k A ,;} -~( L .. ~ 11 g 3 is y i ~X~ a• •e.u, ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , . , ry 7 ff # ~ ` x ` E `Y , 3 Y~ 'F'`'i, ~ t .y, ~ ~ ? ' : ~ tai;"`, I : : ` #. ~:.„;r. :. ,,;, rya". ~.,~ . . : ` '~p.'F"~»y~w }_.e ~~ sw~ 4 l Y?q. ; .T'. ~ ~~~j-,- 4 „' I- A~ ~ ..y '~ `y .r ~.~+~ ' i ~. Y f f ~ ~ ~hfe~~~ Y ~~'" ~~f~~~,. x . t 7 ~r F 3G. F ~ ..f. y t( E d +. ~~.,,.l~ ,~:c .'d'. •.y~.. F ~ 1 .t..•.. •#. 3 FF YF .. s . .4.± Y., r _ t - '.:py"`~}'P•;~~:.d~ 'r~ xsZ ~ 'F',µ~ - ~' #~ 4~.: ;:. I ~, pr..' <°c..'ii .' :...:.<_,~.z,,.~ ~~ll .'{N ,. ll ~•_.. ` ' ~~ ," ' : f :: w''~a~~- ,~~ .4~~:gs'~Si s.... ~ f1 ~H~ f~ E*. ~~' 'T i ~' ~~ `d n d y,. ¢• `~ ~ .figs-~~ i'~~R i " , , h ; :. w a, s ~ ,. ~'.R• f~(..:.(x.~$`~F~!`,'~~~.~,~j"~~'+^¢p,r '){iv'1F.' r> ~ ~ ' ~.: ~ro ~ s.,.~ y Y ~ "`.~;Y ~%7:'~•' '~k~ ~'+'14M,',`•'i~A'~ ~, k `1 ~~" ':M~Yar .Y< ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ fi" r •. is '2".+ :! ,,Jk ~:~~ Z ~ r~ ' ~' •+: •' ti " v. :~ • :~4 ..X . ~ e .. I., S . " 1 , x _ . ,.:. .. .. { 4 : , ' ; ' ..E ~r .S .7 ' ~ _ . , . I m -Y ~i .f'. 1 ::~. ~Y f F `.U ~c= ° " ^r ~ x ~ ~A: L, F h t °,4h~``~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • . ~ , ,f,~~" ,~4~'w'LS +:F{w' 4 ~ ~.. ( } Y:~ I :..'E.,SS~ i ityyq~ ; t ~ ~n 4 ~# . t'~..~~3,.Lp` ~ #ey '+d., ~. 9. h~ ~ a., ~ a j'I:; {'''~ ~ ; i L s. ~y . t: • '4'SyjL ~ ~~ri ~, iw.[~,~ `s.•, bt f: f AAA F; 'K:si a,~+ •'Y;~Pk{5+~~~ iii4~~•~~'~~. {h i b ! Y I Yf i!'-r ~ fist, q M' '?` I ~ :x : ` ~ 1 . f "`':~ •y°.t." ~ y'. S ..' 4;T:••» .,?~ .~ ,~~:~ l' .:~. :.. ..I'.5r :~, '.~ ~: :. ~t ~ i ":f ir. ~ B'.,: x R~~ ~e ; ~ M~ r4 cpa`.kx ff.~,` 3.. , ~ ky ~r 3 # M ~` R 1 t . , ( tp ., ~ i ~' tj °' %' } t ' ` ~' ~ ~ t 7 w . f `i F S "74\ t ~ ' ~ ~ ^~i W i,~ . +s' , ' ~ 5 t.. . ~ f °~1 I ; ~ ,'"~ ~'el, rf k• . ~ • ~ - "a• ~ : ,5 '. ' :.V'., . •,f: i. { ;'~(<~r, 4~t.,ra R. .. - .h"• h.F. ~t•r 'y. '.'{e ;tr :r ";4 :`•7.~'~-a $x',. J~ ( ' t ~ r - ~ ~''- .•~~i. .a .~,:* ' . fir' •; I ,; r ~ . < F '{ 1 ~ F<` • • ~ ~ ~ U E '`J'1~ ~~~+4~ ~ ;~ ~,Ot ,~. e~• - ldil Y. ~y~ \- Y ~:"~ ~i~' "f y ~ ~:'V '.i 5 • SY''~ p~~!''~~~~:tE~'S '~"t~~H~. ~~7 S ~ ,1' A F~ ~ 7 ' ~ # ~•~.~ ~ £ ~ 'yY', "~~`!r r ^~ ~ ~ ~ f. 1 r• '`[ •C i4:~.. K'ui. -r f, .'~~'sf e h.,~ " " ~• ~ } Ji T L'.r±)/ u"F fY. ~,LT ~.r I I .y n. ?~. ~~~ "; J..[F a. `•~ I . ~ E. ,yy, „[,.p•,t Y I S -`~_,1.`.•rs",+¢L~'."v'.< ~, ~s Meridian Planning & Zoning +` January 4, 2007 ~' `` Page 21 of 61 :.; -~, development on the comer. As you can see, the entire area is, basically, commercial or ~4 ~ L-O and on the Comprehensive Plan this -- these parcels are designated also ~'~ ' commercial. Let's move on to the aerial photograph. This just shows those three home sites. There is one existing home here and one here and one here. And various trees and outbuildings on the site. A lot of these trees are pretty large and will mostly like the building is constructed on this site as proposed. indeed ~~' ` need to be mitigated for if , , ~~_.. `t`'' Here is the site plan as -- a conceptual site plan as proposed by the applicant. As you .z, 1~,.,; can see, there is one access point proposed to Cherry Lane and also two cross-access one to the church property to the east and one to the church property to the points , north. Staff is supportive of this single access. It's, actually, a positive thing. It's going ~r°'' from three accesses for those home sites into just one access at this busy intersection. ~~- The exact location of this access has -- will be determined at the time of submittal of the a~ certificate of zoning compliance for this proposed building and ACHD, obviously, will ~~ ~, >; have -- will be able to identify to the applicant exactly where that access needs to go. }°`~ They have their offset requirements from the intersections. The street buffers required, ,:, ~. 9- as shown here, are 25 feet on both Linder Road and Cherry Lane and the street buffers ~ ,, ~ as discussed in the staff report must be as required by the UDC, exclusive of any right of way, whether that be existing or future right of way that ACHD may require at the time ~ r • '- of certificate of zoning compliance for the construction of the proposed building. I think ` did mention that this area is commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. I just wanted to g~ ' : clarify that. And I wanted to go back to that zoning map and discuss a little bit about k~ ;- why staff is supportive of the C-C designation. The other three comers, as discussed in y,, =r' the staff report, are C-N. It would be this comer -- this comer here and this comer. And =: ~,~. ~~ there was -- staff, as they looked at this, considered that, well, this comer should also be C-N. But after doing a little bit deeper analysis, three reasons were identified why ~_..,` this comer would be -- really would be okay as C-C, rather than C-N. The first of those factors was that unlike the other three comers this proposed development is not directly adjacent to residential uses. The other three comers all have residences directly I .Y: ;, adjacent to those developments, which is one of the factors that can lead to the C-N ~~;:' zoning. Second, there is a significant amount of property already zoned C-C in this `~' ~~ area, so it wasn't like this -- like zoning this area C-C would be completely out of ~ rA R M~:. character with the surrounding zoning districts. And the third is that when describing the ~~ ` C-C district, both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC specifically discuss that C-C district r, '~ should have direct access to arterial streets and in this case this -- it's safe to say that - '~ this does have direct access -- it will have direct access to Cherry, which is an arterial and also has -- it doesn't have an access point, but it fronts Linder, which is another r` ;;_ '~ arterial. And based on that, staff was supportive of their requested to go to C-C. And y;; .: just as a clarification, the difference between C-N and C-C is not all that significant ~'~ when it comes to the actual regulation. The landscape buffer requirements and a lot of ~J the other standard requirements are very similar, if not the same. Along with that staff '``'''~ >''_ ~` has included in the staff report various development agreement provisions that we felt were necessary to insure that this was developed once approved for this zoning designation in an orderly fashion and also in a way that it would benefit the city. I'll just highlight some of those development agreement provisions. The first is that -- just f, ~: ,. insuring that the applicant will only be allowed to construct one driveway access to F~:~ Cherry Lane. Staff felt that that's imperative, that if this was rezoned to commercial we ~ ,,,; ~~, ~ r~. :aa - - -i. I ~ t ~ ' 1 t k ~ ' ~ f ,. I s, s y f ~~ ay£~~r r ! ~ ~ .v~ r I ~ t, 'N . a rc y ~Fi ae r .YH ~"* d ,~ ' : ~ • ~ , F r .( ~ M .• f~ ~ ~ ttt '~ Jr ty e ~ ~ x~} ~ FY l' ~ "~ }~~ ~. ~ ` i , n k y ~ yy .f,F~S: 2, )` y i~ ~. 4f~.i:N +~1~: >e~. Y~YAi~• .~ 2 ~ j ~ '~~~` „ ~ Gt k P A r ~~' ~ ~~~' 'k ` b' T . SC G{'_ } ^ , ' ~ ~ } :J v " { { A $ Y~ ~ • ~ 4 ~ ~ . , ,~ ~~(. Y~:~(.K ~ 4 rt<~ i tSl ~ '.I•i t f ~ ' . _ e' ~yG±,r; =°'. t w t: ~~tM.3 y„ ;s i~ ¢"ix r ? '1, ~•'!;'. . .~',:::#, : ar7 ~" . y e . ~ : y x • ~ 1 ~. ~, ~ is . £t rl ;s+ i , ~ 1. i ..^^5' 'C"f ,&" _ ' ' ~ x'~"~ s;y.~!•,y .F,i"y>;~r+s7;'dF~: ~ ., , . . ,. t x ~ T a ; ~ ., ~ J + "5 4 ' " ~ !$i ~. ' . ';, .i %, r ~ r ~ ii'a°~ ~ f x b +. ( ^ ` . l+ ?1>* r~~ ^ i :~ s ^3'r. ftL'1~ 'c£i $ w' I iri t Yr. 1, • ~ . " ~ ;dt~ta ; I ^.~1. ~ ~ '.k".F •'K 5 ' ~"` ~ ~ ~ ; ~}., 1 .I 3 ~ : i I , rr 4 'i+rvsi`~. .' .k•~'Y. j }~ ~ ~ . ~,'5±r,~.s'~ :. a.` ~'f`e;w ;. ~ . .. j I, sy. .~, t ~ ~ST~ ~~ I .~~.`\.,i ~ r,.r ~ { ' '~ s'y 26i.:!>! f-~•'1n,A:+`' , • .~ j r '. ~, 5: ' s'. :.j A•F~ r"lldr ~ • ~ ~T'.X ijS~ c}T~.+i~'wh `"Y~°3~:2°'~"`~" La~ ~ ~ ~ k • '4v r'~ 'l~'^'S ttir ~', - ~~'. ', .jy. .l.~ 'F I f. .I..9 '.i~ ~.. b. . ~~ ..'; iii } F ` '` ~ ~ ~' '• ~4,' ~ ~:• • ~ f k ~ s:. gg : ?y. ~.. : I •. ~, .!• ti ' ~k+.ts' iA~'~i ~r7p *a. '.~,:. » t Z ! [ V ~+~ + ' ' ~ ~ h " '~ % ~ - ' ~ t r .~. s i y, i~r.u x ';~l Q E ~I, h #.l ~' '"jZ.r §" "n ^5 i ~ ~ '~ F'•w.s3:, '~:1ioi'S ~- ,s 9 k" t, 'A'a, ' • I* '~~~' ~ ,'P.i.:,. ~• +,C ra-a'-`~;r~". H.; •, I ' ~ 3 f~, 1. ; 1~'~;' ~`.''• s {": •' .~'r~.p ;Sa `t •... ud. .,u~~o4'h'`~:"raj°,;~,~a,, 3 = : _ .~.:. •'~::~ .. :afi'` . b 1j `r j. .r , ~, '•y ~i+ r rv~~a l, ~.' ; F ~:; s 'R 5 3 t~^ ~L ' . M~ ,f'~ .• , •'}+.-ry`~`v''' `? $~~t rx~ " ~ ~ ~ r~ r + ~ T7 s w ' •_ .. p , s ~ ua h ~' ' XY~'y ,,n, a~f; ,• y. w u•, ,..I' I ?{~, •53x S 'wsah 5 ~ S ~f:~• ~ ~~~lA? ~~~ '~.'~ ~ - x ~l t ~;.A," ~,~, J ~ ~.~ 's ~Fs ~.~~4 ~ o-6.. ~ ~; q t",#v+,',`~: !~¢'~.5'4: c. 'sa i •a tA ~ dt f a S A l ` 3 .y ^ l ~. ,,, 111 ~. s .:, i . r ~ ' ~ 1 F . . ,gym; :4 - .:, ~ : .,, ; .,.:• ~ a4 ~ A • ~ , i "`; '~. ~1>A: .~ .h•,.""' ; ~ ~ l'' ~ j '. .s~,.y~. x t ` { ~ j ~y ' •x l: ~ f ~l.a ;.-,: fr, . q sM S .;:<:` :' a~, ?,. -sr . yf, , 4< ..S F '''' q '+` ~ `~" ~ ; ' ~ •~• s? ?` '~ ~ F ~~ ,~,: vgy~' :,.. '~ i ~ » (( E er y : .~`.;~ , ; . ;;. ' ~ 1 .a~':}~YYFJS p..•L{,~~~„~'.~^Z`i •ry.. ~ 14r .~I-R~$: r1..3~~A.il~fii~iy..:..~) {- W rY h• .. ~ I 4~ .1 ~ is r., ems. ~~:~ 4~% --. ~. ( .. ~ ~ .. ~i t. ~. ~T C . Y ~!'d ,4 .;.~ ~: ~;;%. Meridian Planning & Zoning • January 4, 2007 Page 22 of 61 L I really only want to see one access point into this property. It's not very large, most likely only one building is going to fit there, and so that one access point is viewed as sufficient and imperative that only one access point be allowed into the site. The second is that the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of across-access agreement granting cross-access to the church site to the east and to that vacant church area to the north, as is shown on the conceptual plan here and also right here. And at this time maybe the church wouldn't like to take access or doesn't -- wouldn't want to construct that or extend it, but we feel that in the future that may be something that the church would want to do and staff would be supportive of making sure that that is left open as a possibility if the church were to ever redevelop or if someone were to buy that land and create a commercial development there it would be nice to have that availability for cross-access, especially on this busy arterial. And the same with to the north. Most likely there will be an access off of Linder when this area develops and we'd like to see the ability to move through these commercial or office developments without having to get back onto the arterial and, then, go back into the other development. The other thing that staff points out in the staff report in those development agreement provisions is that the building be generally consistent with the elevations as proposed and staff, actually, added quite afew -- kind of design requirements that we -- that we felt would be important, especially on this busy intersection. A lot of it comes straight out of the UDC administrative design review guidelines, just talking about type of materials being allowed to -- on this site. And other things such as texture and making sure that there is enough windows not only on the front, but on these -- on these elevations that face to the -- to the east and to the west. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of this rezone application as presented in the staff report and I stand for any questions. Moe: Commissioners, any questions at this time? Siddoway: I have none. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Caparelli: Bill Caparelli representing Darren Blaser, the owner of the property. Basically, we agree with the -- Moe: Would you, please, put your address -- Caparelli: Yes. We, basically, agree with the -- all the conditions that the Planning and Zoning and what we have talked to the Ada County Highway District also, so -- Moe: Okay. Would you give me your address, please. Caparelli: My address? Moe: Yeah. Caparelli: 2309 West Mountain View, Boise, Idaho. ~7 ~' Y ` . ss1~y,.d` ' ~ a',. ar` ~ ) ~s, ~ r a ~ : r " n r P : x~s~ ~L`~r.. ~ , ~inr: yi i. , ; 1. .~! ~~il ~:. ~JF k~ ~' ~'~.QK ~. ti ~ ~ ~,~ sw~' Y~ ~ y~ f i'~"S `:. a d Je!H-. t f. r{'}y'.'.'("" ' t ~ ~ C f ~ ~ ,~ak'Il,-t~ ' ~~~ ~ 1 4,Y ~~~! 5~~~''. c tab: ~~"6fii Y ~yk ~~~~~'. ~ t ~ ?w J id?~ % . {, ? R lys~~~l.; » t... M1 T'~' ~ ~ i ~r~I~ ~ Y ` ~ ~« ;`, ~ . ~~ x1y~ _' l~ ~~ vc ~=. F 1.. 4~ .A'5-.4.' ~f {t ,ti fi1h~ •- k^ ~ ,. .. .sr2~...ye ' ~~ ~. ~ =: ~~ ~, . ; ~ ,~ ~~~ >: . r~ f~ ~,: ~~: ~, ., ~: ~.: a~,; ~; _. ~~, ~,} ~~. ~,;<:~:';'i -_ 4 ...~1 C: ,:,x .,:. -. r . *,; , ,_~: R -=~:; ~~ ~. ~'" rt~ ,: ~, '~', t~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 23 of 61 Moe: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, Commissioners, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Siddoway: After considering all testimony I move to recommend approval of -- to the City Council of file number RZ 06-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve to send onto City Council approval of RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the proposed R-15 zone plus 2multi-family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Moe: I now would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062 for the Baraya Subdivision and stand for the staff report. F :; r - ~:: 't i ,, ~ gat ,fir ~` a -~' =y ~~ E' Pik `~{ - - .~+~:~4ican fit. ~ .. . rs ~ `t ~Pv'. '~~ '~ ~' .a t~k4i~:~ 4 ~ i.' ~1. ~~ .~ r t. ~ . ~ .~ 4 rf ~- L.~ M»?jc ~. Sis a e ~ d~z~$'' dY' ., r f; F ny_ K ~a 4 J+~p, t + ~~y 4:. ~Y .r;'~" i -7 t ~'. r'~,. 3 ~ ~ y~ ~~. u k u}~ t r ~ m< ~+= 4 x ~iU rc~J . a ~ i d ~~'~ ~q: J, s,<<; . ra. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 24 of 61 Hess: Okay, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before ~:` you is the Baraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of ~. ~ 95.57 acres from RUT Ada County to R-15, medium high density residential, for 82.12 °_, acres, and R-40 high density residential for 13.43 acres. The applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which proposes 320 single family residential lots, 15 common lots, and one school lot within the proposed R-15 zone. Two multi-family and two common lots on 13.42 acres are proposed in the R-40 zone. So, this will be the multi-family area over here and the rest of it, zoned R-15, will house :. is ~ : the 320 single family homes, plus the school. The subject property is generally located . F, south of Franklin Road and east of Black Cat Road. To the northeast there is the '~~ approved Silver Oaks Subdivision zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and ~,•: ` west are residential properties still under the jurisdiction of Ada County and as you can see they are zoned RUT and R-1. Access to the site -- wrong way there. Sorry about that. Access to the site is proposed from three public streets which connect to Franklin Road or Black Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glenn Canyon Avenue, `~' ~ is proposed near the east boundary of the property right here and divide the property ` ; ` ~~ along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40. South Glenn Canyon aligns `~' ~ with the public street approved in Silver Oaks to the north. South Fritz -- this access right here is also designed to interface with Franklin Road and provide additional access to this property. Capital Reef Drive is the public street which intersects with Black Cat Road and will serve as the primary access to the future school site, which will be here. f' - As previously stated, the applicant proposes 320 residential lots. Lot sizes will range from 3,500 square feet to over 8,600 square feet and approximately 10.25 acres will be F- `~ set aside for the multi-family units. The applicant has applied 12 percent or 11 point -- if ~~ - ~" I can find the landscape plan. There we go. 11.25 acres of the site to meet common ` open space requirements. Amenities will include amulti-use pathway, parkways, a 25 :, foot landscaping buffer along South Glenn Canyon Avenue, that residential collector ~.~... street right here, and a community park area that includes a pool with changing rooms, a tot lot, and two half basketball courts and that's located down here. Staff would also like to provide the Commission with some background information related to these applications. In May of 2006 the applicant submitted annexation and zoning and ~. ''= preliminary plat applications for this site. These applications were brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission in June and they proposed 406 single family r., . y? residential lots, one office lot, and 23 common lots within the R-8 and L-O zoning >~ ` districts. And I don't have a slide for that, so we will go back to the aerial. At that hearing the Commission had actually recommended approval of the project. However, in July City Council voted to deny Baraya. Council's basis for denial fell upon the lack of conformance of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile area specific plan. The applicant requested reconsideration of City Council to allow for redesign of the project and apply the Ten Mile standard, where Council subsequently remanded the s,j' ." ~,: ;. proposal back to Planning and Zoning and these are the applications you have before you today. So, the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is generally compatible with the goals and policies of the existing ~`' Comprehensive Plan. However, Council requested under these previous annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat applications that the applicant wait on adoption of the Ten Mile plan and, then, design a development which is consistent with that plan. The "., _. ~~ r> ,.. ~: _F:. , - "~ ~ f, Z h " a .- ~ ` i„ ~. r^ ~y,_ ,~ - w~ ~ f ~4'. ~,' b ~tt~ ~ ~ ~ v 3 a ~ - F U b rra y ~:....~ t r J ., ~i. 'F4 > Y, ~~jc,,~,,~] - 7I..f~~+M`r _ kl sy ~ 4~ ~F -~ Y ~~ t -'F~.. ~~: t f i > T ~~ ` t +. v `Jt!r3„~...h ~ 3 SS~ kz r f C'1' ~ ~ F~ .I £ 4 C 2 ,- ~ - ~ „w r ~ ~- ~.. _ .. 1 . - .~ w . ~ ~ { } .~In ~ 'Jr ~. u~.aG'~. _ ~ ~ ~. Vii, W s= ~ ~ J ~~a«:%~ ~ ~~ ~ .~z:- ~ -`~ F 1~. - S f i t 5 ~~~~~~ ~ 1 ~ , ' ~ ti ° ~s_y ~ - ~~ ~ viz:: o~ sr ~ ~ t "~~~ ~~. ~ r - ' r ~ ;,x~ SF - ~ti M r F~ ~ 1 ;> ~: :~. ~: ,~ f ,x Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 25 of 61 applicant elected to redesign the project before adoption and submit new applications as was -- as soon as possible. This is the first application to be submitted and reviewed under the draft Ten Mile area specific plan. Staff believes that this development should closely conform to the development plan for the area. I will snap to the slide here. This slide shows the Baraya Subdivision with the underlying draft Ten Mile plan. Let's see. Staff believes this development should closely conform to the development plan for the area, setting the tone for the development around the interchange. Staff believes that the requested zoning of R-15 and R-40 and gross density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre and the subject preliminary plat is not consistent with the Ten Mile specific area plan, which explicitly called for residential densities substantially higher than that provided by the applicant. Staff believes that a mixed zoning designation of R-8, R-15 and R-40 for this site is more appropriate. Staff further believes that integration of additional moderate to high density product types are warranted within the medium high density land use designations, in addition to those proposed detached single family units and attached townhouses. Now, as you can see -- I'll explain this proposed Ten Mile draft here in just a little bit. To the north here we have what is proposed to be medium density residential. This is a pathway, park area. To the south here this is what staff believes is not consistent with the plan. This area is designated medium high density and staff is looking for densities higher than the applicant has proposed. The high density area right over here does comply with what the applicant has proposed. Let's see. Staff believes that the applicant's representative Matt Schultz was a stake holder in the creation and development of the Ten Mile plan, was fully aware of the proposed land uses of medium density residential, medium high density residential, and high density residential for the subject property. If the applicant's representative had no intention of substantially conforming to each of the aforementioned land uses, there would have been ample opportunity during the charrette process to request that these changes be made and this is not the case. So, it is for these reasons staff is recommending denial of the subject application. To meet the city's development goals for the area, the applicant should be required to submit a new development plan which is substantially consistent with the Ten Mile area specific plan. That is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Okay. Commissioners, do you have questions of staff at this time? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Yes, sir. Siddoway: Do you, by chance, have the proposed collector circulation system out of the draft Ten Mile plan? Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I have not included that in the slideshow presentation, but I do know that the collector that is proposed -- I think it was South Glenn Canyon Avenue, does line up. You can kind of see it looks like it follows along the division of the zoning designations there. ~~; ; .. >'~<~-~ a„ ,: ~~ ~ .a~ ~ ,~ ;~: ..~ ,~~ 5 > .~ L ~. f z 7 ,S ~ ~rt s_ P / ~~ - { iyeC4y+i~~ > ~ ~Y ~r _d ~-. 'p:; r '~ ! ~ t_'~ ~', ref ^T'. ,, 55 51 a r { ! ~ a , . .+'~~ i j ~ ~,~ tl , Yi i{ .n:~1:~F, F ~~r 5N ` ZIT fS~t a'. ~~ .~ 4,~c ~ax~~ ~~[ ~ Ri r x~. a~ ~' ' E Edli ~ s. .r-r,}4 .r t ~1r ~''. a 4~ C s _: ' ~t n~~,'i. YO`. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 26 of 61 ~; ;a r ; :.;. ;;~, ~.~- ~~.. ., . . it ! "~ Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward, please. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz with RMR Consulting at 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian, here representing this application of Baraya Subdivision. Excuse me. Just recovering from a little bit of cold and a little bit of screaming for the Broncos. I come before you tonight without any conditions for approval, so I recognize that procedure would have it that I need to convince you to at least instruct staff to give some conditions of approval, instead of a flat out recommendation for denial, so we can come back, hopefully, in two weeks and talk about it and move it on at that time. In talking to another applicant, I guess, it's not the first time this has happened, but I was a little surprised. You know, I would have preferred having conditions -- some outrageous conditions of approval, at least to have them, but, nevertheless, here we are. I did not know what exactly would be presented, so I had some packets made up that had some information that I believe is very relevant to convincing you to at least consider this with conditions of approval. So, I'm going to pass that out. While we are waiting, just to review where we have been and what we have been doing for the last nine months, this project was approved by this Commission back last say June. It had -- it had all single family detached residential lots, except for some L-O, about 4.3 to the acre. As you are aware, there was a discussion about do we wait for the Ten Mile plan, which had just kind of been started or to move forward and this Commission said move forward. By the time we got to Council there was two things going on and I respectfully disagree with the assertion that there was some anticipated outcome on the Ten Mile plan, that that's the reason I got denied. The reason I got denied was I heard from the council members going back and forth about what if there was a bunch of industrial that comes out of it, which wasn't the case, but there was a what if, because nobody knew. And the second issue was -- that clouded it that night was the lack of a sewer easement, which it just clouded the night. It wasn't a good night to not grant an easement at that point and so that solidified that we wait. Well, what happened was we asked -- we said here is your easement, we want to participate in the Ten Mile plan, please, reconsider. They waited until we got to the Ten Mile plan and, then, voted to reconsider and I asked for a remand back to the Planning Commission so we could bring forth our new plan after taking into account all the changes that came out of -- and we were an active participant in that plan. A lot of the things you see on the comp plan is because we proposed them, you know, so there is -- we are making a case that we do conform to not only the existing, which staff agrees with, they do agree that we conform to the existing comp plan, but also the proposed. So, the big changes that we made were we swung this collector road over here. It used to run along the property line, so we are going to build a full 70 foot right of way, 20 foot landscape buffers on both sides, a beautified median down the middle. We are going to road trust for half the signal that lines up with Silver Oaks I believe it's called. We set aside that area on the east for some higher intensity use. During the charrette it was discussed of at least 12 to the acre. We came back and said, well, look, you know, let's do something high there, so we said R-40. We don't know what density it will come in ~~ _ , ~,'~ ~~ s r.v , C ,c. n, at,~ hi ~ ~~ ~ , e~ ~Y~, Y ~ ~ L ~:. ~~ ; L '',~Tri 1 - ? ~,~ h ~' 7 ~r" ~ Y ~ +~1'! ~1. 7 }'~a ~ j ~s~~F. y {~ ~ t~, ~ YF ~ - 1. ~*.~ f+~~ t;. k y• s`yyLr -~F t5'rY"` 'TTNN 1 ~k • r~ ~-Y~ 1 1 -' A. !~ J ,~~ r,, _ Sy4 a~:., L r5 ~ S ~ J~a}'w~i'}'~ 1,~ FX. YS{s ~~~ ; y ~' ~` -N ~ ~ . x~ fry- ~. ~... icy , ~ j„ 4 '~ ~;; 7 ~3 . k x, '' u'- W, ~ P' ,~ K 1 "~ r `~ ~ .. }~~?' .. ~. ,.. c -' :f ~Y j ~y , Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 27 of 61 a . ; r.: at, but we set that aside. It provides a good access not only for us, but for future to the south and also future to the east. Another change that's pretty obvious is where we ~ ~ _ used to have between 60 and 90 lots, the school district woke up and the first time they ' t want school out here. Well, once they saw that there is some higher ','~ said, no, we don ;E; ~, density uses in residential they said that's a pretty good shape for a school, we'd really a.;~. ~ like you guys to set that aside for us and we gulped and said, okay, we will do that. And in Wendell Bigham's words, I'm going to have to beat you up. You know, we sell it to them, but we are not going to get what we paid for it. This will be a gift at some level to ~ ~' the school district. That's just the way it works. They just don't have the money to pay ~' ~' what the private sector pays, but they want it set aside and we have agreed to negotiate ~; ~ # ,i and that's just the way it goes. So, this change and this change -- that took out about ~' ~ ` 30 -- about 25 percent of our building area that we used to have. We moved some } ~ ~ open space into here that is now more central to what's left. It is centrally located to this ~`-`.~~~-~ access road and this access road. By the way, this tree lined boulevard is where the Black Cat trunk is already in the ground. A 36-inch line right down here. They are that far along and heading for the highway right now. So, that has been put through the site ` ~' ,i in an alignment that works for us. What we did was a -- if you can go to the comp -- the please. Yeah. Number two in your sheet is what it is. We have -- '~~'~~~=~~ proposed comp plan , 4 ~~-' the existing comp plan has medium this way on this half and the other half is mixed use ~ _ _.,~ ~ 1, regional. We still have about half of it being medium, but it's on the north now. We are ~~ ~ surrounded by medium high and high, whereas before there was mixed use regional sF, over here. This was all medium below us. And this was medium high and industrial Well, that industrial, if it is approved as proposed, will move way to the west. That " mixed use regional has become medium high and high density. That's -- we kind of f~ didn't know what was underneath that blanket, so to speak. You know, it could have ~ `~ been a lot of different things. What the consensus of the charrette was it should be ~_~ ~,;~~~~~ medium high and high. We proposed this location and that's why the line is drawn there. The charrette -- the people, they drew some interior roadways for effect, just to ;° ' show how things might connect, and that's how that line got drawn on as a division ~' ; ~: ''~~ between two zones. So, here we are surrounded with medium and it's an odd position to be in where I have R-8 and I am below its density. I mean I don't know how many of ~- ~_:~ those you guys see, probably not a whole lot. But that's where I'm at right now. So, ~~ '~ how do I buffer myself on all four sides, how do I transition myself, how do I do all those ~r. ~;'. things and still get high density and that's what we feel that we have done with the mix F ~y - z. ; of lot --and still provide a good mix of lots that we have. If you can go to the mix of lots, please. Right there. So, what we have done is we have provided -- this came from the -Z ?: i first iteration where we wanted some townhomes buffering to the east, we have done ~'~ ~ some -- some 4,000 square foot lots going east to west. We have intermixed our five e '~ and six thousands -- we have some good slope in this area. It's conducive to having ;- some wider lots. And we continue that kind of mix idea, instead of having segregated N;; zones. It's just like when we have R-4 and R-8 lots in one subdivision and the applicant 3 ,,, asks for R-8, even thou h there are bi er lots. Well, the same thin here. We have R- ,~~ ; 9 99 9 ~ ~ 8 lots and R-15 lots, we are just asking for R-15, because that's the smallest common ` denominator. So, we are asking for a blanket zoning, instead of having a segregated y ' 1 zone, it's a mixed, R-15 and an R-40 over here. So, we feel like we have got a healthy ~ mix, instead of segregating we believe it's healthier to intermix them and have a blended ,~- =, sit, .;. -ti' ~.~,;:;. F- $; ~~ . r ~. ~ '.~ .4k ~ J Q~~tyY 4~ t: w:w New ,1W,~s.. r.i ~ .G 7 r{ t i ~ 5 ~. ` . e t-:. d .ti>f : Y~ th'~:w ~. ~ f ~ •{~: ~ ~ ~ { t •a L 7 .~t~: l x 1~ ~-: T r; ~ , ~i y. y,l ~ +'f ~~ ~ ~1' 1~. t -~ 1 ~~~~' {. r '` r ~sSyxn aF a f w ~~~v~.FF ! -~ i. ~ . ;;;~.; ,x '` ~~. :' A. } ~' T3S grYp: ~:-. i Y~Yk~' - ~~.. ~_' .t p `C. ~ i~,J~, 1 +ky~, ;y. e vN w t _~ ~' L ~ ; 4,~+~ x 'F~i~~` i ~ Ye^ ~~1' . . 3 >~b. ~t h - 1t~~ ~' ~-. r ~~ ~ ) 1 eft.. ~;... . i _, ~_ t t+j i v ~' U 4. ~ w i. ~~.~i'a` 9= ~.~ %~" Meridian Planning & Zoning :..;~ January 4, 2007 Page 28 of 61 zone. Let's talk about density. I'm an engineer by trade, so I'll get right to the numbers and don't go crosseyed on me, because I kind of went overboard on the numbers, but I think it's important to introduce them for the record and show some scenarios. If you could put number four up, please, Caleb. Number four. So, what I did was -- I wanted ~,_ to focus on the area that was just the residential R-15. Disregard the school, that's the school. Disregard the R-40, that's R-40. Let's just focus on the residential R-15. We '4`<~`; have got 17.4 percent open space. That's a looser density. That's a high percentage of .. open space. Pretty high percentage of roads. Usually between 20 25, we are right in ~* '~: the middle. And, then, the rest of it is my building lots. Well, here we are, we are at five to the acre. Our average square foot of our lot is 5,200 square foot. That's our average. Now, I'm laying my cards on the table here, because usually I'm hiding my smaller averages, but here I'm promoting them, because I'm getting beat up for having too -- too -- not nearly enough density. So, I'm going to go through some scenarios ~:~~~ here for us. As we go -- let's just say we are going to add some lots and get up to that eight, we'd have to add 200 lots within that 64.67. My average would be 3,200 square feet. So, obviously, we are talking about an attached product, because we don't build on 3,200. At least in Meridian. I haven't. I'm sure you could do it in Boise, maybe, with some houses that -- but what we are talking about is an unattainable -- for me and the .: product that we want to build, which is a single family detached product, where people still have some yard, while still promoting some density, five to the acre with this much ~`'' : open space is a really -- it's a step, it's a good step in the density direction, but it's not a ~..p„ ~° '~~- huge leap that I might get penalized for by the market and by the politics as we move forward to City Council, but five to the acre, if you compare all the plats you have 'Y; approved, is pretty high with that much open space. It's a pretty high density. So, if you - could go to the next one, please. Number five. I'm going to roll through these pretty quick. So, I just wanted to -- it's the same -- it's the same thing, but I extrapolated for ~: net. Net being minus the road right of way. Net might be minus the road and the common lots. So, I'm at 8.4 net density right now. 8.4. If we went up to eight I would be a 13.6. I just -- with a single family detached product, which is really what I want to ~~' do, and maybe that's the gist of it, maybe staffs saying I need to do attached product to get them up there -- I have done a layout, just so you know, with all 40 foot lots -- all 40's, which would be a terrible blend, it wouldn't be a very wise thing to do, but I pick up 40 lots. I'm up to 5.5 to the acre. There is just not a whole lot of increase by going tighter on those bigger lots than I have. So, I like the mix more so than something extremely tight. The next one, please. Number six. So, my suggestion to the Commission -- and maybe it's to staff through you -- instead of messing with the b'`~~ residential, which I believe is an excellent mix. I really really like what we have. Let's ~~° hold the R-15 zone density, which is a really respectable five, and let's say 20 has got to a > be the minimum in the R-40. That will give me a blended gross of 7.5 to the acre for what I'm submitting, plus an elementary school. You know, that's in excess of that. I mean that's -- I have had to do this before where staff in Boise has said, look, for your multi-family we want aminimum -- we don't want anybody to come in here and dilute -- '` ` ~ ` we want to put people where the services are, so -- and I have seen that happen and - - that will give us the density that maybe we are striving for, but if this Commission says, ~r°~~' '~~ no, Matt, 20 is the max -- because I think R-40 will allow between 15 and 25 with ood ~ open space, good amenities. I mean it's not something we do. It's not something we z ,~~ ~;4~. ; . y x Y~¢ .~~~~ ~ ~- .. + r ?~t .. ~ i n.;.4.~vw- ~1 t.' '. f1~'2p,~1~'NC~ ~ T ~,. ~ C ~ . ~ - i - KV +. Jf^ ~ ~~{~ Z 1 ~~~ ~ +lFh ~ Y in,~~;s:. ~7 '~K''"'a j11` ti {~~~ i i 1~'Ji t~f 'Y .~ , a ~riw1~ , fit- 7 .. {S?. F~ ~ y "..~' '1 ft.' .x. bc'~F '. ty '~ F : ~r 1S4 ~y'Ni S ry.17J ~y.~~+.t q+ r .{ ~ ~.~~~hhy~y~ { ~~5 ~ , ~ ..~ } 2 ~ t}Ny... , ~ ~ 1 "~; ~ C., ~ ~n'~r,crt ~i ,s„. ~ - _ ~~ } ~~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 29 of 61 ~-0 ~; , ~; ~;~ :;- ,a~ ~, II t`;. ~i ~:::r~; ~; ~, ~, s. :x .;, ~, ~. _~ s E.,~~~'j I': i r i ... are striving to do and we want to do, it's something that the Ten Mile plan suggested we do, we agree, we are going to set it aside to either sell or figure out how to do it ourselves, it's not something we do, it's not something we think is going to go right away, it's just our contribution to the plan, that R-40, as a diverse mix and as a good buffer to higher intensities to the east. Number seven, please. So, if -- if we do hold 64 acres of R-15 and 13 acres of R-40 at 20, we will have 167 R-8 style lots, I'm saying over 5,000; 153 R-15 lots, which is under -- under 5,000, and, then, the R-40 units which 20 to the acre, that's what that would yield, that's where I get my -- you know, my 580 units, 77.68 acres, 7.5 units to the acre. I have -- this is definitely an R-15, because I have 71 percent of my site that's not R-8, so it needs to be an R-15. R-15 and R-40. Excuse me. You know, we -- that's what it really needs to be, based on its location. One more and, then, I'm done with the stats. I really got out of control, but I thought it was important to show this. I wanted to compare the current Comprehensive Plan over that 77.68 acres. Half of it, medium density residential, half of it's mixed use regional. In the proposed Ten Mile update, about half of it is medium density and the other half is split between medium high and high and this was the -- the gross acreage. Now, when I look at the net acreage -- if I add up all my R-8 building areas and all my R-15 building areas and my R-4 building areas, I'm really kind of meeting this thing to a tee. It was surprising when I ran the stats and it came out that way. That wasn't my intent just to design something like that, it's how it came out, that I have half my lots at R-8. I have half my -- you know, this is pretty close, within four percent of R-15 and I really think statistically, graphically, intensity in a mix, I think it's a good plan. And I wanted to point out one more thing. If you can go back to the overall landscape exhibit, please, as far as buffering. That will work. Thank you. These roads here on the south property line, you don't see that very often. It's not a very efficient thing to do to extend your roads up to a property line. It's more efficient to curl them up here in back of your lots up to the property line. I did that. Staff recommended that way back when and I thought, you know, that's agood -- not only do we have a good mix of lots, but that's a good buffer with a landscape pathway, a park, I have got a road, it opens up the visibility to this pathway. It's costing a lot of bucks to extend these roads that much further. It takes away my density to extend it. That's more road I built that could have been lots. But as you can see I'm kind of caught in the middle of providing all this open space, providing all these roads and still haven't hit this high density and a good mix and I really believe that this Commission -- and I believe staff -- we have staff comments -- other staff comments or conditions from your other departments and staffs pretty much already wrote the conditions, they are just not officially there. I believe there is enough there to pretty efFciently come back in two weeks, hopefully, with staff recommendations for approval with any conditions they may want that allows us to vote on this in a way that moves us forward and treats us with some of the respect that comes with somebody that's done this twice, have been doing it for nine months, we were directly involved in the process, we added -- we brought this collector to the table. We worked closely with the parks department, we are working closely with the school, we are working closely with ACHD, we have done a lot here. This isn't an amateur effort, this is a very professional, fined tune -- this is probably a 15th generation design that may not have all the multi-family that somebody might think is appropriate, it is a mix that works for us. ~t ~ ` '~ 1 ~, v ~ aJr V~^id Y l 4~!' f~F, is ' ' ~ ~ 3 i-f -.` t`" i_ ' ~ ~ ~ y Tk .. n. rtl C 1 ,.: ~' , Y {N q{~~~~'y ~'. 1;. 2 fF i' .. U~F i ~f ~ `^ ~ F v~,`v. ~ o- ~~ ` ~" r d` -• c • ro. ~ `y~,T ~, yy~ of '~-i'i i4 t li '. ~ to '' ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~~*~ ` ~~ y~p F4»~ sir J/,~zibe. ~~' )• 1> T ~(~ ~~k ~ ~S S3~i~~i~. _f ~'} ~ f . ~, 1 ~~ '~' ~~~ 1 ~ ~ r ~ S r f ~~ ~~- ~y %~F-'~y F .~.riy ~~ .l.H ~ `i:t~... t r??'iN ~ !' y ~ ~r M W.~ 4 ~~ ~ ,4' f $ f f , ~rf~~jSr~. ;;e %f.{ice. :( I.t~ ~ r. t ~ f ~+<R rf ~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 30 of 61 -: :~- :fi` ~. rtr'' r, :;:,5 ~I ~~ .:.. _. So, we hope with that that you can at least get us to come back and go from there. So, I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Borup: Has there been any thought on -- I mean I'm sure there has, because you have gone through a lot of scenarios -- on what type of lot size and product would even be possible to do under the higher density? Schultz: Our smallest lots are these on the east side where we have some attached townhomes on -- I think it's 30 -- it's been so long -- 32 and 35 foot wide lots that are attached, zero lot line, and it's not a product that we believe the market will embrace in this location, at least in Meridian for awhile. The market goes towards that and that's all there is. Borup: A 30 foot lot is going to be two story, pretty much. Schultz: I was down in Vegas and there is some three stories. Borup: Well, right. I mean a minimum of two. Schultz: I saw three stories down there. So, there is ways to get the house people want on a smaller lot, I just don't know if we are there yet. And this is like a step, not a leap, towards the density that we are seeking in areas where we have transportation and this is one, that we -- if you're going to put density I think this is the section to do it. Borup: Well -- and that's what I was wondering, any product less than 32 feet you're looking at two or three story buildings. Schultz: Well, for sure, and it's all -- unless you do an alley loaded, it's all garage and it's -- it's nothing that we really want to have to do yet. It's coming some day. Maybe my kids. I don't know. But it -- maybe in five years. I don't know. But we'd prefer not to be the ones that -- and you might see some of that as we move south -- as we move north. There might be some of that product, it's just not what we are proposing. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Maybe while the applicant's here -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Go right ahead. Borup: Question from staff on what -- and that's -- what does staff visualize on the medium high density area as far as product type and lot size? Hess: Commissioner Borup, if you tum to page six of your staff report, our draft land use plan, briefly gets into -- it's a summary of what they are looking for. The medium high density residential district would like to see dense family housing types, like row r ;~ r k1l ! h_F4 iry fr:'F{~rry' ~f ~ ' { ~ ~ { ~F ~~: Snt X57;" lrf x~ s r ~4Y;~ 1 ,; ~ pp e ~", ~,. kt JF f :,''t. m~ 1'~ kS axt:~~,, :"tit ~ Sa tr i~: ry ~? t« %° ~ ' a Y , C ~ ~rX } Y ~~ i;, ~ , ~ :. ,,v .T`~s.~ ~~ ` t by Y ~~; 4; ~" 1 ~ ~ ~a t _ ~ '• 4 -;. ~. ~ ~r~r '~~~. a ~~. ~,.'~ r : .~. s ti's f ~ - ! ~ + ` M ~:~:'~~ r" ~. C~Y.h[i .., ~ ',' -;F Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ January 4, 2007 ~' ~ ' ~ Page 31 of 61 ~? houses, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. Even apartment buildings and complexes to meet that density requirement. And I guess I would like to ga J also make another comment based on the applicant's -- some of the applicant's stats ~~ and whatnot. It looks like he was showing you statistics based on the entire 64 acres of ~~ residential subdivision. Staff doesn't really have a problem with densities and the lot mixes that are north of that line. That meets the R-8 standards, that meets what we are looking for as far as the Comprehensive Plan tells us. It's this area down here where it ~` -:.: needs to transition a little better to those smaller lots and possibly even provide an ~ ~`'' apartment complex or something that will give us that higher density in this area. So, ' we are not looking for, necessarily, higher density to the north or maybe even -- maybe ~~ ~ even to the southwest here. It's at the Commission's discretion, but we would just like to see a little more conformance, especially in this area here. I don't know if there are °' any other questions you have. I don't -- did I answer your question, Commissioner 4 Borup? Borup: I think so. Well, I mean that's what you already said in the report, just increase f the density and the only way to get that is what you stated is, essentially, apartment ~, . buildings. ~'Je ;,^ ,~ : Hess: Provide row housing, more -- a lot of -- sorry, Commissioner Borup. A lot of this area -- Matt, sorry, you're a little in the way there. A lot of these here are not attached ~Q_ ; units. These clearly meet the R-8 standards. Let me go back to that -- that lot mix. Right here. These are single family detached units. This area could, obviously, in ~x.._ ~" ~ staffs opinion, be developed at a higher density. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Commissioner Borup, I haven't been that involved with the Ten Mile plan, so I don't pretend to know all of what each of these residential districts are requiring, but I don't think what staff is looking for there is all 30 foot wide lots throughout the subdivision. I mean it is a mix of housing types and getting some diversity in there. I hope all the lots aren't the average lot size and they aren't just all -- just for density sake to make them all 35 foot wide lots. I mean that's not what we want to see. It is more that mix, a diversity in transitioning to the higher density. So, just to `~~~?` clarify, that's what we don't want. What it is is what -- how Amanda kind of described it, but it isn't just all 30 foot wide lots. ~~: Borup: Well -- and a 30 foot wide lot is going to be a 22 foot house on a detached product. Schultz: Can I respond to the comment? "''~` Borup: That's why I wanted to ask that while you were still testifying. i~ - i ~` ,. i„,: t - Sr}d_4,` ~a. ,- i Y,e{ Schultz: This area right here is a real challenge for us. We have a great deal of slope. We intentionally made these lots a little bigger, a little wider, we have a third dimension here that's hard to see -- and, in fact, it's impossible to see unless you go out there and look and you know how to read the topography. But we have -- we tried to pre-engineer f~ ~ ~' ~`. . .r ~.~ r t h >, ¢ i _ ~ '~,.~, ;~ r-- t ~r 51;.~ ,` ap ~`>i;; .~~ ~ ~ ~ zai',t- t ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ' ., ,•irt~. ,i t ~ ~`~ ~ `i T ` .,~. t ~ '~'.... ~ r J~ "- 1 r > - ~ uc w H~~k. et ~'/~~1 h{~ ~ ::,~ ~'Vxr :'' i i kSk:4 t `4lc of ~;. ~ '~ x' f~.. ,', a~ q ~y1e~f. ' .j .t r ~ L_u~~j .'~, R~~ t; `~ ~ .- ~. x .,:..~i1z i y~ p - ~ ~I i~~ fi wz: -Iy~~~•L'~i ~ t y '~ f~+'. r'l~: ~ ; ~ A L~.r.. i'~' ~` C ~~ t~'4` y^"7p . F~}~ a ,...~ .~' ~ 3~ x, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 '~'> ~ Page 32 of 61 some of this stuff in this area. Our density, obviously, is getting diluted by a lot of open ;, , space down here. The only other place where we could tighten them up is here. But, `t ' again, an apartment complex anywhere down here is not what we want. We have got -- P~ ~' we have got whatever you want to call it there, whether it's an apartment or condos or -- ~~` ~ ~ , we don t know. I honest) don t know what s -- that is our area that we believe is ~~ .._ Y adequately buffered. I think anywhere else is not adequately buffered. I believe it's not >.>.:, ~ -- with the collector roads and how people will interact, these are not the places for it. ' But that's just our opinion and I don't want to -- back to my point about -- if we want to get our density up, this is where we get it. We get it over here in the R-40 and that's ~ ~ where you get it. f ,, f Borup: You know, just look at -- it looks like there is about 11 feet of slope from this oint to this oint. P P ~,: Schultz: From here to here on the -- Moe: Mr. Schultz, I -- if I could. You know, you have made the statement that you guys ~`'` `'` are not wanting to get into a situation of doing apartments and whatnot. However, with ~~~-~~ the Ten Mile plan -- I mean those ideas were put out there and they are still on the table u ~ to be developed. ~ `- Schultz: And we have got it. We have got apartments in our site. '~ Moe: But, again, that would be for the next portion of development, not where you're at at the present time. ~f.,: ~;,,:;, ~, Schultz: That is our acreage that has been purchased and is under our ownership and r we are submitting. That is ours. That is not owned by anybody else. So, we'd much rather put more of what we do over there, but it's not what the Ten Mile plan suggested. f So, we -- we, actually, offered up the collector road here, knowing that this could do something other than single family -- I, actually, proposed about six or seven to the acre in here and they came back and said, no, we want something else. I said, well, that's not what I do, but I will set it aside. I'll leave it there as a future use and we will get something back out of it, it's just not what we do. Another point about this area down b here, this drain continues on at this angle. There is also a good deal of slope from here l; down to here. There is a good amount of vertical buffering, as well as the road buffering, as well as our density buffering going on. I think we are about buffered to death down here for anything else that's coming and I believe we are very well blended . with what we have. I believe there are compatible uses in here. So, if we are worried about blending for myself, I'm not. If we are roomed about blending to the south, we have got tons of buffering and elevation and the road. So, that maybe moves us over to ~,->- here. If we put a high density down here that blows out my traffic study, you're talking ':~ about another collector -- this is a very finely tuned study plan. Lots of controls ~`~~~ involved. There will be a collector to Mr. Siddoway's point coming from Ten Mile, crossing about down here -- or it might be up here, who knows, curving back over and that will be a primary east-west access for this higher intensity, with an outlet to the ~~., ~,~~ y r ~~jia'. ` ~ ~ ti r ._. •- `~ r.,R r i ~ ~ r ~k~~ ~ R , . x ~f'9 yM' x ~ ~ ~ /. ; ~ h ~ . ..dam - z 3~F(~h8~~': h ~ ~~ o- ~ ~s ~ ~ _I ~F ~ a G ~ r~ l ~ `~"' i~ ti. :.;Kq ~~ ~ ' ~ ? - _ ~. F _ _ t1'. k rti_ 7 j.~ k ~ ~. _ y ~ ~ ~ f ,~ r ism ' ~ ~ 1A. r ~ r~ it{ r ~. ~ ~ ,.,} a ~.F Mk'1~~~ ~E ~ ~ k {a~;ry ". ~::_,_ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 33 of 61 ~f.==~ north, with another outlet to the north and a third outlet out to Black Cat. The primary collector road is going to come down through and interconnect with what we have provided as the foundational road for the area. Moe: So, it also -- you were involved in the charrette and whatnot. In regard to the plan and whatnot, when it came to this area in here I am kind of curious, were your thoughts . ~~ known that you did not want to do any type of, you know, high density within your _: ,~ portion of this area and any thoughts that came to mind within the charrette on that? "'' Ft Because at the present time it sounds like it was pretty much -- '' Schultz: I've got the charrette here if you'd like to see it. Interesting conversation. This was the result of the charrette at the end of September. I think that was when we went ,. through the week long intensive -- and we submitted about three or four plans during ~` `''` that time and we were very quick and very proactive in our coordination with the ~~ ~~ recommendations that people were throwing out every day, you know, can do you this, ~~~'~ ~~ ` Matt, can you do that, can you change this, and we said, yes, here is what it looks like. ' " So, we were very responsive and very intensely involved in that and what came out of it a '. was -- it's interesting, because we did participate that this follows our exact road. I r=:" mean we were -- we were really providing the template for them to draw all of these lines in the charrette. We provided this collector. We offered to build that. They knew there was a road down over here, they knew -- you could see the results are a school, _ which came out on that last day of the charrette. I was still pushing for some higher density residential over there and they said that's a good place for a school. Okay. It's -.; a school. But as you can see instead of high density, this used to be medium high. :- This used to be medium high over here and it's just -- the city has taken this and ~ tweaked it, taken off of these little sketch, artistic renderings of how streets may or may not connect. It was -- you know, this is a 2,000 acre plan they did in a fairly short amount of time. So, there was -- it wasn't surveyed, it wasn't an exact plan, but it was a -,>-< good -- it was a good plan for the money. For the amount of money that was spent it ~~ ~; was a good plan. So, even though they had a plan, they drew some roads in that didn't ~~, ~' necessarily follow -- this never followed ours, but they fit it through and it provided a nice ., . ~' ; -- you know, looks good, nice boundary. What we are saying is is here is medium density residential, here is medium high density residential, I have an entire site of medium high residential zoning. I have a blend of single family detached, higher intensity, plus some high density residential over here, which will be our highest and most intense buffering will be to Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road will be our highest ~' ~~- intensity buffering. That's where we put our higher types of use. The rest of it we felt ~~ ~ ~ that we went above and beyond with our buffering, went above and beyond with our lot ~' :} ` mix, and went above and beyond with our density, which, like I said, I'm not sure that - i~~~~ only five -- five units to the acre gross density with 17 percent open space and if you really look at the stats I think you will find that this is a step of density up from average. -~ It's not a leap. - Moe: But, again, you are not planning to develop the eastern portion, this R-40? -t ~ ,~,~, ' ~F - ' ~~ ~ '~' toy-t. ~ ~y Jay' ~~,~~j ' ~ R . 1T4 ~ ~ .. ^rt ..+J~1 ~ u . ~~'.}.1-;~ ~ t ~y ii ~;, ~ 1 . F l *St st 4~x~ :: ~~+~}~~ C t fit: 4 ,, -~ . wt z Y # ~' f1 ~~ E ~}K 4 k 4,:~;~ ~ t ~~~ t~ t- ~~ K F } ~ sx ::, y ~ ~ f ~, A:, _ ~.:'. r 'Mk .i f~j ! T ~3ti ~ y ie~,~.~r . M ,4 ~~~ ~ . T r~ i y : ~~~3 Fi '., u, _ . . ®. ~; ,, Meridian Planning & Zoning `'`° January 4, 2007 Page 34 of 61 ~' Schultz: We are -- I am not right now, because I don't do multi-family. If my client came ~.: _ to me and said, Matt, could you do that I would say I'd recommend you to somebody that does do that. I mean me personally. My client will own that property and will want e to do something with that. He is -- he paid good money for that property and he's going ~~; - to want to do something with it. Either he sells it to somebody that does do it, or he M;~ does it himself. Something will happen to it. Our primary goal is to do this product first. k:r This may come at the same time, it may come later, I'm not sure. I do not know right now. But our focus is -- is the detached product. That's what we do best. :~; ,: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? . ~: ` ~~ ~'~ Moe: Yes. ~~~ - Siddoway: Hi, there. I was involved in the charrette. Haven't been as involved since, then, but for me the Ten Mile specific area plan is so much more than densities. Most of the discussion in the -- does it comply, does it not comply, so far has centered around "'' density, but there are entire sections of that plan that deal with design standards and a quality of the place. Have you -- one, have you submitted design standards for your project. Could you talk about what -- what makes this a special place, because, in short, the whole reason the Ten Mile specific area plan was done was because this was supposed to be something special, something -- something amazing, to be quite frank with you. Schultz: Right. Siddoway: And when I look at the plan I still see a fairly standard subdivision just with g ~~ some high -- you know, higher than usual densities. Could you talk about the quality aspects a little bit? Schultz: Yeah. We are blessed here in Treasure Valley with high quality builders, you know, that we do a lot of quality product and we do feel like we have a great sense of place and destination in terms of our linear and central open space, which are great - amenities and really attract people. We are really -- you know, let's face it, the school -- an elementary school in a neighborhood is a great thing, too, and that's a lot of usable ~:; ~ open space we are not even talking about. The people that are attracted to -- I know, myself, I'm attracted to that. I don't know how everybody else feels about that. We do have a diversity of product types and, let's face it, what attracts people to certain locations is do you have to buy a 400,000 dollar house or can I get one for -- in the hundreds still in Ada County and that's hard to come by. So, we are looking to still _~~ provide some -- some diversity in the market product as well to get people to want to << ~: come here, varying types of people in the long term, as this does develop out over the ,, next -- I don't know how long it's going to take, ten years -- five, ten, you're going to get ~~..,~,. '~``' a lot of mixed uses out here of commercial and employment and this is just one facet of ~~ ' that -- of an overall plan that hasn't developed over -- even longer than ten years, ass: because this is 2,000 acres we are talking about. But, yeah, as the pieces come - together this is one component of that. Back to the discussion we had last June where ,,, ,: -_-a.- -.n-~. -- -- -__-. -'__ _ -~- -- _ - ... .~.. : ~ ~ ~ ,,> , ~ ~- ~ - r ,,..,;~t:~~:.r b .,x, ~ . ..:: ~~; .. , ~ - ~~ ~,~tc4 ' fi . ~ 1 ? l~ ~ ; ~~"~~ „d ~~ i °t ' ` ~~ '•q',}if .': .~*. :~yo,..~~ ± ;.. e '~~y~' :P xr ? ~I( 7~{{ r ~.F • t .~ ~y .. `.: '. i, F, y.,Y . i3;'~ • , r.: • A ' 1• i :, ~5'7tl.'+^ ~ • .y ,U <lR '~i"3+. i tltl '~.:xa.'n y~" ,^j~i• ~ :if:~t~+`.~Tt ~ ~5' '~ xx '~'f' ' ' ~ h, ~ ~~ * ~ 1:~ F ;I I '. I i..l... ,p . ! _ ~`I .4 o r -1 ? - , rl'( :.:~iw ;(.. ~~^i~. r'+.-.~, ""a'%, ` s ` " r~''ya F i. Y ~'~",[ `. j s 1 ? n` 1>".' }~~~*~, • •r rty" :7.4,3:! - '.,, ~<.. ~" `~i ~ f ~~'~ 1• d ~ lp~~,"~ ,~'v ~~.~~-,iqq,+~', ~:wf ^:'.,i,4:~ ~~a~~~ `, u T, ~i ~ ^t 4 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rr .ti~. re-.+'a. '-' `n { ~„ . ? ' ,, r, .r n ,ri,.~.,~F ~•n.';t1i'k~? gF~' ~ i .1 .r' '!i'.°'~ v J ~ ,~,~ ) l I • !I ~r ¢~: , .~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . - „ 1. .. .'roe • - ~ ~ ~x1 l I~ ';` }, =. . i•• ;F-~ I .. "'C • ~', ~. , ... a s , "f S, ~. j~. J L _ . .'.li vF: • Cr ... ~.. _; ~ ' t L .~ s .. w A r ... ~. stlp J' r6•. ,'S•., A ,•• x•TF, i'1 w .fs, ~(; j g S. ~ ~ j ~~ Y ' { . + .r I; • S. 4a~ S, . .r _ x . " ' } 4 s 'K.t: ,.a;". `ry;.. 75~ ~ f~ Ry . tl '•A'• /~,7:.4 ~". g~,£.~ *'.i t''.~ '?' ~' ~;s.i ~R:'a J ,iI ~ s,- i,'F 4 '` ,~}g # ~ 4z S H-p. ;'~.~i,.F',' J n,c I " i r..P ~ ~ .<~, i'. fie ~~ ' '~ ~x'<: •~~~ ~' ` Fh Y~ ~ ~ ,s.':rxc?~` . n:`~';' `Y ,:~K: t ~~;!`^? ~ ~ y ; ~ . ^. . : ,5. , ir.. l €~ - >: 5 ~ ~'L... ~. ~'. 3 { s ` ., •, ~ ~ ?xr3 y>-!t '•FENc . ~f . -~•f ~ f ~ ~ {. ~' ' { ~'~ ! %r.~i~s~'r'^fs ' fez` r ,..,..,,.:r~• ~. . ., ~ F~~ ~, ~ !. ,, . ~', ,,. ...r~,~"t. s . • .. ~ r '.tip' 3~..#••1Yiz r y~~ ~ ~T.r ;.. ! z1F $ ~ J. ~~"4 fi i r `.1y, .r vE ~ . • ~x~~ "I ; ( ~ ~2 tt f f , _ , , s t ' ~ " t ,~ .~,~• .: Fri ~~~M ~. . } a .`l ~ :; ~Pv,a;,..'',.,.~ t a 3({ j~`"'-~~~»~~~~ I r, ?i4'~•~~~ I .I li~! I h w ~~ i i . ~ ~ c. . ~ ` t a~ ; •~' ''r ~~ I ± ' {~ `• ~ . 1 •1'•,. ,a~' ' 1. '; dr ' ..- ~ - ,' t ~'`~ • ' s: c M ` ~. {~~ ~ Y" fie ~' -!tl` ems. `~•SS.'xt ~ i17 ~' ,r 1 .~ F y..,•~az„7;^r3ro`.;`t4us`--~'_ ~-' ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1.,,,nCo!KF ~'~ K- S~k+] ,_ . **sr?.~e4.~'f :~?r ~ ~ [: r .,, G: ,6, ^.;•,~,- , c:4 ` r 5 74:4:.' ' ' •~~ ' a a : ~ e : 't•` F' ~ ~ $ :#i , ~ f.J ~-''_ L'R'~."~ 4 . } ,~~E ., ~ .L x w ~ ~ `~'~• i'$~., f y.,r. i i I i s ~ . 3""FY, '};~'.~ ~-1.i ~::drr•.:.-~'~ .# ; • ~ v %F• ~ Y " t Wig} .,r,'• i ~... :;~x•~.~";.: a 3 4 :i. r,v :y.j••ufi^1' .[ - ~ois 4~ : . y ~.iC3y ~.aA'.'7 .i . . ..~~n~±. ~;} p. T_ f.,F. .`, ~?.~ .P ..,h; ~'l,i .r6 ~~ ` &4!i .. :, ' ~i`. , ,1 ,sl A ' ~r , r •.ti • '~ ' T; ~• ^ ~ e ;~, y.' `^ . i. ~ ~ S ui~ J ~ n ~ . . ii :•~/~. `.. . L. ' ~ ': f ~ ~~~~ , µ ~• ~ :ry, { f ! o ) . i ~ . ,:$ ~ ° il Y ~ ' ,,~~ .4. y'.-~ :,.v,%i . l • .I• 1 , t ~ ~ • bbbbbb ~ : f• y :a ; / a y~ . . ~ r ~ ~~.w7w~~ .~ _ , i; ~ e4S~~ ' " ` ~ ~N I . ,e~ ' ! 5 }." A } M {. x ~ ~ ~ ~ t • ~ 4 ~;.r~: ~ ~'" :. 1 s I ~ ~ ~ '1 fi l { ~ ~ r F} .. ~' q {ine. A +~vs,~i` ~ ' ~e:' 5~,` ~ ~- r~,l }~, ~"~'h;~t .4 Y", C*y _ .f''n~ I w.t:~i a .a J. Z s i ~: n. iir. :.I Ir~ '~ ~•":F ,5.~ F ~ I i ~ ~ ~ . ~. y . . i, - ~e , "f . . ~ r x .x .r•. a^`~s•. ..x.a.. -~' .'~'i i" ' 'r 3 ~ - ` Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 35 of 61 ;;'' we were talking about if this is mixed regional or not, does every site need to be mixed `' use regional and all those aspects of what makes mixed regional within every `` ~` application that comes forward or can one site have a component, the next site have the other component and the pieces become the greater whole. You know, we really -- as '' far as the design standards of the homes and what are they going to have and do they ~4~.;, { .: have, you know, the things that people want. We have not got to that level of detail, because, one, I'm not going to make excuses, we are still under the current comp plan - technically. I know that's no excuse, but we are. Technically we are. We do not known when our new one is going to get adopted. It could be a year, it could 18 months, it "`' ~ ~ . could be -- who knows if they even will adopt it as last proposed. Maybe they will, ' ` ~' 4~-;" ~~ maybe they won't. We do believe this is a good -- it does still conform to it and there is - I nothing -- it's not like we are saying -- you know that the Comp Plan - we are waiting for ~ n this to get adopted because the current one shows industrial and we are looking to do ~ residential. We are not waiting for that to happen. It's -- the pieces are there for us to move forward and I believe the greater good items that we have -- that we have offered to bring to the table, along with our diversity -- and if it is a condition of approval that we .:, ~ bring back elevations specifically for design review, then, please, make that a condition. ;~; ;i We just -- we just want to be treated with conditions like we feel it would be appropriate $~ ' and go from there. Right now we don't have any conditions. -. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? .. ~ Borup: I guess I need to ask one that's been -- I have been questioning since the very i beginning and that's the definition -- and I'm not familiar until now with the term medium r,: ;::;r. '~ high density. Has that been in the Comp Plan previously? ~. "'~ Hess: Commissioner Borup that might be a really great question to ask your fellow -; ~: ~~' Commissioner Steve Siddoway. He was very involved with the Ten Mile plan and he could probably better answer that question. ' Boni Is this the first time that s -- p Hess: This, in fact, is. t-a k' Borup: -- this has been used for the Ten Mile plan? Siddoway: It is. The medium high is a new designation that came up in the discussions for this -- for this area. ;,, ~~ Borup: And what's that definition? Is the 12 per acre -- 3'~ Siddoway: Yes. It's an average target density of 12 per acre with a range between eight and 15. Borup: Okay. As stated in the staff report that is the definition? Okay. 1 S'L~. ~t rl+i 4~ a .{~~'.'Y„i, !}':~:.)TT''fe~ ^afh' 9,~ ,n .,hx I i x ,, .», a :w., .. ..e. f ' a`r i`~; ~ ,. q+ 7~n~, ~~~i p ~: .u"' ~ ~ Y ' , M ~% ~~, a .•{ s! s I yr :i ' da..'X`?~ ... ~ r , c , ~ ,. ~..~ ~• "•.I `~. ,.: i~k f ,: a~% r x - '~ . +-'' ry ``it.6r .1 '~~ 'xi a,.,. mom. ~~Y' ` ` ' ° ~ . ~h ~ ,~ ; i:; - xt t s i z ?#'~~;~~:;' .;s;h;,~z~ a;N~._ r,~,~.~,,~. J ;;~,. x I i'F ~f F ~•'r .~ ( ° '•'• s• .. ^c .«e f4 ~r ": I s ...~ i. 'Wi't d .. , .u ~~. ;.z "s ~~ ... :. ~{r,:~,r;. iii V r:, w':r.' k~,,..; , :fv. ,w.~,pk ~ /1 ~ ~'•, x~ ; is ~ `~ ~Y q ~" + ~ y . , .. . 2 ,. ^ ~ r +, ~ ~ ' z ~ , . ~ V~~ „t `• ~y~ ~~ i ~f. , ~ i ~ . ~.~ ~j ~ i k i t' .'>Zi: ~ ~~5 . .. ' ,t r~ /r w ~ ~ :r - ~r ~Q: •- ~ £ t ' ~ i! .t Ti adF4. • A ~~ . V ; .~ *~ . (CfA. et ;3~~ t' 'if. ~ Y ' ~+ ~M1tl ..; +r ' ~ ' ' rE . -.> '': r;r ! • . ~ +a ~ ~ ;yw ` i'3~ ~'~ .. . A., . +. ~~ • ~ s„f ~1 .I Imo... I vyT A ~ ^; .,II y'~y,, `4 .Ear ~ ~~ ~.+~.r. .El f"~"~yf'Y~'j'zt ,~:Y•..S, 9 _ii ~ a~:L ~ a 1' .: ~ + + 3 _, { ° .i.N ei•^~ ~ 4 y, s;- a ~j . . . , Y .n •`1 ' L t , 1, ~ . fit' w~µ:+t;*... ~} ..,~ n s ?. .~ l;' . ~' Y ~~ '... Y,=;pl~,"~S'-~ i, ~~~'a;. Y ,`f`A. 'r . +Mm`~g i ~ 'i ' ~r - ~~ :., , ae . y ,r.:, : . ; j :; r., - ~ a ~.).. 9 ,f e". : d~ .. n ~: i.'>„ ~'~, ~ ~ ~~ - ~ F^, ry ~ . , :+. f • ' :' ~ ~'.. :Y ~ •~ +'y.•~~ ~ :~5,-' ' r ~ ` z ~ r .: , e :~ ,Fi.a'~~~ls ..; ~- ~.• ~'. ,'~7~'Tt',~'A.v~yk ` ri ~ ~ ~ a a , .. • . , i: 7i ~ e' plf - : ~ a+T!: 4"~'«;ad'~.~, p:. .1~± i'Y..': YX ;~ ('I : ~ ,. . I ~. r}~~~i it}'k-e;xi '+•^ 9t'~ 7• r ~ ~ 3 :...I; i+.haf:.'~.Y~..,=.:d.,:., •.~~,r~YP:,.. 6 i ~ .. _ ~ . ` +~f , s . - ~'H ~~ .?-7y .. C r z, -i' k' ~ • .~ ; . ' ~ { . aria s ' ~ . - " cm's r ~.~ ;i ' is ~ v a:. I ~~ ; ~' . _e..c~'2+~h ~. 'a^q,~•7;: a~,k'Y"'q .r ~;,~~ I 4'~¢,~, .^<:i,.. !L° %l a•Y~'.~„ ~' ~"~~ 1` "i k`s 4' ;i. ~~~Yr't.~ P `r, v.i : 1 ' 1 4 4'a `` • ~ 'y ~^. r s. ~' - 4: - E ;I s; ,r ~~ _ .~,a ~;~,~~. ..''?~:tp„ ~+'°;i ~~'~ *p~g. ~ + ~t. Ts - J 7 ~ 6 7~5:. . F.t •'j:': nt'' ir. . t ~ ` ~` te ': I;+.,~.. s ~,Kr,tft;~,~.~. Y. ,~ :•,{.+ k:C.~. r r wAk ~ r .~.. E * _ , 1 ~•. ~, ,r•~, . ~ ~..1 t ..K , yy4 ~~. . i _ ~+,~ ~ ~.4'i ~ ~" ! ' ' ~ ~ r r ~ , ~ s ~ ~ t` ~ ~ 7,: '2~• "a " 't .~ A. A. i ~~t~ ,,~, .v `i' a ='%` vYS . f" ` ~"Y' 4 ' [ ~ ~~; y:~'.,~ a di~~. ~ i' -?; S„%'~'-ix ~~ F r.~ ~ + r 4 x s'f~' ^ . .~ ~ 4 } i F ~ x,v ai, ,' ~ ,~.~ , .. •~~ •6.: 4~ :'~' :`:. ~ , ~ to FI... z ..~..~ r T.. ~~^ tt.'. ,,, ~ .. , a •. - - '.~~~ - ~~ a - F *:''w PJ.' iVtJ S : ~i ~ , 7 , ~ i I:' ' ' ~ ` r °.' Z'{ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ y ~ f \ A : tiy ? 4 S Fx • y .n 4sie ~ .}# Y .Y'!"f, S? ki:~t + - s'i n. .'i". .. +,y tr : ~ ~ _ ,i: <. ~ r.. , _ t U ~A ~ ` r ; 4 .Z ~; ~ Y' ~ , ' ~ ' ~ ~ Y - ~ ~ g .Yi. (~~ ~' v. I "oF _~~: w. '~.i. F i~ ' ti ~ } , ' ~~o!b' ~` F ~ ~ ~ ~ .. F. ~~ j . ~,~ . ~7 e Y ( k',. '~-tY "'r 1` ~. . i. ~ x. 3 ~.j • ~ ~ S '~ X.. . i: * ~ 'F+ - . -'^,".' ~. ,~, . " ,~Y;'r,~"°~. ~ 5 . ~~ ..v ~ .~ . 5II'' I , r Y T`: ^ ' S +~ ~ ~ ~~ i 'yl~,`+Ji' `.~ ~'~i~D t * psi ~ ?+`,i.:.. ~~`~rV ~' •~~, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 36 of 61 Siddoway: Even the definition of medium density for the Ten Mile specific area plan, I believe could be more density than the current comp plan as well. So, the definitions that you see in the staff report reflect designations that are specifically being proposed for this area. Schultz: And I'll admit that threw me off. I was going to point out that I think medium density is defined incorrectly here, based on my ignorance of what the Ten Mile plan was proposing for medium density. Because it says it's above when R-8, which is medium density, only -- you can at best get up to about six at best. And so R-15 must take off from where R-8 leaves. Siddoway: Actually, I don't think that's true. The medium density is defined -- is an average of six, with a range between three and eight. Schultz: What I'm telling you is your dimensional standards don't let you get there -- Siddoway: Oh, the dimensional standards. Schultz: -- they don't let you get to an average of six and that's where we kind of hope for all these higher densities, but the reality is that you can't quite get there from here. Siddoway: Yeah. I know what you're talking about. Schultz: So, it's tough. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a pointer? Mr. Chair? Okay. The conversation has been a little circular for me, so I just want to be clear. Is this the problem area right here? Borup: As far as staff, yeah. Siddoway: Everything -- Hess: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- Siddoway: Everything below the black line. Hess: It is staff -- or at Commission's discretion where -- what they want to do with this - - this southern area? If you feel the density is fine in this area, then, that's up to you to decide, but (mean -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm song, I'm getting distracted with all the ambient -- Hess: Oh, that's fine. That's totally fine. Newton-Huckabay: Can you start over? ~~~ . • r , Meridian Planning & Zoning t.:. - January 4, 2007 ,, Page 37 of 61 '~`'' Hess: Like Caleb was stating, this is -- this is -- this is kind of a fuzzy line, so it would be at your discretion where you would want to set that line to be. If you felt that it maybe wasn't appropriate to necessarily have higher densities in this area, maybe more over here, then, that could be something that you decide, but, yet, it would still generally comply and at least mostly conform with, you know, what the Ten Mile plan is looking for. So, we are just looking for kind of a step above what they have offered, something that better compiles, because right now we don't feel it does. Newton-Huckabay: So, right here and right here. ~' Hess: Where -- do you see the black line? I` ;'.;~ Newton-Huckabay: The black line. Hess: That is, actually, the dividing line. Let me go back to -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Somebody -- people keep pointing here and here to the orange and blue lot. Hess: These are actually -- this is all the same designation right here. :z;. , _ r Newton-Huckabay: I understand that. I'm just trying to identify what piece of the part . • below the black line that the applicant and staff are not agreeing on. Hess: All of the area underneath the black line is designated medium high and if you ~~Y,- notice over here we have got higher density -- or higher square footage lots, single `~ family detached units over here. Lots of single family detached units in this area that don't necessarily meet the high -- the medium high density definition. So, we are just ~`' ' looking for something different, something that would bump up that density, because right now we don't see single family as achieving that. '` Moe: Commissioners, if we don't have a specific question to the applicant right now, what I would like to do is go into public testimony, because we do have others that ~'~ '~ would like to speak to this -- this hearing, so anything else for the applicant right now? Okay. Having said that, then, there was no one signed up, but if there is someone that would like to speak to this hearing, please, come forward. ~~ ` Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 150 East Iron Eagle is my business address, with Bailey Engineers. Since being with Bailey we have seen this piece of property three ;~ times. Once before with this applicant and once before with another. The previous '~~ - applicant before Mr. Schultz, you know, kind of debated whether having that higher ~' density and a little more intense use was something that would be approvable beyond you and not necessarily that he couldn't build it and in this version that we are going forward with, we have met numerous times with staff and have tried to make any changes that they have come up with. From the original submittal there used to be a ~- ,~;, ~~ _. _.~, .FFM: r . a . , ., _ rr"'$ '§ S I k ~ }y ~ ~; .~f~r~, ~'"J ~"~ ..~: ~ A r ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ' '~s^•t an L .'~ ~ 1 1 a '~. .3t ~ t ~. ~ ~ "" 9i {[11 P '` I ~~f` ; , t,..; A x 1 i 4 3 ~'~. %, iy,. ,~4.5~. ..: a _t .F X ~ 6 ` to 'a~b.` ~n'fa ;~. is :~,_ h~ti" ti. 1 v;2r4.~a•k •"1 .'~ ,4 ' ~ '~r.. t Y S -1 3`nY ^i~ ~~1:.F4~ ..~@Ca+^~ ~i ~~i~ ~y ~ ~ p ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . , ~ 1 fa~,•` !' >G P" S vi F ,R gw iaJ.~: ;~~a p~, +} ~.. ,P. 5;[,RF:r `Z~'Y i^" {~ ly I `'~' ' V ~y+v,4 'M 4t'. J .. FI ~ y 'V } [ ~ ,{ 11'a^, tip: ta" illl ~ ~~ _ . # . a L ( ~ y ~ , I~;f~>~a~'~>,.jPu h'.$wi A'.'"• y - 1 ', ; ! ` ~ t ,q,^ x, i t ~~~ F u ~ ' ~ .. . i ~~,.Y` •i>:n' rr -. it ~ ~ ,~: .~FY ~ !`~t ~Y a• ~~Q .',$^V~ I: ~~ ~ S t . , ~ '• t ~~: ;' ~ ` ~ t ~ + ~ , " }. _ r ,:>r':a'SxF:. „5 r~~L~ u .7A. ,s~! 2~4j*. '~ .~ ~ -A y { k«:~ ,*.'~~~• Y ' '~ E p LSit'~ i~j .~`~ ~, rAy7,F,f.R^yy `; ~~~ ., .: Y. °~ fir w..: ~! 5 i ~:'. l ; • ~ ce e ''Y. 1 sa ' S r s> . ~~ Y ,a w~ d ,,r } 4 ~ ~ ~.+` 'h ,i ~. '(~ ~ .~. ~ 1 1 1 ~['n 5{,y.~'a ~ =i { E, r # ^ae' ; ; ~~ > F~ x ~ r ~ ~ < s #'';, t x t ~ ~ ~ i 4. ty'r'9.~p,t n'~ ~u; . N ..e , r ri 7'~x ~i v. ' ta.t i . ~, +} .4 ' ~ y ,~ . 5 ,,~', ~i. "'. , is . F S A'~\ f ~ ' ''.~L i ~S; '~x a t 'ti,~ ~ a ~, v.3y.y': ~ 4 ~ t ~ 4 .. .. ,,t :.* F;':7.~k~-~tr~x,'r . ':fit '+,: '+. f`£~.;;_ 1 .c, g ~ ~ .:ate;. ~ E~ { r ~ If': v i. . ., r` ,,~'{,::. ~aW~„°S~:VU '~ y.. ?S;3x~i~~~ ' Y'~ y ~{.~':,,<:'~'~" `•~'.i~'l i~'!~ ;t *~[y r ~i~,~„.f ~} ~i' 3 ,~ [:,~ .,~ adz: .~ >~ r 1 Yn{, , p °~ ~ I'. ~ + ,< fi v . .ti... 4':F i.,~a4. .,.%k '~I"a I;. F "~ T,",:.r ` ~", %: r ' '''r ~~J~ ',, ~~~ p ~' ' ti' ~ ~ ' ~ p 4 ~q ~ : :: f . f ; . s .~ ,.ti • r 1 I -u ; p 2 F ~ FA? sl rr ~:~ d~ X~ .: •sn >: C Y' ~`' ~~ ,~._ .. ;;-~~ ~. ~Y ~~ ~ a ~~ F. r ~~ . ~:. 4r ~~ is ~;~~ , Meridian Planning & Zoning • January 4, 2007 Page 38 of 61 smaller piece up here, because they felt that there needed to be a road that went east- west. We negotiated and worked with them and said, well, maybe that road should be here, because of the topography on the site. Again, there is -- you're going uphill to get to Franklin Road and from an engineering standpoint that topography of this site makes some of the things that are being asked a little more difficult. This higher density that's being asked at this time wasn't really ever brought up in the pre-apps that we have had. We have met with Amanda, we discussed about dropping a lot up here, because it might be kind of difficult for a common driveway to access back in here. We did that. We added another lot in here, but as Commissioner Borup brought up, there is like 11 feet here. We were seeing 14 feet from where a house would sit here to where the backs of this is. There is a ridge that runs in this area and the larger lots that are in this area are generated because of the topography. Now, Commissioner Borup and Commissioner Moe being construction type people, you have grading issues when you have one house that's sitting up high and a house that's sitting below and trying to keep drainage out of each other's lots. To do that what we end up doing is making the lots a little deeper and trying to provide some width in there so that they can get the drainage around the buildings and not into these buildings and that's why some of that's taking place. And this one issue I think that has kind of been overlooked is we have this open space, which is a natural feature that runs through the site, is a regional pathway and we have provided connectivity to it. That is something that makes us kind of a gem along the pathway of this regional path that will go through this area and can take these residents down further. In our discussions with staff that's one of the reasons that we put the park so close to it is that it would be a gathering place within the development and, obviously, that's located in the area that they are asking for some higher intense uses. We have tried to buffer along the south. There is also the Williams pipeline that's further south that is also being used as a pathway. I think that with the site and the way that we have done this, we have tried to move along and do different things. If you want to give us direction as to how you might want to see something else -- I mean I guess we have townhouses here, if you want to direct that we put another row of townhouses, we could probably only do that in this location, because when you get into here that becomes difficult with the topography again. Apartments in that kind of situation also would be rather difficult. I don't know if I need to wrap up, because you beeped at me, but I can. Moe: Please. Brown: The transition down here, overall what we have tried to do and I think that the one that shows the overall density and the lot sizes, we have tried to have a blend. As the numerous applications that come before you, everybody talks about blending. An apartment type of user is different than a single family user and generally viewed as detrimental to your home values. Taking an area and just saying, okay, we are going to have apartments here and that's what's going to bring the density. The things that I got from Mr. Schultz's presentation is that overall with this R-40 that's here we can bring the density to what would be anticipated for the area and at the same time make what's working with the site and with the topography work. I will stand for any questions. ~~_.t~~~ a.r w~.~ 3 y ~C7 ~ ~ i. ~_ fir, , ~~F ~~ r rt a r:~ '~' a y .cv:!~~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ t h`- ~ ~ ~- t 5.~a> w t.~~ i .. ~h ~ ~ ~ ~ y=~,4 . ~ r- s m ~ T i l3~fvyi lk!~. y vn,^L ~~' f~ ~ .r.i ~."~ ~. ~.1 i_ 1~1.y.,~v. it +; t i ty5 r' ~z ~ '; ~Y~-lti~r~. A .: y~ r `~~ A 11.E yt ~J , ~ c F ~ y. ~ :a:r,;.~ i ~ t '~. ~~ f.5 ,2. k~d~,'~ c° xr - t r s.1T ~t ~{ ~.'.-~. ~ u t j~ ~,,~ n a~,'~.. a •,i s,,.h.g~~~(y ri ~,. fr iciR?~ ~t J ~ ~ ~;,' ~'. ~ ~ t ~: ~' S ~ .~ ~ r~j'- 4d ~T ~q~~ _ .!' ~~,,: • ~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 39 of 61 Moe: Any questions of the Commission? Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Having one, would the applicant want to come back up? ?;~ Borup: There is nothing to rebut. Moe: Pardon me? Borup: There is nothing to rebut. Schultz: Just real quick I'd like to -- I don't have a lot to say. Kent said a lot of stuff, I have said a lot of stuff, but I do want to say that we have not ignored anybody during `'-,`s this. We really thought we were a go until Monday. We thought we were going to have staff -- at least staff conditions. We didn't find out that the recommendation was for denial until Tuesday, two days ago. So, this is nothing that we have -- you know, they said denial, we have been saying no, no, no all along. This is -- like Kent said, we have been working along thinking we were making the revisions we needed to make until Monday that we got the actual staff report and it said it. So, we had two days of hustle, ,~ but it hasn't been enough, apparently, to convince staff to see that other way, but I do think we are right there to where we can at least get conditions of approval and those `.`-~'~ conditions may be something that doesn't work, but at least we have some conditions to work with. So, thank you. Moe: Thank you. '~ Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. Moe: I would assume we are not going to close the Public Hearing, because we are going to have to -- Borup: That depends on which direct we are going for the motion. ' t -- well if ou're closin ou're tha ssumin Moe: If you were going to close it, I m a g Y 9 Y _ going to probably deny this, because if you close it you're not going to be able to do d to have discussion first. so we nee it is anything but deny it or approve it that way , _,.~4.~~'.~. 3~:Y Borup: I would like do that, too. .~ Moe: So, having said that, anybody have anything to discuss? Mr. Borup, do you have any questions, sir, or comments? Borup: Well, I -- I guess, first of all, I like the variety of lot sizes. I think that's what we said last time. That was without the benefit of the Ten Mile study and we have that now, ~•,;~~ but -- and I have got to agree with Mr. Schultz's comment on -- the density does average -- I mean it's -- the percentages do come close to the original percentages, only they are mixed through the area, which I do like. There is a difference between putting ~- ~~. , , ~; # ~ 1 ~~ r F ~«9s 1 ; f -K ~S+:-y ~kr4 3 ,~ 4 k5~ ~ ~ ''' k ~R'ay% ~ ~ ~t4t.; ,_a Y2`n ~~{~;L~` F1~,.~ .T f - ~ f ` Z' s :n 't f..- t ' ~ ~~yr f ~r., ~5. ~9 '4 z ~r ~~y~~ 1 y; s s~ { _ ,~ _ aa)r ~ _ wx~ ~-i iA - - ~ ~ ~i _.' r a~ s, ~ ~ ` ro s'c'4i S c ~' ~ ~ t r ~ .l+~`S~'- } t r r~~ n was ~~+'~ Yl r [~~j~{ `S ~ r %~s h ~y~,(, t~ o • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 40 of 61 lines on a flat piece of paper and looking at the topography and I can see some "~' '"~ problems in complying with that in this area south. This area here would be very difficult ~ ~:; to meet the density. There is a lot of -- there is a lot of grade differential. If the '` ` ' Commission felt that something needed to be done, you know, it could be done over in this area. That's a fairly level area and that would be an area that density could ~_ increase, but Ithink -- I don't know what kind of product you could build on doubling the density in that area. I mean you got to work within the constraints of the property that ~` z you have. -- ;~., ~; .; Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have any comments? :>, Siddoway: I do. While I agree with most of the comments to Commissioner Borup in relation to the plat, if this was a plat specifically, this is also an annexation and one of the main questions is -- you know, is this in the best interest of the city for a variety of ~_ ~`- ~... „~ reasons. I commend the applicant for the changes that have been made from the F ~~~ °' on final submittal. It does -- it does come further into com Hance with the Ten Mile ~~~' specific area plan, but for me it does not go far enough and I will try and explain that a ;k little bit. A large block of single family, detached, garage front houses on smaller lots ~>-~ ~ doesn't have the showcase appeal to me that this area is striving to become. Forme to ~~' ` be comfortable annexing it I would want at least proposed a whole series of design . standard guidelines from the applicant to show what makes this something special, ~~ '' something of a showcase to match this area. I look at the buffer along the south and ~_ ~. ask, you know, are we -- is buffering the right thing? Are we trying to isolate, segregate, ~: ' are we -- or should there be more thought put into the transitioning the integration with . "'~ , the overall area and what the areas around it are. I lean towards wanting a revised ~:~ development plan with some very specific design guidelines that are in harmony with ~: `~`"" ; the spirit of that Ten Mile comprehensive plan and, again, I think that this is on the right ~, track, it just doesn't go far enough for me to be comfortable with it. For me the two options would be, one, deny it and move on or, two, when is the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment -- is it February? s ~. - ~r:~~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, for the rest of the Commissioners, the ~~ ~ ~ F '• earliest we could have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission is April --Ithink . _' it's the 7th, maybe the 4th, but six months from the last one. We had one in October, so ~' it will be April. ~~ :~ Siddoway: Okay. Well, I mean that pretty well sums up my current feelings, so I'll stand ~~ there. ~F. Borup: Ithink Steve hit on one of the thoughts I had. We are talking about a plat that's not been adopted yet. ,t;=: r.f w'. 4 - ~ Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments? Newton-Huckabay: Overall I generally don't -- other than I agree with Commissioner k .; Siddoway that some elevations would be nice. I haven't spent a lot of time with the Ten ~r ~.~ ~_,,. ,.R' , y.~w~~~~ fY~ ! ~ Y :, 9 . r ~c Y Y, Y T' 1~ ! J v r Wf ~h.,`. .$S ~~~~ - y Et~~4h XF~. ~S Sl ~ ^~F -KT1 y 5,^. l ~1 ~r i,. s a ~, j t 3~. ~ a ` ~ ~ ~ '~~~~ r ~ .c ~~Pk K ~~: "i; • : ~ ~ ~S ~~ -k. .~wi:~t. ..; ~, i., ~~ s - t` ~ ~M1'HL~~F: ~ 4` f ~ _e' _ ~ ~ i F , ~ ~, yw,~, ~,,. ' ` ~v f - i l~,y Y" i ~ V .~ .. - F. ~~j:..:.i]aJ y; , ,. :_'~_; ~.._ `; ~, ~t` r,ts~-. i ~~ ~~ ~ :z k~ +: ,~. ~:~~.. '' Ii ~; •: _x. {, Y ~i,, ~° } ~~t ... T<, ~:'.-~ 'I .;~_ ., ;, ;... r; ; ,,4Y ;. ~, s'fi~..' J Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 41 of 61 Mile area plan, other than the short introduction that we received to it and as luck would have it, I, actually, was traveling the first time this came before the Commission and the second time this came before the Commission and so this the first time I have seen this and so I feel at a distinct disadvantage there regarding the past submittals of it. I kind like the mix of the smaller lots and the bigger lots within it. In two dimensional I could say, well, why don't we just put more houses right here, but remembering back to this area, there is a lot of variation in the land out there, so I mean if it doesn't work and it's not practical, it doesn't work and it's not practical. So, I don't necessarily think adding more in here is going to make that -- I kind of like the way that this whole thing right here appears to me like it would look. You get a combination of the smaller and the larger lots. I kind of like that particular area and I think that bumping the minimum over here to me seems a fair compromise. So, I guess I'll end my comments there. I guess I would be somewhat on the fence. I -- Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I would be -- I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I guess I should say that. I would hesitate to deny it flat out. I think it would be reasonable to ask for conditions. I would think that if staff and applicant have the time and to -- you know, get together over a table, they should be able to come up with some kind of compromise on that. Moe: Okay. Well, because I have been here the other times it's come before us and the last time it was here I do remember that I was very much in favor of the project and, then, it went to City Council and City Council denied it -- or, basically, turned it down, basically waiting on the Ten Mile plan and to see what came of that. So, when I started reviewing this the other day I, quite frankly, wondered why this was back before us, because of the fact the Comp Plan change has not come before us and Idon't -- I don't -- I guess my concern is is that if, in fact, we were -- we were ready to approve it as it is noted today, all it's going to do is turn right back around and come right back, because Council I don't think is going to act on it until the Comprehensive Plan changes have been reviewed and accepted and gone forward. A couple things within that that I -- that I'm concerned about is is I think that although you don't do a lot of high density construction per se in apartments and whatnot, you know that that is something that is wanted. I know you have got the R-40 over there, but you're not planning to develop it and you're looking possibly to sell it off and so, you know, it's -- I'm just not getting a lot of confidence that you're willing to do something in the R-40 area right there and so, therefore -- and I do understand that that's not what you guys do, but Iguess -- so, tonight, I guess I'm saying that there are components of this project I do like, I do like the mix, but at the same point it's -- it is not meeting what has been developed so far in that comp plan and so I have a hard time -- I'd have a hard time approving anything tonight. But I'm not sure I want to deny it either. I think if they could work with staff to basically -- I realize you want to get going on this thing, but I think working with staff through the process and seeing what happens. Borup: Mr. Chairman? .L`a i t} 1 ~, I ~ y ,~j~l ... ~ . ~ ,~ ev H ~~ 7 1~ yy ~,, l~'+ r~~ _ ,.E.w~~~. ~, ~ •~;. ~r Y ~ ~ ~'~k ~' . :. qy,~ C' ~ .~. _ ~ ,~ y t _ L ~ J .'.: ~ °a ' i" ~, ~ `. t ,o ~ ~' f <' ~ a.13' . .~'~ ~ 4F ~J"1~~.hy.. ~t r,, 't~ v°o t J-tr.~,` I ~ i5 ~% ; .~1~ ~J~ i1 ~4 i.l ^+ i 1 ~ ~' ~ 3 ~1'~~1 r- i ~Z E 1 ~~ f Sv :~ ~ ' l • i~ 5 2~ f i ~ ~ iCM~ ~ r `~. ~.~ ~~4Y~^.,..~C < .rt.. e~ ~ ~( ~~_ L. - • ~ f i ~ 34 ^ . ~ ~ Y . ~ ~. r ~A a scy~ c _ n+ t q ~r ~ ~ ~ '~.~ ~ ~ i a4 .', r ,k°~Lii hi.. ~, a•- Y ^`N ' ~r ,r ,: Se ~S. ~ p? n . y_,..Y >; ,: ~. ~ :2' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 42 of 61 Moe: Yes, sir. Borup: A couple things -- thoughts I had with the others. I think that's right, I had the ~~-` ~.~ . same feeling that if this was approved as is I don't think City Council would be looking at acceptance again. I don't know that they necessarily need to wait -- or maybe ask that. °``~~ ~;.; Are they waiting for the adoption of the Ten Mile area or are they just looking at something that's going to substantially comply with it? Or do we know? Maybe -- nobody knows what City Council is thinking. Is that what you're saying? Either way -- ~> : either way it would be a tough sell, probably. I have been thinking about what f€ - ; Commissioner Siddoway said about the vision for the area and I -- I don't know how well ~ ¢' that's put down on paper, but -- and I'm assuming that the applicants would like some -- y ,`, ~" ~ K':: if we could give some suggestions on things that would make it -- that the Commission ~, would feel that it would be in more compliance that they would be looking for any 'w ,. suggestions. So, that being said, I guess I do have one suggesting thinking about talking about the concept and the look of the area and I don't know if that -- but an area -- and I'm not sure where it would be. The topography here would make it difficult and, I ~~ " don't know, maybe down there, but some -- some alley-loaded product. Those can be a ~_.~ ... ~~~ :,r little narrower lots on detached, but you can have some -- or get some pretty good ~ density on a row house type effect and doing those narrow lots with front loaded ~ P , garages turns out to be real ugly product on a narrow lot, because all you have got is ,4 - ~- garage and a front door. The only way to get a nice architectural design is with an alley- F, ;. ', loaded -- alley-loaded product and you can have some beautiful product that way. ` guess not necessarily telling them what they need to do, but that would get the density up partially. I think it's -- I think it's real close and something that would have some of that is something I would be completely in favor of. I mean it's -- in my mind real close now, but that would -- that would get the density up in those areas in at least part of that ~:;~~ area that would be practical. That would be my suggestion. I don't know if you have -~ looked at -- I don't know if the applicant's looked at something like that or not, but you w~:,: can have some design doing that, so -- Schultz: The meeting is not closed -- or the Public Hearing? ~._ i.' Borup: Right. ~::: r= ' ;~ ~. ~ Schultz: Could I ask a question real quick? ,_ ~ Moe: Sure. ;: , ~ Schultz: If we are talking about alleys, that's, obviously, an option in today's market and we do have some alley-loaded product that we could use. What percent -- we are ,. ~ looking for a little bit of direction of what percentage -- we, obviously, can't do all alleys ``' '' with the geometry and things like that, you need some front loaded. What percentage is -;, ~~~~" a good percent? We are just looking for a little direction, because we can -- we want to work with staff if they will work with us. We don't want to just throw the whole thing ~` '' away. We'd like to make some -- we can make some revisions in certain areas and tr" `' (F ~4~ ~ j ,. + S' , ,st. ~~~t 3 r ° ~ ~ , , 2 ;lk'.. . ;v ~~ 3{ .. h ~ kti..}j~. b' r ` ~` 1., ~({[y~ 5 ~ ~ T l ~"~ ~ ~ xTJ ~ - Z.S._ 4-i~^!(,~j 7~-~~ !1 „st ~. i ~.}, h ~, ~ ;, L'< , ~ . ' ~d ~~~~} ~ ro~~ 1 ~ :. ~ t A Y~4 c }a f ~ ~' 1 R +t ~ .f ..rtt Y ~.~ 4 n ' r ~ ~~ M . t Asa t a .- ~` kr ,':' r~~ ~ fi=r ~- S ~ ~~? I ;~ ', ~; ~~~ ~, =r: ~: :~, r; °, r; ~.; ~;... ~-'' ~~ ~4~;., ~"f. Y 1 a~ ~: M: ~' ~~; Yi. -; £. ;: rt~ ~.. ':~; ~'` y. 1 ~* i~' .~ 5, • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 43 of 61 hopefully that could be met with one more variety of product valley-loaded product. One more component. I don't think you go all alley, I don't think that's -- Borup: No, that's not what I'm thinking. I was thinking this area down in here and maybe some row houses alley loaded. You can have some nice designs. Schultz: And alley-loaded product is not a problem as long as we are not doing that little thing, because there is a misconception about density with the current alley regulations with the fire department and ACHD and we -- setbacks, we -- there is a possibility of getting more density if there would be some flexibility in those things. Borup: I was thinking in the medium high density area. Schultz: Right. But we are going to be, you know, a little bit higher, but it's not going to be spectacular. Borup: No. I meant in the geographical area where the alley loaded could be. Schultz: And that's something we can do. I don't want to throw the whole thing away, though. I don't think you throw it all away. Moe: I don't know that I could give you, you know, any percentage per se, but I think the main -- the most important thing is is that you can work with staff, but, basically, on the area -- the southern portion to bring up the density and that's, basically, what they are looking for. Schultz: And as long as we can have this public forum and discussion that that is exactly what we are looking for, then, we feel like we have accomplished something tonight. Moe: Well, again, tonight staff has already made the statement they don't have a lot of problem with the northern portion of this property, it's just that they were looking for higher densities to the south to make for up for it and I, too, agree with Mr. Siddoway, you know, some elevations and some standards that you're looking for and whatnot, I think are going to be very valuable to bring this thing a little closer to reality. Borup: You can have some alley-loaded product without front streets on them or where the -- what the design in front of the house would be on a parkway, something like that. Schultz: I have done that and that goes back to these conflicting regulations on how wide that needs to be. You're almost better off with a street in, because of -- but you're right, I have done some fronted alley loaded on open space and at first people go, well, what are you doing, but it, actually, when you see it, it looks nice. Borup: Very nice. ~":' ~t i. ~.. ~{;: ~~_ : ; ... k h ti, Zk~, i.s ,mot -~v`rl '~ -ati v- ~ ~ d2 ~h `. '~G"~1; u'"` f g ~~~ ra~~ fi r~ ~ y ~ ti?3{.. .~~ ~ :~.~:. ~r ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ,- ~ ~ t ter; ~ ~i ,• t r ~ : ,~ emu., ~ ~, ~4 nFs {~- ~~ ~ t, :~ 3 Lr` ~_ pis ~. "~ti t a~;: ~ k> b.%. ~~+ ~. _, ~ { ., av '~* ~ k L' _.. ~5. ~ CSi+~ :w .Y ~a.< i., .:f~. ry ~ 4 ~ - n ,rry.. C~ _-ti. y- J a r~ ~ ~ y S ~ 1 • ~ ~ JS t ~..n , . : ,"'fW Y H t ~ y Meridian Planning $ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 44 of 61 `(` Schultz: It's different. And that's something we could do in this area around the park or ~' '°° ~'~~~ whatever. Borup: And that s what came to my mind when Steve was mentioning the vision for the area. I don't know if that was -- I don't know if that was one of the things, but when I ~` ;w started thinking about an area to be unique and different, that would go towards it. ~'~;: Schultz: We just don't want to go down in denial. Hopefully we can move -- go back and talk to them, come back here whenever it's practical to come back. I'm not so sure Council's waiting to adopt that plan to approve this, they may or may not. It's hard to Y .? read into their minds on any given night what they are going to do. It all depends on ~~; : how the presentation goes and the response and they do what you do. They make a ~'=> decision based on the testimony presented. ~:: u. ~~ Hood: Mr. Chair? -:~ Moe: Yes, sir. ' '' ll kind of just, you Hood: Commissioners. Since this is an open forum -- and just -- we know, use it for working with the applicant and we'd kind of just like to get some input `~ ~ and we are just thinking out loud, too. Maybe -- maybe get some MEW lots or some ~~ lots that aren't fronted on a public street, but there is a private street in the rear, maybe is fronting some along the drain, the Perdham Drain, having some front doors and that's different, we don't -- I can't think of any project in the city where your front door would, ~- °' actually, be there and, then, you have a private street in the rear loading the garages. P =. mean that offers -- it's the same product type, but it's a little bit different flavor, you can "~' ~; . kind of use that as -- ~~: rtl Schultz: The only fixed point we have is I got a sewer line that's 36 inches in the ground right now. That easement was granted. It's in the ground. So, I am fixed here. You know, that's one thing I cannot move. -, Hood: So, the easement, though, is -- I mean it's 30 feet wide or so? f~'. ~ Schultz: Yeah. The sewer needs to fall within -- I guess technically you could put it in a a<; future easement, but ideally they want it in a public right of way for access purposes and things like that. ~= ; Borup: Yeah. They want -- ~ ~. j Schultz: Especially a 36 inch line. I mean that's something you have got to really have some room for. } ~ `:>. Hood: But rather than a public street, maybe a private street there and you could run ~'' the private street -- I mean it's still just pavement and then -- l ,- k- p ~w` I ~: M1. °~: Y~ ~ al ._ a .. . . '.Pr ''' ' a . t^ is ~ ~ :§ ~ •' k ~ . ~ r ~ . + ~ R ii~ [[ yy ~~A_+3~«~~^~2' L ~&I"~F:~•~''~ ~< ''~ ~ ~ ~ • .Y,, Ny gy'~+, 'is°' y 47.1 5 ..~ F "irr F +~~ lt~ }~f 4~• I ~ ~ ~ f *~ , . . 33 < ,y1 : f +i 3,y4' ~' "•v C~q, ~"~{t ~ 1 I .e ":"~~?f `i : ~ i l . °"~ ', :H~'~1 `}i ` ~ . . , , :P 5 ~~ ~. ~ -N'^ic. .K,~k .e' ' ' r g z~~ 7 ~ ~ , ~ ~ F ~ ~ . g . ~, 'i1 f . .:ry' ,0 x 1 ~~i YSr1.~t ~~ Y~ ~. :ai y -T. P. ! fr J ~~~,5.~ 9 r ,}R•yFc~' 'y % ~ I :. ("•'~~:~• .r~ ,~ ~': ~' ' . r~: . „Pi' w.. ins ~~'Z t ;.: ~ w .r F",>' ~ ( ~::, `~Y'a ~ ,.~;'~,3.': R+; x~ ~ ;t ;~~• a-i . <~~~ •i~"~:s.'A°;y,~r~'yo-: . • r , ., ...: r, '., v. ^ ''. ~ ., ~" . l 4. , ... ~° =~< " r y t . °f '' . v ~ f..~.. . I ~ s ... r. i.' ~H : #: ^ ?~. ~ f'F i .. ... .. .. .~ n'P5' •:P ' y .. ~~,g .9 .. ... ... .. +. : ~F;(';"':3j~!5 ,4~}4xa..~;df3.'. ~C i 4 R { 4 ~ .$ 'F. .~ yy .u TTM:t -•f. 4L' l ~. ~ i ~ ~, 4' _ ... r, . r .... s. F .. .d .. .s. . . t ?a .... .. .. s . ~~t~~... ~~::f~s C^f M ''S _ M`!A}~.~s+ I 144 ~' lF'.. ~VL~ A't ` '9..t~ .. ~•~I a' k F .. 4 <~, .,, f u~e „t~~. ~• ' ~ .~.,' ~ 1'y~f 3a N'~.~ 'OI:, nt•- • , S, ' l'~ ~ p. i. a~'-"r'.,'~e:'sy", Pi~f~x ~~i i n .•r-~"';".k I ~l~F ..7 i s r - da, a Y" ... ..' n i»;z:..! d9 ° e ~ ~ 1 ~ . ~:i'.k. ~• N"' :.w •, t ~Y .: yt ~ t m N pS te ~Afn fxtiV':Y fa~ I'. i~_w`i wy,' ~ 5 ~~ ~I I i f. .,^Y~Y,`~~ 41„Y y .. "~ i,l, •~ ~~ Y~ .: ~ V~. ., .., ~,. tt: ;,f .:4xiY . . a ~ ~ ~ , i ..~~ ~ ~ ... : ~5. a`` • ~•~ `: f ... . _ .. re.t , . ., .. ~ _ 4 ' .9:.1;. .s ~' ,. ~... .. .. ' "~ ' • : a z 3 .. 1 ( F I , .... { ~ ~ ~ ( v ~ . ,; .t, m~~~'~A.~iST~Yc,A`~TX"R)0.~y~'"'~ ~5+. 4 r• ~ S ..t 1 S~ , P ~F y,. s ~ 'vi" :W `Q i 5"~""" ~~ I 1 ~l ~,,. fit., ,~„ b'.:.~: -, r ,' ,' ~ ~; q} ` ~~ }~~ ~• ~ ~' . ' " . j • ~~.c L. ~- w " :>• ' a,. Y~~ e! ~. : : =•; a ~ ~, ~ ` ~ ~ .~ r° , L , ~:aFk ~r , .::f'a."1 7 "< .1;,..r, . s . I ~ ~ Y P ? . r` 6 e,;. i ... • .. . a. ;,, 'Si :Nis'n 5 1• 1 ,. !. k•' ~, ~'~~ ~ ~ 6~~ ~~'~sz-: ~` r ~. _ i < t "°"'b`' ~ ~a"~ ~,t~ ~.~'f~ I :~ ~ • 6. ~ ~ ~~ •`•'`yZV'.•.~iy.X ~'~S' ~e&.%~.~~~. <~~F I ~°^~^."1< n~'i'~'~ ` ~ ~ . . : FF . ~:e °.U ., ,~: I ': F F ~k''~.5'~'.4t it,~ ~ " ,. i,. " ... .. ..I S%La~ : - ( 'f y€ . m'' k c ' " t ~~ ~ ~ f a <. .: , x ri a"'.. 2,.tT ., . f i ='F S,; ~. x,', a 1 .c1... %z .. , j s; ~ f' ~a t ,~ •~b ' Y , .•"'S ` 1 - '~{ Z ~ .r x :FA ' Y _ w __. ,...... ... . riri_ ' F.: r__. .. . ~ ?,, a, :: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 45 of 61 Schultz: The private street versus alley issue is something that, you know, I have never ~~~ really wanted to dive into fully, because it complicates things with ACRD and -- but ;,~ alleys are something that we could do with a MEW facing onto some open space. That r~` is definitely something we can do. I just don't -- I don't want to get up here and design at the podium, because it could take all night. But I do definitely want to come back and ~ ~~ ` show you something different that's, hopefully, based on the input we received that ,= ,s ;~ ~~ -.~, ~:' _i~a ;. ~_ would meet your approval. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Siddoway: And, staff, do you feel that there is room to work with -- what exists north of the line that we have been talking about with some modifications -- and modifying what's south of the -- that line in a way that will bring this into compliance with that draft plan in your mind or is it too far off or -- I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Do you feel like there -- I think we are ready to make a motion for continuance to work with staff and I'm wondering if you feel that's reasonable. Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, I do think that's a reasonable decision. We still support our recommendation for this plan to be denial, so if you decide that continuation is in the best interest of the applicant and us, so that would -- this does not have to be denied -- then, I would be -- staff would be favorable towards that motion, so -- Moe: If I might just -- I think he was looking for a little bit more -- I realize that you guys are more than willing to work with them to make changes, because that's what we want, but I guess I'm understanding you as you're wanting to know whether staff feels there is room to make this thing work. I mean I'm basing that on your comments that you had no problems with the area to the north, but you did want some reworking to the south and so if you can come together with them and work that through, is that something you think can happen? Hess: Correct. If they -- Commissioner Moe, yes, if they can make the effort to provide what we were looking for, we are definitely in support of that, so -- Moe: Thank you. Borup: And maybe that's one of the questions what I was looking for. But I have got concerns of trying to do 12 units per acre. It's going to come out looking like an apartment complex and I don't know if that's the vision for that area or not. Something with a row house or even a detached row house alley loaded -- I mean esthetically has a very nice look, but you're talking trying to get 12 units per acre. It's going to be an apartment complex design. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? And I would just say that while we may not be looking for the apartment complexes that we have seen around here, there are other versions of ~ } .. f ~f ~- i ~'"O ]t,~ s}F>.y~. F' H y h. i ..~. } d 4 ~ '~v f r < r7~' ~~ ~ ~i,; ~, a ,,,~: ~%:'r. r ~ r-r _-~-- f ~.yyL a~~.; . i~., 1, ' , Y' ~ , Yyv~ ~., I~i'1 t~4'.t~',N.~:. }~ .: ~ `~~~ ~ c~.~. ~'N ~ t . At ~~ J~ r ; = 7' ` ~ ~:~ T E..} 'v3'~ 5 # N "G-' ,[ 1~"/; ~ ~ YMx ~R'.v~ ~~~ ~' 7 ti~i ~ 3!!'fk::(.. 1 ~ ~ -,y < t Ja t = Pub .yap. ~, '~ ~ 1 t t~ y .. f, ' Y. :~ ~:. ~K ~~.. ~G,4a. w~- a x ;~ ~r ~ ~ . } . i it i .~rv ." ~..~ ~ ~. ;y ~~~Ay.~i:~. 4 ~. j *r t' F;'c ~~ ~ Prc t~~~~~- ~ t ~ r. +~~ } ': Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 46 of 61 i ~. ~~ - ~. _ ,~, €~~: a:: ~. ~>> P_ y, ;. ~, ir; . ~" $~' Apr,-~:. ,. . apartment complexes and I'll give an extreme example, just to make a point and, then, back off. But, you know, you can go to New York City and the apartment complexes are very different. Now, we are not looking for New York City here, so I'm backing away now, but my point is that the apartment complexes that we have seen would not be the vision here, but there are certainly other forms of apartments that could be great. Newton-Huckabay: For example? Borup: Winding Creek in Eagle would be an example. No. Those are six units per building. Siddoway: And they would be multiple story, most likely. Baird: Mr. Chair, for the purposes of the record, could I recommend that we not have a give and take from the audience at this point and that we speak to the Chair. Moe: Yes. That would be fine. Siddoway: Okay. I'm ready to make a motion, but I am looking for a date. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, I guess my first thought -- and I talked to the applicant, actually, before the hearing even started this evening about potentials for this application and there is, obviously, some -- we are going to need to communicate and it's going to need to be revised. Just so you know, our hearings -- the 1st is not good -- February 1 is not good. January 18th I don't think is even a possibility based on the discussion so far tonight. That's only two weeks. February 1st if full. The 15th we moved two big projects to that agenda. It's not very full per se, but those two projects we moved tonight are fairly large projects. We do have a couple more that we are trying to get to the clerk's office this week, so I don't know if that's enough time or not. I don't know -- I imagine Mr. Schultz will probably be in tomorrow talking with us, but I don't know how much time he's going to need. You may want to -- you know, we will work with them, I just don't know if even that's enough time to really get a new plan, bring it to a comments meeting, see if any other agencies -- you know, ACHD may have comments if things change. I don't know how much things are going to change, so we probably need to reroute this to -- you know, again, the highway district, the fire department, see if they have any -- the police, see if they have any concerns. March seems like forever, but that may be -- you know, may be a good place to go. So, that's just my two cents. Moe: I would anticipate around the 15th of March. You know, I would also say that probably does another -- another point and that is you're saying the Comp Plan Amendment is coming up in April, between now and, then, I would probably be wanting to get a little bit more into that, as well as even talking to some of the Council members just to get some opinions of theirs, just so I can kind of review that a little bit better as well, so -- ~. r4.; ` q I •~ ,, _ ~y6~;:. Y~ -' F !Y ~~'~4 N ~ Ja^''. Y +Y# ~` ~ ~~ , ~";g. 7 ~ '~n5 Fy ~t ~~. ~U~i~ ~y ~;: ~ v.~~ j ,r ~ ~~ F~ ? i `~c:``~- ~ ~ $ ~ t ~z~, ~S~n ~ ~ _ °~5 ~t t ,~ . :~ , , a l •. ' : 1 . i y {.., 'I~S}7N~ L- ~y M1"i ~~~'SM ~ ~ ~' ~ ~'y ~ q ~ t ~j - ~ ~~ y ~y~1 ~ .lyi~! } Titi ~ u ~!.~'r ,_ .:: ~~.:~ ri : ~> ;~ .~.;~ r: M ~;='i a;.. ~~ ~;;° F, e, ~: _ ... 5;'I ;.,r ~. I ~, , ,;,» .4 '~ .: ~, Y. rt=,. °. -, ;' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 47 of 61 Borup: I would be curious if the applicant feels he needs that much time. Moe: Would you, please, come up. Schultz: I don't think I have a choice, but -- I really don't. I mean I'm not going to be -- you know, downplay the amount of work to be done. Borup: Well, the option would be -- Schultz: We are going to do a great deal of work, but we are very efficient at what we do and very quick and very motivated. But, at the same time, if it's not practical, then, it's not practical to us on an agenda. But time is not an issue with us. We are very motivated and very efficient. Borup: An option would be to do it two weeks earlier and, then, if it's not ready do a continuance. Moe: The 1st of March? Borup: Yeah. Moe: I don't have a real problem with that either. My biggest concem is that you bring up and it -- perhaps time isn't a real concem of yours, but I'm concerned about time on staff as well with the other projects. Schultz: I understand there is a lot of stuff going on. March 1st is great. We appreciate it. Thanks. Moe: Thank you. Anybody have a preference for the 1st or the 15th? Borup: The 1st is almost -- I mean that's almost eight weeks. No. What, a good seven - weeks or whatever. _~~~ Siddoway: Have we been putting continued hearings on the second meeting in general, ~; to hold the first meeting each month for the new applications or new applications are ;; going on all -- that was two years ago. t °, Moe: I guess I could probably go with what Commissioner Borup said. I think we could go to the 1st and if we have to continue it, we have to continue it. 4_i.- , ~ ~ Siddoway: All right. I'd like to make a motion that we continue Public Hearing -- .looking r ~, ~~~~~~ for the number. AZ 06-061 and Public Hearing PP 06-062 to March 1st, 2007, with direction to the applicant to work with staff to bring the development plan into stronger ~~' ~: compliance with the proposed Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and also to bring forward some specific design guidelines that are in conformance with that plan, so that what is brought back at that time is more than just a different density plan, it is also -- it ~~ ;: ~~: ~;, 1~" Y N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F _ F~ `r ' 4 ~-y ~ ~CtY ~~~;' ~ ~ x i 't ~ a`xC'. : ~ r - ~ y~~~j t ;r x~r.,..1s1e '. F - Y 3 : ~ ~ 1,-•F a (x%~.'1w::~. `Y!+~~ `( l' 4 ~ Y i .ot' n ~~ .. FAI h «~.~ 1 ~-4 . F 4Tµ i 1 t 4wh.~/ f .~' be k~..3 ~~~. - ; a~r kE, ~} ~ :q, i k 'f`@ . t f. tea.. i ._ ~ Meridian Plannin 8~ Zonin 9 9 • , ~ January 4, 2007 r,~; Page 48 of 61 ~' also includes the proposed design guidelines in conformance with the concept for that area. Newton-Huckabay: Second. ;; ; 'h '` Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings AZ 06-061 and ;,K PP 06-062 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission k of March 1st, 2007, and requesting that the applicant work with staff as noted in the } _ motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. We will see you back the 1st of March. .~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. k=' v;.- :~ Moe: At this time we are going to take a five minute break real quick and, then, we will ~. I°' <' come back and hear the next. (Recess.) Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for ~~_-. ~ Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. ~`" Magic View Court: ~r~ .,.. ~~ Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-049 '`'~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6multi-family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3 common /other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly '` Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: Moe: At this time I want to reconvene the hearing and open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly Q~';~ Place Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Wafters: Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Waverly Place Subdivision. The subject applications were previously heard at the Commission meeting on November 2nd, 2006, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare Findings and conditions of approval. Staff had not prepared conditions of approval, because staff is recommending denial of the project. The subject property is ~~~ ~^-~° 5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The property is located at r~ ~;` ~. ~~;, n.. vh ~ •~.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .` -C } , n .Jr.~. ~ ~~y '.,;~~ ; ~ -~~ y~. ~ ~ ` a ~ `. ` ~ fy tjs2;H~ .. f W ~~ . ~ V .' ~ _ ~. l y W i"IIN.~.. ~3~ . R ~~ .~ F Y } _ y7 14~~t.~~. v1 5y ;+'"~~~ #~~t r~t~ < ~ ~ ~ j ' .. T~ .7y ~k~. F ' r ~p.~';'~, ~_rµ ~ ~ '-~Y y. ~ t a: iflF ~ ,.ri '~'~Y l~ ~~ r fy~~':~. nx ~.r r~~-:; .~ ~~~ ~'_ ' r ~ 2 v ,, ,> :: ,, t y 'i ~ ~r m~ vy d~,v o ( ,~ - -S~iJ r5 ~4 ' ~ ° ^~ ~ '~ , ~~ , ~ ~ Rs<, ~-.; ;, ::,~ .. Mendian Planning 8 Zornng '•. ~~ January 4, 2007 Page 49 of 61 `~ 'I n ~~ 2510 West Magic View Drive, approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and a half mile north of I-84. If you look at the vicinity map here that shows the location of the ,r ,°'~ property. Woodbridge Subdivision is here to the west, residential development, zoned ` '" III R-4. We have Greenhill Estates Subdivision, an existing county subdivision, one acre `' I lots, zoned R-1. On the east and south by existing rural residential properties on five •~# ~ acre lots, zoned RUT in Ada County. An aerial view of the property. The applicant is F . ~ requesting that this property be annexed and rezoned to the L-O, limited office zoning ~~ ,;~ district, for multi-family residential use. The UDC requires a Conditional Use Permit for ~'`' multi-family uses in an existing L-O zone, which the applicant has also applied for. The ~~:- Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office. The office designation ~` ~~~ 'I provides for low impact business and office uses, but does not support residential uses on property that is not yet zoned as office. Because of this, staff does not believe that - i the requested multi-family use complies with the Comp Plan designation of office. Here ~'` `~ is a view of the plat that's proposed. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat "~ for six multi-family residential building lots, consisting of 24 units and five common area ~ ,~ ` lots, including a clubhouse lot on 5.3 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum `''`"' "'I dimensional standards of the L-O zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision -: ' is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size in the proposed development is ;` 21,585 square feet, with each of the dwelling units between 1,500 and 2,000 square ,,' feet. The applicant is proposing 16.36 percent open space of landscape common areas ~ and a 2,000 square foot clubhouse. A ten foot wide landscape buffer is required along East Magic View Drive and along the interior local public streets. A 20 foot wide landscape buffer is required on the west, north, east property boundaries adjacent to ,~~~' residential uses. A copy of the revised site plan that the applicant submitted on s I December 15th after the last hearing. Access to the site will be provided from the o-: ~ extension of East Magic View Drive and the proposed internal public streets. The lots in the northwest and northeast comer of the development will be accessed by common drives, extending from the public streets within the development. Since the last meeting ~ •~ :`~ the applicant submitted a revised site plan as shown overhead and a letter stating that - all units will have a two car garage. The site plan has been revised to include a 20 foot ~; wide landscape buffer along the west, north, and east perimeter boundaries. Trash '~~ enclosures have been added to the site plan. A minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space will be provided for each unit as required and two common lots have -? been added, so that the adjacent lots to the south and west of the common drives here , will not be required to take access to these common drives. The staff recommends denial of the subject applications based on the comments previously stated and those ' '~ stated in the staff report regarding compliance with the Comp plan and the Findings of -+> Facts as listed in Exhibit D. Further, staff recommends condition of approval number ~;:;~ 1.2.5 regarding private street standards be stricken and a condition of approval be ';`~~`' added that requires the common area lots added adjacent to the common drives here to ~`` ~ meet the UDC standards regarding dimensional standards and landscaping requirements. That's alt staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners at this time? I ~ .. s. y ,. T' r ~o .. ~; r~ °ex 1 i ,. . 3 ~!! ,~>•", ,~ 6;rab .',, y ~ ± »< ; r, ,. 3: . !z^„r , S ,c :I C''.. ';...<,.Qy'YAUY .,-+-r-.r~~,':.'~3','•.. r"y"",~ • ~ • „~•c~,~~,zaix d.~-`y§n,~;:Pr~`•,~-Lr:i: r'~,.+:q. ~..~. •,}> ~,;~;.~ '~~ .i. ~ y7j(,~~A MRi ~ ':i.r:s:~ X.'F.. ;,. ~,r} ~S ;Ms .oK y~,[~i; 4~ ''^' 4 •. { is .~~: •'•~f i~ ~ 'I' '•~', .''e J''''J,^" ^7a 1< '~1 `. ~°~iF"'~~•~..i'A,'V ~ t i ~F ~~Fyi,' '~.~ ~ ~J'~~ry: ~ 4 3 i r . ysyi "~~ ", ~ ., J ~ riw '. .tt_f, s"~ riHl~ w cC~.a vsP 8q §~.` 1~ •.~t Z~ ~ III 4 S kM ~jA:.~r'y~. ~„ I ~ •~x'2.A ~ axt. ~'y4~;'z fY.~'~t. ~'~ it !~ :.~- 3 1t Y ff : 'i •- ~ < ~d r ., .. 7 r F'. ~ d r~ '7 .' I . i,,• ~~ ~' s,a .L . . 'j?... ~`,,;r.5 ~` .;~I~:;'rz -~.d-~'~ S.~a ~a r~-i ;~ g,:~. ••h•: .: ..?i"~ .~er.:7~:w~` ~~~ :.~i~'•ti~~-',;~y,."~~sa~"•.~".~ it is ~ :;~.I ~..; ~ f. rr4 ~ ~'' .F .a~r• ,=~;+` ••,'' ~ z z wv'It~ ~ `` tI 9 a 'y' .f`~;~. IY i rk X74 ° "~ I • ~ ~~.. °r 3,r .a b.l..:•" ".ia.t%ai ~yx °~ ••-'~`cti §1'S~?~~,~a< 3 :lam; i ` 4,'•.~ ; III I I }} .. 1^ "A": -a ~'r - I ' r I k. YG, i6'i1~~ie.~ 4 ~. fr'+; ;~'''1... ••Ye •'4~-d' +~~ I . F y"L`~44',•'~kr c~, x' i~.~."`'~°y I `~~,`^' .~, t'> ~x".j.~ ~ Y E ~ "&•~y~S~fq ~ W ~S. ~' t.l'.: _ . °, '1.: ~.F,~ s `y III ". ~~~,r~~' x § n:c', Y~i,,au.o t~ ~, _ i u,~ s'~ 4 t > t r r,~ t ~~k~` ..5', x a~r`p:., 'i „;~+1r y ~I ., .,A ~ ~y `Y~.`e. "~ ~ k ~ F h 3y% ~' ..x , r ' <I. ti t' Y ~ ~ .j 3 . ; , t S ., j.a. '.ar ~~ . I. "L J Yt} ~~ ~~ fy of :. <r 1 ~ i~R .e~~..:.,"f5 1 rvPo, • .. e.. , ~ x - ~~II Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 50 of 61 Borup: Question on staffs last comment that it needs to meet -- so, you're saying that those do not meet the design standards now? ~~ Wafters: Commissioner Borup, I should have clarified that a little better. The plan that the applicant submitted on December 15th shows the -- I got an eight and a half by 11 ~_ ~ copy, I didn't get a full size copy. It did show the common lots there adjacent to the ~~ common drives, but I thought that the applicant intended to construct private drives instead. So, that's what my comments were based on. It was brought to my attention at this meeting tonight that those were not private drives, that they were still going to be common drives, but that a common lot had been added to the south side here -- .,'~ Borup: Okay. H; Wafters: -- of this common drive and the west side of this common rive, tus o ~X ~ ~ separate it so that those lots wouldn't be required to take access to that common drive. Borup: So, you're saying the design that we are looking at now is in compliance? :> P<- Wafters: I can't tell what the width of the common area lots are that the applicant is r,._„ proposing. They may or may not meet our Unified Development -- Uniform ~''"~ Development Code on that. Borup: Okay. Then, it sounds like you said staff is still recommending denial. Wafters: We are. Yes. a~;~ Borup: So, our motion from last time to prepare Findings for approval did not take t;-~ place. ~ , : Wafters: Staff did prepare Findings and conditions of approval for the Commission. ~_ - Staff is still recommending denial. Borup: But staff still -- okay. That makes sense, because you were recommending it before. °~- ~ ~~ z:' }.. ~. F ;a Wafters: Yes. k:. /,'r. F ~ Borup: Thank you. F... ~ I, Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. E z-," ~,an '`~~ Siddoway: Sonya, am I remembering right that this is a property that t ere was a - previous application on about a year ago or is that a separate property? 3:.~, ~. ~'IYi - ~•~ ~~I' {~• %' ti y '~ r ~ ,; x~ ~r,~ - t Sir ! Y ~' ~ t _ d4 ;rtiy~~~:. f r~t rr f ~'~i .~~~ 5 ~ - f * ' F ~w~ f ). S~ f ~ ~ t .E 1 ,~::' K ~ ~ 1~ ~i (. ~~~4 rnt+~' 3 ~ - 1 4 1 ~ i .c . - 4 V, i:,' ~Y .. ~ ` a. '4%y'l.s, , f.T S 1. Y -~,~A~y.. i1 .,~k1 O 1'~t ~l.!~.: ~. qF ,ice 1.' , 4 ;~' ' ~ ~~~``±y i+' . ` ^~ ~~,: ,fir .~.~o-y,~n,. - . t ° ~ Y ~ ,r~'4 tf [i. "'~ i 4TH ( Y Z 'rv9N *~'x"f ~~. ~L :~~~ .. ~ ~~S = ~ t.. b4 r ` ~'~~ E '~:~. 1 k - r { ~. ~. - . - ,,~~..~~ ~ ~Jl~L~~~l,, yb ? d z.. .. nl~ t.?y.y.. - =. ~ , a "~~d?y; J,. `2 .+1~~i.`1~.,~ sr 5u w :~ , ti ~-.- 'r' :.5~.. ^" Meridian Plannin 8 Zonin x , 9 9 '~ January 4, 2007 ~;.~~: Page 51 of 61 ~'~ ~'` Wafters: I believe you're speaking of the property directly south of that. ~.: Siddoway: Okay. Okay. But that project -- I don't remember the name, but the -- was ~ ~ denied by Council because it included residential uses? Are you familiar with that one? ~< ~5 ;~, Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, that was solely residential uses in there. know Conger Management did the project, but I don t remember the name, but, yeah, it was -- it was denied. I don't remember exactly why the Council denied it, but I know ~ ~~` `" there was a lot of neighborhood opposition, as well as staff wasn't -- I think the recommendation maybe was even for denial, but -- or for approval, excuse me. But ~, :, know that the neighborhood came out in force at that meeting. ~ Siddoway: Okay. ~~" -; Hood: And if I may, before the applicant gets up, I was just going through Mrs. McKay's letter before the hearing and it did mention adding the common lots -- I think Sonya thought that the common lots were the common driveways and, therefore, private streets. If she could clarify maybe how wide that landscape buffer is on the ;<{ -.: south side -- I guess it's on the north side of Lot 2. North side of Lot 2 between the ~t - common drivewa and on the west side of Lot 5 -- five I believe it is. Just with -- and ~~ Y just for reference, I was trying to thumb through the UDC. I don't see where it says -- it ~='~= says any lot that abuts a common driveway has to take access to it. I don't see any standard that says a one foot strip or a ten foot strip to separate those is required. ~ Generally, a five foot landscape buffer has sufficed as a separation requirement, so I r?'',"' don't know what they are proposing, but just as a reference, I don't see that in the code anywhere, but we have in the past done that, if that property is not taking -- we need at ~' ~ ~ least five feet, a common lot or some other strip through there, so they don't take ~. ,=t~ access -- or adjacent to abutting the common driveway. ~j ,~- ~ '` ' Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Caleb, could you use the -- Caleb, could you use the pointer ~; . ~~ -~ and point out which area you're refemng to? t~;~ Hood: Yeah. There is -- this is a common driveway here and, originally, during the first hearing we noted that this lot, as well as these four units -- so, all five of these -- one, two, three, four, five would have to take access to it. The applicant has revised the plan ~'~°~A~ ! and it has a common lot landscape strip running along the north side of this building, ~;' this unit here, so they won't have to take access. Same situation over here. These four J~ will take access to the common drivewa . This is the one that the want to have a Y Y ~ 4 driveway come off of the street, so there is a landscape strip running right there. And ~.,~. , it's just hard to make out how wide that is on the plan. . Moe: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant come forward. :, f" ~. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, G' ~~ I Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Just to refresh the Commission's ~: memory everything was already completed at the past hearing. We had neighbors in i ~~-'..~ p~ j ~ 1 y ` ~€•~ a a ,~ ~~ ~ k ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~r~"V}tA~_. 1 Y ,ti Yi %y~~. ~1 ~ ~ * I : ~ G•Z~~Y ~- ~,t - j~7~ei:}W.j~~, T F." :, ~1{~ k n ~. - : .. `~ti , s ° - i ~ ~: ` r r a ~, e '!F ~. , P q ~, „~~;SC~:, nT ~ ,w •i > k > ~;.~, ~ ~ r rl: ¢. cA~ 5 f'~yT orb M { - } ~ Z 1r~ - waif Y+ , y.y ~y11pz`L~;. .,,,.: r ~: ~~ .,' ~ ~ 5 ~1_ f~ 4 ~ +~.+}4 4 ' ~! l'- { +r 1 ~~ i? s ~ ^p .;;: 'H.r'N4d'~: ,µ ~ ~ 11•;y~ _ ~, ec ~" Meridian Planning & Zoning ``` January 4, 2007 '~; ' Page 52 of 61 ~~- ~`'~'' support of the project from both Woodbridge and Greenhill Estates. I think the president .. of the homeowners association did attend and supported the project. The Commission ' - indicated that they liked the project. The primary concern was brought up by the staff that there were some outstanding UDC items that they thought it was important that we ~~ "li modify our site plan to make sure that we could comply with the UDC. I believe ~. Commissioner Moe's question to me at the last hearing was could we go -- was that -: possible for us to bring this into compliance with the items listed in the staff report as ,,: ~:~ being deficient under UDC regs. We have modified the staff -- or site plan, resubmitted it to the staff with a letter, which should be in your packet dated December 15th. Due to the fact that -- that this request for zoning is L-O, we are required to have that 20 foot ~:; -, landscape buffer around the north, east, and west boundary. We had 15. We did bring T;r ~ it into compliance. Secondly, the issue was these two common drives that were going ~' ~ to su ort these four units at the end, met all of the criteria with the exce tion of one of PP p -' the things in the UDC stated that all lots that adjoin or abut a common drive shall take Wt ;- access to it. So, staff brought up the fact that this would be the fifth unit --this would be ~'` ' '~ the fifth unit, therefore, we were not in compliance. We did provide a separate lot here. ;~-~.''- We have one I think that is like four -- between four and five feet on this one and this one over here is the larger one, I think it went like seven, up to nine, and I came off the ~_> ~ building with like a ten foot setback and, then, I set that common lot there, which, ~` ~,fi, therefore, created a separate lot, which means this unit or this structure here does not ~> ~ abut the common drive, therefore, bringing us into compliance. The other issue was the '° e~ That it is uno uestion about this stub street that's u here in Greenhill Estates ened .: q . p , p unimproved right of way that was on the 1974 Greenhill Estates No. 2 plat. In talking ~. ~ with the Greenhill Estates neighbors, they indicated they had two of those unimproved, '' unopened right of ways, one goes -- abuts the north boundary of Woodbridge and they said, you know, we already fought this battle before. We were told those stub streets "`'~ ° would not go through. In the Woodbridge situation I guess they put an emergency ~` '~ vehicle access only, but no improvements were made to that right of way as far as ~:~, J , ` making it a vehicular public street connection. They said that it is their intent that they `! are going to vacate that old stub street, there are trees, landscaping, driveway buildings "~ -- you know, it's one of those ones that was done so long ago people forget that it's even there and it almost becomes a part of their lot. So, we overlaid that on an aerial, = submitted that to the staff, and it does not abut this comer based on the assessor map and that overlay, it is offset from us. So, we don't believe that it would be reasonable ~; ~~ that that stub street would be extended to the south. We have, you know, that " ~~" ' interconnectivity issue with the Greenhill Estates has been fought before and the ~;~: neighbors said that they would object profusely with the district and the city if that were ,- , to take place. The staff asked that we indicate the trash enclosure locations on the site h ~ , ~~ plan. We did delineate three different locations, obviously, subject to Sanitary Services }~ approval. The other question was on the floor plans did we meet the requirement of 80 square feet of open space for each unit. We have covered courtyards and covered . -> patios. We did submit a highlighted site plan to the staff showing how those -- that 80 ~'~ ~,., ~ foot would be satisfied. Lastl the staff wanted us to indicate on the roe where the Y, p p rtY ~, a; management office, maintenance storage area, and central mailbox location would be ` °~~~ located. That will be located within our clubhouse facility. And, then, staff had the question of do any of these buildings exceed 10,000 square feet. No, they do not. So, ~:. 4 .-... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~I 1 I, '! g ~ ~ F ~ ~ , k Y ~ fit ~ ~S `~~ ef ~ '~ 9F' "., i ~.`~Y !_ 7.c1 ~~t~' ~. ~'~ ggt3 11 1 ~' ~ ~~ } }r ~' "} r ~ y.~fi.-- ~~~ ~~ r ~~ ~ J . .,, I~~C ~r~~ '~.{.j 5 k y~~ 4 ~ J _ ~ ~~~;~~ ~ ~~_, „tr~~Y~ 7~~~ '~S ~ ~ e ~ ~ t~ ~ q~C...r' y, "43;,' ~* ~ I ~ ~ ' . h 6 C;}`Y ~ L~ ~ ~ e `. ~ ' . .y^ rr t ~ + A ~ tJ'. -_ ~j -c 1 ~{. ~`L~t~ ~ r~Y~~', t~t ~.3' .~ i ~ ~r~ ~ ~.?r. ' ~..,1 b 4 ~~ - '~, ~ ~,~f'. ~: ;~ ' C ~ , th ' 1 7 '.~. G L. ~ cif { }7 f. t j . t ~ r _ '. , .fi p . . Y, f ~T f ;. ~~ tKaa. .,ry.t ~~~ N .3 1 i _ f~ 5~. ?r H ] .f 7`~! ~ u~. iiit~"' ~ 7n t ..~ t ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 53 of 61 ~::; ~'`" we have brought this into compliance. I'll stand for any questions that the Commission .r may have. ,~ Moe: Any questions of staff? McKay: Oh, Mr. Chairman, one other thing. To answer Mr. Siddoway's question. The `` " Conger Management project, they submitted a Comprehensive Plan map Amendment. Y ~`'~ That is what the Council had the problem with. They did not feel that they should '~~:;4 change the Comp Plan map for one parcel and it was I believe Councilman Rountree's ~2 statement that they believed that the -- with the L-O designation on the Comp Plan, it still allowed for multi-family under a conditional use, therefore, the Comprehensive Plan map amendment would not be an appropriate procedure, because they believed that the ordinance allowed for that option. So, that's why we sat back, Mr. Siddoway, watched that application to see how the Council and the staff approached it and we took ~' ` ~ a different direction, therefore, asking for annexation to an L-O with a CU. 4- v ~:-~f: ~' : Siddoway: Do you remember was the -- the project itself denied or just the -- McKay: Because the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, therefore, the project -- the whole thing went down. ~- ; Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, comment was made by Council that -- regarding medical s ~; offices in that area as well, regarding that Conger project. Most of that they envisioned for medical. Siddoway: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Because it was back where the real estate group is now in that new r: '_, Sparrow -- no. Sparrow Hawk. ~.. '` ~~~ ~° ~~ McKa I think Commissioner Huckaba Is ri ht, with the size of that ro ect it was Y~ Y ~ 9 P j ~. larger and I think they said that they would like to see some type of a mix in there. I ~: believe she is absolutely correct. Siddoway: Yeah. And I could well be wrong, but I had thought that their comment ~ regarding office uses as the primary intended use applied to that whole buffer area on ~~: the Comp Plan that shows as office, which would include this lot, but Idon't -- that's ~. what I'm wrestling with. Okay. ~. ~a r, Moe: Yes, Mr. Borup. N Borup: You were going to give a clarification of those lot -- individual lot buffers. f~ ~ ;; McKay: Yes, sir. ri ;., °- Borup: 'You said four or five and seven or nine. Which is it? ~R= ~j ~~ :.~- ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~, t:. ~~ ' #A ~ y .. 4 < ?? i ~ r +9' 1 k ~ y~~F ~,~ ~ '' ~ ,~ ~~ ' vra,, ~~ ~! ~~. ~ 7 - - ~, ~ ~tXw ~ . ~ ~ -] ~~fi ~~ ~ +Y P ~ r J-~ t. ~ `~~ F ~ ~: ~Y h :.. ~Y rt S_ Y' • t L~ ~~ f t ~f ~ f b ~ 5 -. - Qr~f ~s}; ~ x r, ~ ti .`. _ .~. 'k,' ~",. ~ ~~~ '.,,~ ~t ~ Vii,' ~ ~~;~ ~ W i ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ` 7 ~. ~' r 'n' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ f C ~~ ~ i 1~1'y{try '~:S ' '~ A;e4- N,7 ~~se~Y~ ~ ~^ t ~. ry~ apd ; } 1 l ~'~N~-i*Z 3 ,~ ~ 2 4i' i ~F ~'f ~ ~+ i. ~ ~ ' V F' ~ ~ f r ~~~: ce i ~ '" -rr 't.. i~ ~ ,::i ..7 A ., dy,~;, ~ C:=~ IS ; IFS C '~ ~ ~~r 3`n",~' y .#~" rL ~ @ {i ,S,~,I ~ a f ,;~; z . ~; ~% ~. ,; ".~~ ~., ;; :. F S„~, ~: _f :,~, ;'. ~ _:>*~ -f~ 4+' Aµ ~-~ ,,- y ~, i ~~~ i :`;' i .:* I ,, , ~~:'~I Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 54 of 61 McKay: Oh, the lot -- it's not consistent -- it's not the same all the way. Borup: Okay. It tapers. McKay: It tapers. I'm sorry. I didn't clarify that. That's -- I confused you. Borup: All right. I understand now, then. The taper was -- McKay: It's a taper. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Moe: At this time signed up would be Rich Allison. Okay. From the audience he says he has nothing further to add. That was it. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up and speak. Okay. No one wants to come up. So, what does the Commission feel about this project. I guess -- Borup: I think we made the decision last time. Moe: I guess my point would be that I, quite frankly, how Mrs. McKay has made the comment that I made comments that I liked the project and if some of these things were taken care of that I wouldn't have a real problem with it, I think -- I think most of the Commission last time was very much in favor of this project in the location and one of the main reasons was that we were here when the Conger project came up and all the neighbors were very adamant about the fact that they weren't wanting to see that project go. But on this project here they were very much in favor of it and they were excited to see that this would be coming forward. Based upon the fact that they have gone back and they have made the changes that we felt needed to be made, I am still very much in favor of this project. Borup: And I agree. And maybe for Commissioner Siddoway's information, I think that was the thing that influenced me the most was the comments from the neighborhood. That was -- there was no -- there was no opposition at all. In fact, we had the homeowners association president come and testify in favor of -- that's probably the first time we have ever seen that on something that was -- Moe: Not to quiet anyone up, but does somebody want to make a motion to close the Public Hearing and, then, we can continue this discussion. Borup: So moved. 8 ~ ~- Y 1 S'~ ' : K ~'V- f ~ ~ t .Y tcG¢. C. ` 4. h ,~`}.,.~ ~ ~ i F V k, ~f'Lk.e Y r Y._ _ 3 ~ ~,Y~,r~_ ?S ~~ ~ t, 5 ~ ~ q~ ,y., iy - y ~..~ / I CC 1 ~ ?e*.~w id ~~ ~~ ~, e` ~ T ~ r ~ + '$ rt YE$c ~.(?'~. Y { 3 c~ ,~ { ~~~ F, k '~+ J~ , 75 1': ~~* K frj' f r x' ` .+} L 7 ~ ~ }! ~ ~ '' r . ~~~ ~ }~ , :'~~ ~... sn y t ~p,:~~7y-, S ~iS ~ h rl':~. r ~ ~. .3 r ~; ` ~..__y, . ~ ~.~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 4, 2007 F; Page 55 of 61 n:.~;~ Siddoway: Second. ~ ,: Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06- ~~ 047, PP 06-049, and CUP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those ~;.. ~. -; =~ opposed same sign? That motion carries. ~ ~, MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. :' , Moe: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, do you have any comments on this? ~~ -~ Siddoway: I do have a question for staff. Is it -- is it staffs current interpretation of the g ~~ ~>. Comprehensive Plan that areas shown as L-O are restricted to office uses and not .;_ necessarily other uses that are conditional in an L-O zone? Sony. Maybe I didn't say ~- ~"` " that right. The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office -- I think I said L-O. ~~ ~ ` The area shown on the Comprehensive Plan as office would be limited to office and not ~~ ~'" necessarily uses as defined in the schedule of use control for the L-O zone. Is that '`` ' correct? " Watters: Correct, Commissioner Siddoway. The Comp Plan actually says that the ~_ -=:~~ office designation will provide opportunities for low impact business areas. These would ,_'~_'' include offices, technology and resource centers, ancillary commercial uses may be "_ considered, particularly within research and development centers or technological ~' parks. r~ Siddoway: Okay. ~ Watters: It does not speak of residential uses in the office designation. ~r--~:. ~.II s ., Siddoway: And my next question would be to legal counsel. Is it within the Commission's purview to add their interpretation of the office designation to say that it _f .:~, should include other uses? ".~ ,~ . ~ Baird: Members of the Commission and Commissioner Siddoway, the code is what it is. . ~~= :~` ~~ It either has it or it doesn't and -- ~ ,~ ~ the code has residential - ou know, multi-famil uses as a Siddoway: Well, - y Y r;<<~: I Conditional Use Permit in the limited office zone. ~r x ~~- I Baird: There you go. ~ Siddoway: What's not -- but the Comprehensive Plan for office lists uses and lease out ~} residential and so -- ~~ "'" ~ Baird: So, you have got -- the Comprehensive Plan is your general guide, the code is -x; what you have to follow and that's why this has been presented to you as a CUP, so if ~- -~ you believe that in this L-O zone this particular proposal can be appropriately ~: . ,: Lf E, ~~ i;, ~:: x~. ~~ P" Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 56 of 61 ~~ conditioned, you're being asked to approve it with those conditions. If you don't believe ,,;,. that it can be conditioned, then, your option would be to deny it. ..~': P Siddoway: And just one last point just so I'm clear. By approving this application ~~ tonight we would be directing the Planning and Zoning staff to alter their current interpretation of the office designation for -- in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for residential uses in areas other than this specific lot. ~' F- Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway, I suspect that the planning staff has ~' ~~_~ considered this a little bit more fully and, in fact, the mike was just grabbed by Mr. Hood ~. and he might have some thoughts to shed on the subject. k:~~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Baird, Members of the Commission. Mr. Siddoway, I don't think this sets any precedent for any future applications. We will not take that into consideration. I think that's probably something that crosses our minds, but we will look `' particularly -- or the way that I evaluate case and just in this instance at it on a case b ~~-~• , y projects like this, if it had existing L-O zoning and they wanted to build an apartment ~ complex it requires a CU, that's okay, but in my mind you need to get the zoning first, , ~, you look to the Comp Plan and, then, you get the CU. So, the zoning -- the '` ! Comprehensive Plan we look to to get the appropriate zone. If they don't have the ` ¢ ' appropriate zoning you have to make that jump to the schedule of use control to get the use approved in the zone. I don't know if that's making sense or not, but to me with the annexation is a key component. If this were already zoned L-O, our recommendation '~ would have been for approval, but because it's an annexation and they are -- you're `" jumping from one -- the zoning is correct, but the use that you're putting in there doesn't ~;.:_ ~; ~;, tie back to what the text says in the Comprehensive Plan, that s why our ~~ recommendation was for denial and I fully expect that in the future for other properties that are showing as office on the Comp Plan that that staff will recommend denial of, unless there is just circumstances that I can't think of now that aren't affected on those properties. ~~, Borup: So, if we would have approved the annexation and zoning last time without the ~~ project that would have solved that problem if we would have looked at the project ~~ ~ tonight. Is that true? . ':- Siddoway: Well, if it has the same issue, it would have the same issue. Oh. Maybe not. 1' _~- Borup: We would have annexed it and zoned it as an L-O and -- ~~:._~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, essentially, that's -- I mean that's in effect right. The ~`~ ~': Council is no longer really approving any projects without a concept plan, though, so to }~ - just say I want L-O zoning and not disclose what you want to build on there, you're . probably not going to get that through. But in theory, yes. Borup: So, the end result is the same either way. .,: ~..;~~ t; ~, ~ ~; } ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ r f , ,, f i~ , ~ Y ~, ynt, ~ r:+9•, I ~ , yi 1^~ ~~. mo: ~ ~''.':4-Q YF r ~ ~.. 'M vi ~h V ~~; ,~ 4 ~'~. ~ t3 a1~7~ x Y~, J `~`',' } - _. ~ a -;{; ~. r ~ r ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t 1~" . i -ti n~rrff 'st L I C1' ~~.'~. ~:;:~:-. r .R ~ a } ~ ~ t ~ ~i- ~ '~2 '~. ~'A y. . _Y`Lt Q, l 4 ~~. Y ~ h ~ ~ r> {"'4 ~ .J,L : ~l'J,. > Y } ~ y k ~ - ~ fs l ~ -: s.: ., t~~~ r '~ nary„ . c S, . v ~~9 7~. ~~ I _ S E~ ' ~ 5 .. t ,": z. • „1~"X^~, s ~ '; l ' { }~ ~Y q Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • January 4, 2007 Page 57 of 61 •~ :: ; ~;.ti ~~ . F-_ ~; -; ,,,:e. ~: f. ~z a.~ ,'. Newton-Huckabay: It's splitting hairs. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Moe: Yes, you may. Newton-Huckabay: I have been noticing I also was traveling on the night this first came before us -- this is not a good night for me. So, I wasn't here for the hearing. I have read back over the public testimony. I just -- I'm not sure where or how I -- if I can go ahead and vote on this. I'm looking for some guidance. Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the same question would be a fair question of your new commissioner, Commissioner Siddoway, and I think you have seen tonight -- if you have reviewed the staff report, listened to the staffs presentation, listened to the applicant's presentation, you have all the facts before you to make the decision if you're comfortable making that decision. If you need more information, we can reopen the hearing, you can ask for it, but I think you have had a full exposition of the facts on the record tonight. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I feel comfortable with that. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't want -- I didn't want to put anyone or myself in a bad situation. I -- personally, I liked the project that came through on Wells on the south. I think this is a great place for some multi-family residential in that area. I think with all of the medical offices, the hospital, I think some high end multi-family residential area -- or residents in that area -- Icould see a lot of different varieties of people and professionals looking to live in this area within certainly walking distance of their home. Regarding, you know, putting the cart before the horse, L-O zoning first, et cetera, I think that's -- myself personally, I think splitting hairs and Ijust -- I feel comfortable with this and I would like us to move this on. Moe: Well, would you like to make that in the form of a motion or what? Borup: Yes, let's do that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, do I have any changes to the staff report? I did not make comments or -- Wafters: Oh. Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Excuse me. Staff did have that one condition of approval to be stricken. 1.2.5 regarding private street standards. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, just strike it? Wafters: Strike it completely. I would like a condition in its place. I would like the condition to read: The applicant shall construct a common drive on Lot 3, to serve the units on Lot 4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve the units on Lot 7 in compliance T' with common drive standards. Also provide a minimum five foot wide common area ~~ '. ~,r~ `` ~'~ r ._ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. k ~~ , ~~ ra ~~;r~,a i i ~, {, -t v~+, ~.,~' y ~., tah'~- ."Y ~' ,',~ ;~.~ w~: ~ „~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ;; ~~_ r ~ r ~'_ai- -_~• ~ ~ t ~"' ~.4 ,..;J ry.~ - ~*i,r r ~;;r~ ~,,gy. ~ r ~ e1~ . v ~C?'' r `~ ~~~ ' ~, aT . 1f; ,li ., ~„ ~~ ~~ y , ~ ~ F } - ' ,~ ` , ~ -~,, ~tr,t ~ 2 y4,... Yip.:. } b r N ~ ~Rj r .t ~ ,~ x s +i ~ F iL.S PP ?.~~~ ~ - t ! r ~; ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 `~~~~'~~ Page 58 of 61 ?.:~':. landscape strip on this south side of Lot 3 and on the west side of Lot 6 in accordance ~~ ~ with the UDC standards for landscaping. Just to add to that a five foot minimum width, {'~'`~ ' if I didn't say that already. ~-, ~t: ' Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. A five foot width? ~;> q>..:; ,; ~~ ~ Watters: Yes. ~`' Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, I have got strike comment number 1.2.5 as it's stated ~, ; now and restate 1.2.5 or -- `` Watters: Sure. ~o .. `' "`' Newton-Huckaba As the a licant will construct a common drive on Lot 3 to serve Lot ~- ~ Y~ PP 4 and a common drive on Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. Excuse me. On Lot 4. Excuse me. No. y- k:, You had it right. Excuse me. Lot 3 to serve Lot 4. Lot 6 to serve Lot 7. And construct a minimum five foot wide landscape buffer on the south of Lot 3 in accordance with the UDC landscape standards. ~~>:: Watters: And on the west side of Lot 6. Also the common drives have to be ~z , , constructed to common drive standards of the UDC. ~=, _; °° `~~ Hood: If it's easier you can just reference staff comments and we can -- x ~~: Newton-Huckabay: All right. I think I'll just do that if nobody is going to be opposed to that. ~= Moe: And you'd also just want to make reference to her -- ;, : E~ Newton-Huckabay: Is the stub street issue resolved to Greenhill's unimproved stub ~' street? t ¢' ~~ Borup: Is that a question for staff? Newton-Huckabay: It's just a question. I don't know the answer to it. '~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can give you my two cents. E Moe: If you would, please. Hood: It's really not an issue. There is no condition of approval or anything regarding that stub street, it was just more of an FYI. Staff is assuming that that street does get extended. That may not be the case, but until ACHD and the City Council act otherwise, we are assuming that there is another public street on the back side of those units on the east side of this development. So, it was just more of a, hey, there is a stub fit::;:; street eight feet off the property line and if that street gets extended you have got, t. ;, .i4. ~. ~.,~ ~ ~..:i3t* E ' •I a 9 qp~~~ h ~ ~ r' $ ~ ~ . $ ~ Y.. 7 . { r ~+•'Rf _~t~xx ~1 ~ hr ~~t~ .'J 7 < ~ ~ ,Y,' '., Y,. ~ y,, . ..1F ~ ~ YY.i~'~~Sp~ ^ ~~ ~. r 4 $:i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~S ~ 4 t n~ ~~ ~~'~• '. +~a ~ $~ ~? c _ - 3 .~4d. i } iy~ti V 5~.. ~.. K '~ &,`Y' , ~~'rY4 '~ %`'~: g~ ~ j ~ ~ t v~" ~. ~ a ~;'S ;. €~, X J' • si }3,. .~ hr~e+~ ti Y k i M `,V ~ ~t:.: ~~ r t :j F t fl ~ ~ At'J~ -r Y'S r i t~ tr . ~ ~r r ~ b .+~~ , " , t ~K''. ~- • i Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 59 of 61 _` essentially, double frontage property. So, resolved or not, no, but to be decided today -- °,y°, that's issue can't be decided if it gets extended or not. s. Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to make any comment to it in my motion? Moe: That's correct. Hood: As far as I know I don't think there is a condition in the staff report regarding it. It's off site. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, fine. I just wanted clarification on that. After ~`{ : ~ considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, with the following modifications. Specific reference to staff comments regarding condition of approval 1.2.5 being stricken and common drive lots and landscaping related to Lots 3, 4, 6, and 7 and the letter from Engineering Solutions, dated December 19th, 2006. End of motion. ~, t `. ~~ Borup: Second. :~ II Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve and move onto City Council recommended approval of AZ 06-047, PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 for Waverly Place ~: Subdivision. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. !, Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. ~.1' ~ Siddoway: I'd like to follow this up, though, with one additional question and perhaps a k~~~~~ i motion. I think we could avoid this situation in the future if we directed staff to bring ~'`'.~ back a Comprehensive Plan text amendment that simply included multi-family in ~``°' ''' ~, possible uses for the office district. Is there -- it would still remain conditional uses per ~~ ~ the schedule of use control, but if we would like to be able to consider these without that snag in the future, I would think that that would -- I would like to see if there is interest in ~ ` : doing that. ~~ Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Baird: Or you could go the other way and direct to have the schedule of use control exclude what you just approved tonight. I mean it's -- one way or the other I think it begs to be cleared up. .:~,b _~ -~ ~-;;. ' i~,_ ~t _ tiYt~a;LL - 9i~ K~ili-- ; . . ie~y TR . - -tf ~+l' L Y ~~ ~~ ~ r Y: ,~:i - t x.q^ . r , r , .t ;.' - y. ~Y.y.7sk~"~ Jx L •; ~'> ~.,` ~ - Y{S~iy ~ K1~~ r~~ ~~ y ? r .. ~~i ~ fi i. 1 `,~ ~ .. y ;' ~ ~ }1,. ~~~ ~ µf t :fir S '.. . 9I% ~~ji ~( '~ }~F:... gr Tr,~;~)%>. ,t~ .a~~ yt,, k ~ t i.:- t ~ ~ ~,_ € ... f!(K M Y ~y~~' 1 ~5;~, { ~ k ~ 'N~~. ~ ~~ 1'" K hyi~•"~ t ~ ~~: ~Mf ' ±~:: fi yr A f Y <b R ~ r ~ f fi,.i,F ; ~, }~ • i Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 60 of 61 Siddoway: Yeah. It needs to be -- it needs to be clarified so that they are matching one way or the other. Moe: I would agree a hundred percent. ~; . kj °.' ,-: ~_" ~ Borup: I still like -- I still like the option of a conditional use. Because, then, you can look at it on a case by case, because I think blanket statements don't fit every situation and it's nice to be able to look at the specific situation that is surrounding developments and neighborhood considerations and everything. I just like to look at it all on each ,; ~~ case. So, I guess what I'm saying, I would support -- I don't know how many times we t: ~~ ` are going to see this in the future. This is the first we have had so far. Well, that I can remember. Siddoway: And it was the same issue with the lot to the south. ;`: ` Borup: Yeah. '= Siddoway: Which was the reason they had to submit a Comprehensive Plan '',~~ amendment. A' :~. Borup: But they -- well, even if that would have been approved I don't know that -- there was a lot of neighborhood opposition on that one. So, are you saying we want to make that as a motion? How much -- how much is that for staff to do. Siddoway: I'd like to at least direct staff to come back with an analysis of the pros and ~' ~~~ x; `' ~ cons of that. I know Anna may have some strong feelings the other way, so before we direct you to bring it back with that change specifically, if we could at least request some >r,,: dialogue from staff on that I think it would be of benefit to this Commission. Borup: I'd second that recommendation. ,~ ;~: .. Hood: For clarification, do you want us to look at both what Mr. Baird brought up about amending the UDC or just the ordinance -- or, excuse me, just the Comprehensive Plan to allow multi-family in the L-O or shall we look at it both ways and say, hey, what makes sense. Just -- just off the top of my head the problem I see if we add multi-family into what we want in the L-O zones, we also have a statement like that right now in our commercial districts. Mixed use allows multi-family. We have no more designation -- why have a Comprehensive Plan, now you're -- the future land use map allows any use on any designation. So, you're -- essentially, your purpose statement of each designation are all the same. It's commercial, residential, except for your low medium and high density, but pretty much your -- all your other designations have the same -- allow the same uses. Siddoway: The commercial uses are still not allowed in that description of office -- or of office; correct? ~f.;~ 'C`,p ~4 ~~. ld ~? A ~yy~ ~ _' ~J7~ -~ "kT k3'~ ~ i .`~.. ~j.. (~+ ~ +~y' Pr .~..k l.~y.. L .ak t>~ ti' ~~~ nay ue;~ .y ~-~., 1^ / .., .( ,, off ~.; ~h. x j LM R i, TP F i';Y;r~- u'`.' S ~ €~ ' a t~ 4 r ~ t aC r y . t -;~~ ~ ~~ v , ~ ' . p~ y ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, 6 i ~~~, A ~y.' ~ µY'~ 1F {yf~ h ,, ~ ,: +ee a3~ ~r4 ~ L .e. 4 ;r a. ~-~1 ,i-.'.. ~ ~ ;~~,'. ~ y .le Ya ~ 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 61 of 61 Hood: Retail uses. Correct. Are not allowed in an L-O zone. Strictly retail. I'm saying right now that on the future land use map in the text of the Comprehensive Plan it does talk about multi-family being allowed in C-G, C-C zoned property. For the reasons you just described, I think it would behoove us to have an analysis of the pros and cons of it and that's what I would like to see. Again, both amending the UDC or amending the Comprehensive Plan or just the Comprehensive Plan? Siddoway: I'm primarily focused on adding it to the Comprehensive Plan. Moe: I would agree with that. Okay. All right. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public -- or we close -- what do we want to do? We want to adjoum. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: I thought we had a second. I'd second it. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) A' ~~) ~ ~d~/ DATE APPRC~V ~®r~ y, ~4,~,`'o,,J ® o ;, G. BERG JR, I JCL K 1~ "~ '9 ~p 1ST . ~'~ t~! ~'%~,,~113~fdTY • ~e,.~. ~~~~~~~~~ a~~~~~~~ • ,. '''` MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING .lcanuaty 4, 2007 s~' :° APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: °~ ~~ AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ - CITY CLERK: ~ CITY ENGINEER: ~; ., ,;~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~ I1L ~, CiTY ATTORNEY ,< ~~ ~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~s= . '~ ~~` CITY FIRE DEPT: ~. ;,, ~` CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~l ~-' ' = CITY WATER DEPT: ~~ - ~, ,ri: ~~'`'~' CITY SEWER DEPT: 'v; - ~~ • ~..,:.. ,.. CITY PARKS DEPT: $' ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: Z~ SANITARY SERVICES: t. ~~~• ~ ~' ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~ ~~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~- ~~'~~~=' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: + .,F ~`, IDAHO POWER: :" ~~: :'a INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: , OTHER: ``~ Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: ~' Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ;,. r- k::.. l r ": , ~ ~. '?:;. ~.„. ~ ~ s ~. ~. X ~ 2 ~ s ~~?.. L ° - = :. C;. 'R f1 J . S y~~ ~ i{ 4 !f ?l; +5 ~ ~t ~ }~, i , N ~~~, Ycy - ~ ~ 3 ^ r , dFl~ ~~ , ~~%c y-f. ,k i1~~ • ~'~' ~ ~; .' any .},;ir.}}x. ~~ `.,i ~ :~Ft ~r7f i k1 `~tt 'i' '~ ' _ .ti g :- : ' :s ,,. r '' ~r '~,Y ~~~t ~~p.- `H ~r. 34. 4~'~ i1`~ ~ f *f. 'W~ P ~ AF~f.:. - ~jr4 't,'Yts~ ~ r Y' ~n F 3C ' I.t1t~.: ;;;: ~-~ January 2, 2007 MCU 06-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT Carl & Bonnie Reiterman ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Modification of the existing CUP to remove the requirement for detailed CUP approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry Crossing Sub - 1434, 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Dr. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~~ U`~ 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: Date: $ O'~ Phone: ~ ~ 7 - ~ ~ ay Contacted: Emailed: ~!~j~ ~~ m~_ ~ Qo f - C OM Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~ ;~ ~ ® -, °i ~, .. ~< City ®f Mc,~zpdvli~!~at~ " ',~ , i ~ilty Clerl~ 1.°iLL ' e'f`~A"~ri~ 1'~~~.'~'~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ~°1~~' .~ ~ ~k, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~,, . «~:~~~ '{~ LAW AND ' $ ~ .~~ ~~ .t :. `~ ` DECISION & ORDER ~~~~ ~€; , In the Matter of modification of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision to remove the requirement for detailed CUP approval on Lot 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; and Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman. Case No(s). MCU-06-004 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: December 7, 2006 (continued to '`'" December 21, 2006, with Findings on the January 4, 2007, Commission agenda) ~ ` '' A. Findings of Fact '° - 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006, ~~,; incorporated by reference) ~~ ~ ; 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006, ~ incorporated by reference) 4: ~ '_ 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of ,. December 7, 2006, incorporated by reference) '~ ~ 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the ~';~ `~ hearing date of December 7, 2006, incorporated by reference) t;~ I a- fi' 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 (LC. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of z>` 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU-06-004 (PAGE 1 of 4) ~~, ~ ~ -,,: y~~ ~ f ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~} F j.s ti-irl~~• ~"~, ~ i ~~ ~; , ~ ~ ~ ,. ~.?, f x x'HS.. ~ ~~' r;ti ~ f 4 f Y ge4n y E x ~ " } - , a z ; r. ., ~ {."K ~ .4w~tir !~ '~:"?~ tvhI,Mi,; wf,.~i _ _' ,. ~" ~ ~. _ ~x.~Tr: rt-~.~ t ,, ~ `~` i~ i. ~ } 4 n {K ~~. ~~4t a~~_. yy~ ~ f ~ ~' ~ : . t i` - ~ 1 t , ~ ~;'~ 15 iw~.f~~4' ~ ti , ~ „Jf~ r rfs' ~ ~ ~. a ~~ ~~r. 3 7. Y • S: 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 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 Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the Applicants, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected '3 `' party requesting notice. . §~ ~ ° 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the ~;,;. ' roval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December Conditions of A pp 7, 2006, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicants shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order ~~ Pursuant to the City Council'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: ~'I 1. The Applicants' Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated June 15, 2006, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & ;~ Zoning Commission hearing: M4.l,a~. ~ a. Planning Department Condition of Approval 1.1 shall read: .a ;, Site Specific Condition G3 of AZ-03-034, requiring each office-zoned lot to obtain CUP approval, shall be deleted. The applicant shall comply with all other previous conditions of a royal for Razzbe Crossing Subdivision (AZ-03-034, PP-03-039, & FP-04-055) nY PP ~_ `~ and all applicable requirements of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP-03-062) for this site. 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration 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 3- this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER `~`=" CASE NO(S). MCU-06-004 (PAGE 2 of 4) }4 f *Lti, ~.;~ :; ~~ - F ~ -- ~ ~. P ~ =.'ale'- ~'~ r ~r fa~-~'. ~ ~~~, PF ~ ~ S YF.7~~'. ~ ~ ',y' ~y '4~ t r k a r :~t~ir; ; - ; i ~ ~~ s~, + '.r ~ ~ .T t ~ f f 4-+ j W } }~ } }, ~F~. i y ~ La.Y. ~ i ^ (.~1 a ~~ ~ ~ , ~ I ~ Y :r. ryl ~- ~~~ 'ilt"- - ~-! n µrvi. Z -. ~t t' ~ Y - ~ ~M:: Y, l 1 r ~ t w~,vc~ k" Qf iF ~s „~ ~ ,. r r k =~ ~ ~ { ;i 1N. b~ ~.i~:,y s • 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 void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the 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 may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may 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 1. 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 may be 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 December 7, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU-06-004 (PAGE 3 of 4) j~;;. rt By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~d~ day of G ~'s .v ~' G~' G'/ , 2007. I COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED y~~~~ (CHAIR) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED C%~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED ~r COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED G2. COMMISSIONER ~-~.M~ ~ VOTED `~S~C~~ ~'~~ ~`~~ CHAIRMAN ICHAEL ROHM \\`\~~~I111IIIIIIIAAAA ~~~\\ ®~ A~/° Attest: . ~ ~~ °° ~ ~ ~°, sA ~ ~~ s ~~ ~~ Tara Green, Deputy City k ~ ~ 0 '~~~ '~ ~ ~,~. Copy served upon Applica~/ 111111eDepartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. ~~ 1 'J~ Gv'l ~vZ ~V~~~~ By; Dated: City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU-06-004 (PAGE 4 of 4) G_~ ~,: ~- g~- } ~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN• PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 Fi , F ~; ~ ,:a _~ ,., _ h ~ __ r STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 12/7/2006 r e'G'F1v t"r~ ~i 1 ~ . P i ¢ ~ TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~ ` A ~ ~ ° " FROM: Amanda Hess, Associate City Planner '4, ~ ~ ~, a~r~~~ ~~ j ~~; SUBJECT: Razzberry Crossing CUP Modification ~ ~ ,~, ~„~`°~ ? MCU-06-004 ~r~`~`~~.,:~r,~:,~ -, ~+v~ ~I Modification of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved for Razzberry F Crossing Subdivision to remove the requirement for detailed CUP approval on Lot 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; and Lots 1 & 2, Block 6. ~~ ~° 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST - - The Applicants, Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, are requesting modification of the existing Conditional Use "` Permit (CUP-03-062) for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. Currently, said CUP requires detailed :,,' ,` , conditional use permit approval for all construction on Lot 2, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, and Lots 1 & 2, Block 6. These lots are conceptually approved for office uses, pending detailed CUP approval. The Applicants are proposing to remove the requirement for detailed CUP approval on each office lot because - ,' . they have provided elevations of what the buildings will look like with the subject submittal. The site is generally located 350 feet west of Locust Grove Road and 1/3 mile south of McMillan Road in ~~-; ~"~~ Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, B.M., and is currently referenced as Assessor's Parcel ~; Numbers: 87355910020, 87355910030, 87355910380, and 87355910390. t 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested MCU application below. Staff recommends approval of MCU-06-004 for Razzberry Crossing as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing k ~ ; date of December 7, 2006, subject to the conditions listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planninc and ~" °;1,,4 Zoninc Commission heard the item on December 7. and December 21, 2006. At the public hearing y':I they moved to approve the subiect application. ^ ;'I a. Summary of Public Hearinc: ~~" I i. In favor: Carl Reiterman (Ap lip cant) -~ 4, ii. In opposition: None ~ ,, , : ~ iii. Commenting. None iv. Staff presenting application• Amanda Hess ' -~ ,a.;,1 v. Other Staff commenting on application: None ~ ~~ ''`` =~ b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: ~ _~~{ i. Have Staff modify Condition of Approval 1 1 of this staff report to reflect the ~ ~ original site specific condition number requiring each office-zoned lot to obtain _' CUP approval ' ' `- c. Kev Commission Chances to Staff Recommendation: '°.~ '~ i. None f 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS "~ ~~,~ Approval ` _~ ~ After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU-06- ';<'~: 004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006, with the following r modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) I further move to . ~ ~ ~~ '~r~~ ~,µ,. 1~ ' e.y!. Yes'' nib - 'Y~ ~'~ ` ~ , . . " . c,~+ ` >C .rl ., :~~ ,. K;'~.50'}24' t'33k "`~ i ~ ` ' Tl 1 } f`~~.. . 5' r ril ~+4 .tngF ~ w , , . .~ a.,>.,a. I ~ T"' x? a k~``-'~G r i~:~ ~ w 'tC4T" ~- f^ ~' I ` ~ } s...~ ~,y, ,~5 ~ jt~ $ 5."~ 6. ,~ 5 f r~r ,~fxan a, .`,~r.`~'.',~; ,F: ~ 'x ~ . s. c k . l ~y, . i .xr , s ; {, f.~. ~:M fE ,'`r S` d~ Yijl " r 2 Y tt .u.~ " _ j .:'}•~ ~ ~ ai~~ R . i Y v x• ~~ ;t.5 q:.,#:,'}~4 s': ~}s J •.. ,~~:i .;.` 9' 1 I I .1, f ~ n Y:;C;• ~'~' ;:~'•i,s si~~;':. . • " : . .,,4 .,1. _ ~ ~~te ~/r; . ityr~~yfti •~,~}1 I i ;. ~•~ ".. y -i" ~ i ~ I ~ .t'•. ep • :t' "{.Y, r(..,. .: gI ~ V ~'• R` ~ 'ryC "` Y i { T . e ~1~. ::.,p i• ,x,91: .;,~ t €' ~' ~ I ' 1 h ~:.s;;d:;`P g. 1:~.~ ~ r • . ~+4•~1: r I Y '. ' 41 t *cS+.z+r r t . J ';+~`. ~'! I C. J•i" II 'f ,. ~ - ;h3, . i',' d ` a~ ` ~ : d! , . - 5:.. . ~5~. . :f.i 4 '~ y ' 7 F, :t. yy~77nn !h }"a3 w..,... I. I~ .'.i.V~S(>'VR•;:J,tX a• I .f .iY ; 1 z' '~.i%xa'-i .Y #n .~v N ~' ;~ ` Y + , f . z ,„ ' ' r'.i..'~ , p X ~ x ~ l " ~ ~ a.:: . 'r ~`" 'x=" .r;*FV . t3K'w' r. 3` f ~ 1 Y " ~?. r^ awzzY. .~,.r~'°` ti'~,~:~ r~{~ } w~ a.+a,. .~ t r ;t 'p f :Y n ~~ • .. }. y ~"';'~ t'F ~ .~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~4 .J ~+. Y ~a s s ~,ry. }a~~'8 y,,;Lv ~Y r".k 3,.a c• Fl a `~ ° ' • ' } , g ~ ~t, % A s t?ffig;~Y;:^~ g~ ..1 .1 - . ~' Fi t ' 3 ~' -' r ~' :`r^''~ ~'"~'"ti f.a^ . ~ :t:• .K s ,r~±'m tel..; q, 3 iI1 }I[[t(' C .,~,j; »~tvt'y~.~}'~'wre=' ;.;' ~ ~}. ~ ; ~ y=xlc e k .lry ,`~,`~,y"ia: ",.,g ,~• s' i. ~ c. ~x t ~~ K ~ ~ { ~ , w; 4 1 .~ 4i', '•' „jxJ~ ~'W ;::~,~rr";~ 'fir 'l° h' ~ ~" . * i .~idj ~ ~~. y . ',.~`S f3>~FY ' 1 { ' ~ I ~ I ~ .'Y., ' TF ~ i •,~ Ra r rr ,~ ~ f " A ` , y '.'H: ~v ...ii7N Syr i; :ky`5 . .`.: °{~'=M !.'r!l%`1~y%Fy~. 9'S'',' p ~ ~ ',}3 1 II I~ . ~r'~'~' ~,.r.~ ..5 etc ~ 1~. . I 'A ` ` 't k ~ "h }C ~,y, ~l[.a~' a"{'its $ Y I ,~' : „ A`h t~'t `b r~V. ~+,~''l$ ~. ' .,yi~ N}Z I' ..a ` SC,x' Sn. 7bv"F'F`,_ Y..+, 'f C R r ~p ~ 7 . ~6'~ 5 ; ~I ~ y 1 c{~~}° w ~~ r:,.i ~~ ia:; ~ + 1' ~l;'~ o •t '.~~ "I ' ~ ~ ,J ~ h erH. ,,z.~ . ~; %4 i l i':: :y~:' :d• )~ ,. k~.ti~Y •yC~ ]' 'f %,•1~,'" ''}i~Fn.~~ 4 ,'f . ~ F ~. k~ .;, i' ~n ~~ ^,.,.. s%i. '. v..ty'.;i;tif:. ` ~? I ~~ l ~: " ' r ,lj ~ 'AI ^E~ t'•.~'`r!'x°ca:~J;:a~';Ti "'::p, _ ; y ~,a r p ,n ~•; PiKe:ef tdU a(•; R.~u." ~ :;tl ., je ~' F , ... , F . S ! 1 • '••9 - r 4 I ~d• _ ~ . ` 4 ,~ y ~-, a.('~'" :•w .e- y i ~;~• Cr w,. :f ,:'i:' :!~; zi ~. >~Yr44'S.ti~,` "A1 .°±.:.. 7e~, {: ' ~~~ r~~ } + * i ,. .... .:.tt'..,,.. s ..a * •'s'.r`e ~^. `+t 4Y:. k ',.r. .,~ ~;.: •~• r.'" a tt.. a r x . :. ~~ . ~.. ' ~ ` ~_f%• . 'i~ i 3 i~;i, . i~ ~~'x ~'• I '.j~ +;,rsi+%:;t;i ~g3 ~" j.;~,2~':k. t•~ I .i : I '• ' `I ~~" ~'a: ~' . ~ ~ d g - . € ..{.i'.t 2r z~.sx ;'?':{,~; ' y ` ' ' ' ' } I I I 4 J ; . I R q_.: 'Fz'' ~ t~ '+~..ys r ~a~ X. ~l ` (~' ` ~` " ~I~ g. .7 Fi { .A^ • ' I ~ 7 .~n~.. a$~: ,5'„"~4t: :fi 1n'n" `n` F~.. ,y 1 ~ I ` ! ~ i '~ .A xg• y f v ~ ;t: , i13, • ~ +~.:Nl, ^; `l .`,. :.Y.i' fi%b,~', ' 1 i ' 6 ' ~ , I , .. . •5- + 'XK k° i` ~ ~ Y y C I I ` : . f at : , r & ;. {~. ` } ',, _ , ,gyp ,~ I ' ~` I , ys• '" 1 ='Si Y" i , X~R S,,ya'l [ .3; I t z> " , }}.. ~ 1 T~ `1 L ~.h ' ~` V W k~ • ,, la,Ye~¢i"~i~i ~+A L~{A4~i~ :` ~. :`w' I ~. ` < . •i I :fit,. a ~JVpi .a,`mr `•l~ • ~ r r ~`~ ~ t y 'c., s".~. I v "a" I I I ~ .. . ~ 5' ` ~' { . + I 1 V ti ~~3 ~•f ~ ~ I I ~~ ItI! ~;n ~ f , ; Y s n ~. ~ ~ I i ,: r . I. R b ' 2 { ~i: ..x~lu.. r ..~.ts s~ :.e u•~SYx~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 21, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MCU-06-004 as presented during the hearing of December 7, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit, explain what the applicant could do to gain your approval.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on December 21, 2006. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number MCU-06- 004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1434, 1463, 1492, & 1565 E. Star Drive Meridian, ID 83642 Section 31, T4N R1E b. Owner /Applicant: Carl and Bonnie Reiterman 770 W. McMillan Road Meridian, ID 83642 c. Representative: Carl Reiterman d. Present Zoning: L-O e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood & Medium Density Residential f. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. CUP Site Plan, dated June 15, 2006 (See Exhibit A) 2. Building Elevations (See Exhibit A) g. Applicant's Justification: In order to expedite the building process, we request a modification to the Conditional Use Permit to allow professional office buildings on the lots zoned L-O without having to apply for detailed CUPs for each structure. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use modification 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: November 20, 2006, and December 4, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 9, 2006 Razzberry Crossing -MCU-06-004 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 ~~ d. Applicant posted notice on site by: November 27, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Office building currently under construction on Lot 2, Block 1; otherwise a;;;; vacant. ~,:. - b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single family residences to the north, south, east, ::- ~;° and west. ``'''' c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning ~:. 1. North: Single family homes in Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8; large Ada County ~s~. __ parcel used for residential and commercial uses, zoned RUT ~' 2. South: Sin le famil homes in Alexandria Subdivision, zoned x-~ ~_ _ g Y 3. East: Single family homes in Heritage Subdivision, zoned Rl in Ada County ^:'Y ~ ~~; 4. West: Single family home sites in Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, zoned R-8 _ d. History of Previous Actions: R On February 18, 2004, Razzberry Crossing Subdivision was granted annexation and zoning (AZ- ~; 03-034) approval for 8.1 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and 3.31 acres from RUT to L-O (Limited Office). At that time, preliminary plat (PP-03-039) approval ~~ "^ was also granted for 34 single family residential lots in the R-8 zone, and four professional office ~.-. ':, lots in the L-O zone. ~~ a ~~'{ ~. z'. 1 ~, A Conditional Use Permit (CUP-03-062) for a Planned Development (PD) approved reduced setbacks /dimensional standards within the approved R-8 zone and established the requirement of securing detailed conditional use permits prior to development of the office lots. City Council granted final plat approval for Razzberry Crossing on September 14, 2004. The subject application proposes to eliminate the requirement for all four of the office lots within the L-O zone to obtain individual detailed conditional use permits prior to submittal for Certificates of Zoning Compliance. NOTE: Earlier this year, Staff erred and issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-06-090) fora 10,000 square foot office building on one of the four office lots in Razzberry, prior to detailed CUP approval. Staff has informed the Applicant that this office building will need either detailed CUP approval, or for the subject MCU application to be approved, prior to release of occupancy. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: All lots are already serviced during construction of Razzberry Crossing. Location of water: All lots are already serviced during construction of Razzberry Crossing. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Floodplain: N/A 4. Canals /Ditches /Irrigation: N/A J> }L: 5. Hazards: N/A Razzberry Crossing -MCU-06-004 PAGE 3 z s ~. n c^` 4itKC Y ~ ,~- ~~,,4(~ ~y)~P~~ t : ~7 4a,~'+SY.. ~ ~ y ~t. yin Jr k 2 ~. Gi. j. J ~.ihF )' .p, ~l t'S ry ~~~. } ; fir e I ~, 1 ~: 1 (! ~ ~`, tY ~ ~ - ~ } ~. ~ _ yy4`~~ 3 ( c R : tp1,i ~, h ~ A f ~ f ~ .'s y- ;a' r: ~~4t:;: ~ ~ ~ .,- a~ ,4 ti u }. ~~iV. '~ .]w - ~ Jr Tv-~'~~'. f ~~ 1 ~.' t ~ M~i ~+,~l ~iC ~~ ' ti! a ..i:~!. ~?;. _ ~ ~'` 1 . ' ~~ t ~ F ...~.-~. ~ ~,, a~ s,~ _ t ~ i5e;,: ~~ r _ 7~; r , >- ~ . { y ~ ~ •t~ .. - t ~ pi~ ~(pp , ~ .~, .: 1 ~'4...' `' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I3EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 ~:< 6. Existing Zoning: L-O i, ~.~ 7. Size of Property: 3.31 acres ~_ q''. £ Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): Twenty-five feet of landscape buffer required on Locust Grove Road, an arterial road. Ten feet of landscape buffer is also required along all lot lines ~~ _, ~.•; adjacent to East Staz Drive and North Bright Angel Avenue, adjacent to the L-O zoned lots. ~, „ ~ 2. Width of buffers between land uses: Twenty feet of landscape buffer required between the ~~>~_~ subject properties, zoned L-O, and the residentially zoned properties in Havasu Creek to the ~~' north, Alexandria Subdivision to the south, and the R-8 portion of Razzberry Crossing '~`~ subdivision to the west. ky"' "' 3. Percentage of landscaped area: 1.42 acres for Razzberry Crossing ~~. 4. Other landscaping standards: UDC 11-3B-8 requires landscaping within and azound pazking ~< lots. The landscaping standazds for pazking lots will be applied prior to issuance of a ~~'' ~ Certificate of Zoning Compliance permit (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). ~V ~~-~~ g. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: Maximum of 53,780 squaze feet F' 2. Building Height: L-O district allows a 35-foot maximum E 3. Description of Uses: Office ~~'" '` 4. Procurement of Certificates of Zoning Compliance will be required prior to submittal for p'; ~= ~> building permits. ~:,. <; '~~ . h. Off-Street Pazking (Non-Residential Uses): 1. Pazking spaces required: UDC 11-3C-6B establishes minimum pazking standard for non- ` ~ , .; I residential uses. Within commercial districts, spaces shall be provided at one per 500 squaze ~? > " feet of gross floor azea. ~.:, I 1. ~ ~ 2. Off-site pazking proposed: N/A =~~ ~ 3. Percentage of interior parking as landscaping: Prior to issuance of any Certificates of ,, ~ f` '' Zoning Compliance, staff will ensure that the proposed pazking lot is improved with * ~=',~~ landscaping according to UDC requirements (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). .• ~'~ - i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): All office lots ~' '~ ~ will take access from either East Star Drive or North Bright Angel Avenue, both public streets. , k- t 7. COMMENTS MEETING ~. , ~~ ? On November 17, 2006, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments ~~ .: present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Pazks Department, Meridian Public Works ~ Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. No significant comments were received from any ~' agencies or departments. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of s Approval in the attached Exhibit B. ~ =~ 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ~~ The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Mixed Use - ~> Neighborhood." In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined, in part, as an azea that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design ~ ~ ~ opportunities are encouraged. The MU-N district has an upper limit on the square footage of non- ~: '~?_`~ t ^ : '~'`~ _ ..(r:',Y I.~k 15+5 I I { ~ y ~~ •C ~ ~ ~ - IIII K" ~ t I t ~ as ~„ t I i r '~ ~ r ,, Z ' ' ~ ' r ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1. ',,tea, y:.yp,~~gs' L ~x r.~~T- ,~ f~ _k yA c .:ylf 7fd: s i ~~ ." " -` t'~~i.Y ~ • Y ; ~ '~ ~ A~ ~h ^ ~ ' ~ - r ` .~..s'~ ~ f$~ . nl Y~' S4 46. ~~ ~.~e ~ b 4 S`@' ~ ~'::.'S` II' T' ~ c k:i ".'%. • v~ ~. f?~. ~ % M . s . . , ~. 9ft :N a . : ~ 1s. I ~ -f, •iC ~. ~. ~ ~ 't' ~ ' • ' d "~ ~~ ^ I . ,Y 3:r . ' R. ~ s x ~~ i 6. 1M r4r. ~ ~ .~ ~ 4t : .jY.~:FSz`~•~ ^•'~++ ~f .}4 ~,. }{ ' - : ~f'~'u'.•' .il. 2"i' f~.a ° ~ nt ' ~~M1~ ^ '.I' .. + 7'~ . b ~.'~ - 'fk ~ .: «sk . s•" i>~ %'~' ^'~jv ?~. ~'~ '~' ~ , e a + .7 , ~ =xAYC~• "i~~„y': ~ r i'+ri` I ~ 1 t' le. h.': ~, 5i• ' ~ '' i~ h i ..~ .~ y . lti; yT {~ 61 1 ~la'n~v' yV~j3":+, ~ .~ ~7~v F1; a.„; 1 I r,^: ;.s" a'-' a ,,^~a'°.'i~ 1 ` i 4 ~ I ~ IC t I ~~~. ~"1~'• ~ ~1 I; ,'~, 3 ;"f t •j S y. 7Y ,.f~oy~~~~.:. F . a.. `.`x ;;~ . ~ . ~ , 'D ~, 4 :Wk•{i' I Si fL1.` ~ ' ~, ' ~ Y •A ~ ~ F ^ ~ I I l I S. ,+.5, ~ «~' . y^~t '~.,' y vk F ~. . 'F a <,s 'F~}=~dif` , , a. '".~7 i F i.~~ :"i.~, W,. ~ • W~ ~ •. ~;'SIEs R•~j i~~~t .~ 4 I i I A 5 4 wl .I ~ a~ ` ? i . ~.~r..A "~~' I , , ~~, , 1a. :;cc+ ~•~ y 1A F n-'; ` x"sr`•Er ~}SF' ~ f ' ` l ~i ' f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Hg~n' ~•t~'~S` " `: '[ ~ ~ ' „ xY t ~ ~' ~ ~1 ufyur.~~. ~ ~ w 1 ".a k :i ~ : ~ s . .. 7 F a S ^ £ '. .. , i ~a ~. s x- t 4 d ~ , r"';Y,. x S Y t 1 ~ M .. ., il•+ 5 s + I•S r .. reH-~. 1"~i. :v ..iu :t; ~:-vn ' }~}: F :/'i n i'" -: ~} s ~. JI II ~ ~ A ~r ~ ,:; . ~~ : rP yi: ;s ~ f ,, . w. ' ~,y - ~~da~ ~Y. I4, .ky .,,k i r„~'~,~ l~c~n.~." F ~T, •.. '~~F `: ' "! f Y ':ti.. 11~~ I j r , l f~.'. ; ~' ~ ~ IFA',:~tie ,~~,.:a~~.~4 '~ , ~ .+,`. fya , ~; . f' •ii~ ~ a ~s y ^: ~ ' ~ • I ' ': : ~ . i~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S f-.~~ ..`4d: 't -.. ii. ~' l i r,ya ~'A~ '°.Ca wd `xs 5 1 S .3. ~_~~ ~~ ' , ~ I ~ ': -'.L n4 i ~I f .+F; L' " <<,~f~ y.~* " r ~A ~ . . 'l ~ t .b .b^ h' 1 .~ <~ r ~' . ';>< ' y ~ . _ . i - ~:'` ` " ' ~, i - r`~k 3 I '*a.t~xx-~s;'~:t~ `3 *,~'~' :+."~.'„~y..•. I ~ k A's, - , s : e +. fX • •~a ^~;:{r ~'a._ rr~~~ a,..~. r,~' , ... £ ' , ' {` Y • i . " ' ~., { 5 x yy k X ~"' ~ ^t ~ ~ . ..~ .S 6 ~ • ~ .: 4 1 a N .. F F. ~.Ke ~a N~'u I '~:~ii5n .' . 's? ' '~~ ~'T* `" .... .. . .-~ .. 1 .i ;~ x f i;.~ ...t.., u, ~ 3 ' ' 1j ~ .{. ~~~'- q ~ ~ .. i r L ~ ~,'>7. ? ~,& , . fs .{, ,'f,.,'.~i _ 4 z" ~ s:r ,:t ~ i I ~~~. „;ire, a.~<..r.~., r d'.•'%~i;-tja`tiTsbix~Y~ `g~~~: •;;, { d ~r rt ~-; ; "•~ ~ ^ +~ r~ ~~~ ~I ~ I ): i, . ( , Y4 >~ ~` '~~ ~ f ! ~ ~ ~ ~ R' ~ ~ ?~ ~, ~ 3 ,'L . d :' ~w ~; _ .~ ~. x ; qq y Y r ~ iy e ;~.S,t; 1~ f ~ `~~ ~ - I j I . .< ~ ~~~ ;.s"r" h..r ~„ ' ;.Ft ' Abp .a ~. ^ b'~~ "~~ ~ ~y, a~ ~ ~r; ry, £, r,7. s.. .. I ~[ i ~1` ~ . ~ .. . ,-, i* s:. 4 ~~ } 'd , ~ - . ' ~ ..~ yt~ ~ r~x a 'i . ., ; ; ' .. - : . ! ,i ~ `` , :~ i ., L ~ .:...: ~ :. i ~., r ~ t _. .. f ' ~ i ~ ~ ' : ~q/,.~" ^`T ~'°]1:` .1;. `w pY ."~, ;. .E } 'X~.. ~ r~..';,,~;y.. yl, 4 ~.~d, i~i~%'~1r, ),r,, r 4 i ~ ~ 11} !'~.{ >.~. :i+.iy',`.'<l:i..k~, `~.:~~ o ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ; h ^.xW i yf~ `~~•'•'': f ~~. !~ ~:~.l. .~ ..', . ~ 9..5:,^ .:ti"A ~. •:.,i:'43 'F. - SPA , ~~:: y: x J ^ . # G r - fi•3•* %i~i 4',>.'iil' I r ' ~ F ~ (.t~ ~ '' ^~ ; ~. . I 1 ~ ~ '~~~' '~ ~ ~ G ~ • .~ i A . ~y i+N,~,: I -r.~ ~~' '~~ ~~ ''~ I I .. ~~SE ;s ~ ~"r:'~:z,{s~ Y~'~s I ~c ! :1 r . " + l ' ~ r '.. 11 `~ ~~ 1' ... A°. d"M1Y.~sifi fT~ .R•' .~.. .. ~ I I r - x~:'I ;~. ~ 1 .i,.,, .i.. ,6y~f'mi~._ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 ~`~' residential uses and is intended to allow a focused range of uses in close proximity of residential uses including, but not limited to, medical and dental clinics, churches, professional offices, drug stores, ~' laundromats, and salons. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or ~;l written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining the most appropriate zone for this property. The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this application (staff analysis in italics below policy): ~, .`. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, ~;` Objective D, Action item 5) The applicant will be required to construct landscaping at the time of submittal for Certificates of ~, Zoning Compliance for the office buildings. The 35 foot wide landscape buffer has already been installed adjacent to Locust Grove Road. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of fmal approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) "h ~: The subject site can be serviced by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and water systems. r~ • Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas. (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action item 5) "., f .~~;' ~ l•~ II .} The future office uses on these lots will be accessible internally by the residents of Razzberry Crossing, Havasu Creek, and Alexandria Subdivision, and indirectly by passerbies from Locust Grove Road. The structures on these lots will be required to be compatible in appearance with the surrounding residential properties, as proposed with the elevations provided with the subject application. . Stafffinds that the proposal is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the uses, as permitted within the L-O zoning district. However, the Applicant is limited to professional office uses, as proposed and approved via AZ-003-034 / PP-03-039 /CUP-03-062. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts are to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT MODIFICATION ANALYSIS: When Razzberry Crossing was reviewed and approved by the City in 2004, a standard condition of approval for commercial property that did not submit elevations, was to require detailed CUP in the future. Staff believes that the subject CUP modification meets the intent of that requirement, as the applicant has Ay Razzberry Crossing - MCU-06-004 PAGE 5 r r~ <' Y R~ #i ~; f ,;i~ -i1 l ,~, 3. a ;~ ~; ...; Si j ,~ -:: ...-.-'r ~! r~ ~r ' i ~t ` :~ a ':~ y 1 ~~ Y ~ x~ L'" 6 ~n.7 w "Y ~ 4 nx ~ ~?~, t`~r-~ ' i ~~w` s ~'- h 1. r,_ ~ :8:1 ~ y 4 y:.(_ ~ 9i • ~~5 } .~} 1 ~~ t. ' J I •N I #.~~~ ... ~.~ 7 \ r4~:~: ~' t ~'+` t. t ~ ~ ~+._ Y 47 ~:~.. p f i4 ~ ', ' `. ~'~.}i~_,y., f fir, ~ `+ ~~ ry 2 }x M ~ ~~. ~ . r? ~ T ~ * il a_ ~r~ ~ -1e~:.% ~1 ` i ; , g~ .'.4 +. ~' ~ f ~ 4 t :k ;, 1: ,t CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 submitted elevations for these properties. Further, Staff is supportive of the subject request as the City will be able to have some architectural control over what is constructed on the subject properties, but Staff will not have to review and write a public hearing level report for each individual building. Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that a modification to the existing conditional use permit to eliminate the requirement for detailed conditional use permit approval for these lots should be allowed. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and fmdings. Building Elevations/Construction Materials: The applicant has submitted pictures for the existing office building already constructed on Lot 2, Block 1. Also submitted are sample elevations for the potential buildings to be sited on Lots 1 & 2, Block 6. (See Exhibit A) No elevations were submitted for the structure to be sited on Lot 1, Block 2. Any new structures on this the aforementioned lots should be generally compatible in appearance and bulk with the surrounding residential properties and the submitted elevations. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance will be required for all new construction on these lots. This enables Staff a detailed review of the site and ensures that the development will comply with UDC standards prior to issuance of building permits. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff fords the Conditional Use Permit Modification (MCU) application substantially conforms to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends approval of MCU-06-004 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. On December 21 2006 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the subject application. 11. EX>~BITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Plat of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision 3. Proposed Site Plan of Lots 1 & 2, Block 6 4. Elevations of Buildings on Lots 1 & 2, Block 6 5. Pictures of Building on Lot 2, Block 1 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Services Department 6. Parks Department 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Razzberry Crossing -MCU-06-004 PAGE 6 -~;1;. _.. _, ,} \. 4 y . '>;a,~~ ~..; ~;~r s ` tl.i 'ta ~`,t ,~ ~, .` _: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARTP"G DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map r~ciirs~sw __ °7 - - - ' ~ ~ ~~ `_ ~. , ~ •. ~ ~ J - ~ ~~~ ^" R ~. ~I~ II T-~ -- ti ~ ~ ~~T~a ~ ~~ _ - ~ ~'' ,~ ~_1 MD6tNQAIN~AN~ ~ 4, r - .. /' _ R I ` . ~ I ~ J, 4" ~- ~' fl ~ _ ~l9/ -T ~ry1 r p~ ~I ~ ~~.~t In~{~~ (g, T `. r~ 7' l-- ^~ ~~~.,.~/~ ` ~'` ~` ~ ~ /~ Y I ~ - J ( ~~ . d - ~ --rl~ i a ~ ~DI ~~_~~- -< ~44 I w ~ ~ r ,~i f ^J ' Mi J. . r..r S : FIl +'~9J J Ci~ 5~--t3,,,J--. t~ f` GY~y. ~ ~, ~a _~-1`•~~'~ ~;./' f~ fir' ,`-.1~~` '~;~,~~Cp~ ,!,~,~. x > j -~RAtHFIND ~ RED ~_ ~ - ~ t/J'.-- j - N s. ~ ~ti~~ti '~_ y''~'- ~ ~ - ~ k r - - .c~ .. _ _ -~ _ _ ~ --~ ~ ~ l~~ I ~ ~ : t tlfh8 P.AI? ~rr ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ -- ~~ ~-- ~~~ i 7j7j ~` 4 ~ 1 - - ~ i , 1 ~ ,: II a ~ _ -T - I.~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~. ~F.N.~V -_ 7 V ~ O. LL- I X t y.~ d - Tl. `~.. I r` ~,.~'`~ ~''~ .. ~ JC ~ ~ b I::, ~" 1 ~~'i '~~ r~ ~ ~'°` t PAl~ll V0.11 eE t f ~`~f "~ - - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ I __ 'A~D'PJq'ti; -- ~'j _ . ~ f ~ T'~ 'ice-- __ 1 ~ `y tq~.~-` q ~_ DIY 1 f f __~ ~~ 1. -y, t "•~~' "1}l~'~}~-- - - _ (` __ ~ - ~- u c~ k 1 - Ir~ _J ~ _ F - .~ V _ I M1~ ~ T L '''yyy 1+ ~ r- -~ IPycn- ~ FLP LDV ~.. ~ ~f~' ~~~ .~~ ~'T~ ~ I- - I ~ _ C ~ .J ~J 1 I I I 4 ~ I . .--- _ ., ~ ~ NEl3iTA0E PARSC ~ -~~,~'~, ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ;. ~ ~ I, IiA ~ ~ ~ ~~~ !f'^`-.1EIGH:Ftkl,~ ~---- ~- ~~zzb~rry Crossing +~UP IUlodific~tion Exhibit A Ai1i S~ :.N. ~. t ~ ~' ~f ~~ ~ i ~~ /' :k" S r ~ <<. r~.=~.~ sk ~: F r ~ ~ k ~ 1 r\~ ^U' ~~ N ~~ ~ GzSh-~ t" r ry'c U-, i `x , l f 4 L ! ,- ~, r..;:, ~~ s~~'' ~ r ~S ~ t t r *~' '~ , ~ ~ ~~,, ti r ~~~ ,, ` ~' `S ~ r ~ k ' ~f r , i ~ + ' ~~ r ~ ~ 4 ~ f L ~ ~ ~ t~ .E "c '{ z- J. A Y J r C r~ S'~w ' ~' ~ ~~ y ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~F1 ~f+ 1 34'- is `~~.. ~'1 ~1 Y ~;>r: Vii,: rs,+ 2. ;C, ax ~'~ 'f: ~, i'K r _`; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 2. Plat of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision ~` °j C4 St6 z O A oa c7 O a U ~i W N Exhibit A i rs: _F trt +,~ r~r~ V J --- 4 ~ ii ~_ V ~ a - ~ I~-~y ~~ ~rri/ a v i~ L u ,~ r C J ~$ 1 ~ * ~~ m61 k W~ '~ ~ :: + Ew rv'i . ~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~ xis.. ~? ,.. ~. .~_-_.,~ .,~ ~ ay~ ~r_~7[iv~ 'w'~W4~1~hk N ~ ~ I~ J W ~ < C ~Ylj u ~ - ~ ~ M r. .- < ~~ YQ f 7 G v, C, ~4~ ~ ~~~` $ rt 4 3 ~~~_ Slt' F nr~ r_ ~rJ~ ;xr,.n,s,~ ~'~ ~ ~' - ° +tiF Y.# - r ;k~,i- ~ ~ t t µs t~ Ay>t~~ :~:.: dry„ ' ,rat ,~.~ - ~,, ~ ~ ~~ t >~:f ~ ~ ~.';` a? ~~ ~f p, . n .,X WY~ v ~ t ~r ~?~~ tr ! f y. k,r*~ {,x~ 1µR ,r -.tiS - sn°-y ~t t ~ 4 ~. ~ t -:: . „ d ~! f o- v~ ~ ~`vs<:k ' x ~ S ~. r ~- ~ ~h.1~?(< F ' ~1 y 1'r ,a ; ~ ff •~. tr4 ~ ~,i ...,r,~,;~y.,. e .- "`.}.. ~r.~w i ~~+U;v rf+~ rr ~.~"~ S"~r 5 J i._r~ ~' h`` iui/ii~~ - . - IIS~ sl-~ TN~~:. .. -. Pfi yk. €r~~ ~ :. c ~. i ~,E~; ~` x ~~ ¢ _--- - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 m. ~~, -; :;:. ,: i -r, F~ _. t. ~'~~ t ~~?~ {.: t. a; ~`~~ ~. ;`i: ~5i kµ+' :-; i,•. ~1 E.. i .,.. i:.. t, '; ,~;.. ~_.~ ~, a~, ,r 5• 3 j ~ ~ -X71.'-+ r . ~.~ ~ ' ~ - r a- ~~~ r~{ ,~~y F `:~ Sr ~f ' ~ ~ ~~ . c ~ ~; . Tr t ~,1 ..~1 H L~~: ~ - ~,~^., SiR S n ~j:y ti < ~ t .~ 1 ~ A ~ ~4 2 A ('.~ ! W v~^. r ~ 1 iS '' X . ;r,r ;i;~(~ ~ ~~ , Sr ~ ~ ~ wlri, ~ + t ~ 1~ i ~ ' h ~ ~ 'yil`.., -w t 1 ,y~_ I F ~ ~ l ~b . F~j.: ~ 7~};- > z ~ h r x i sv ; xi ~ t t , _ ~ 3. Proposed Site Plan of Lots 1 & 2, Block 6 ___ __~ _. ~~~~ ~~'~' ~ y a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~. j ~ ~~x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ Exhibit A _.~r~ ~,, ~` s' ~}^' r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINU"~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 :~ 4. Elevations of Buildings on Lots 1 & 2, Block 6 h~ ,f -.,, ~: ;~~ ~~~ s ~: ~.' ~~.; ,. ' Exhibit A ';t;;,, r II,, h ~~. rf ~ ~ & ~i ~~~ i~ a~ ~~~ ~~ r ~~~ .~ ~ ;,~rt4 `F '' s ~ ~ ~~ ~' Y r ~ zl rte, ~y~~~ ry 1filV wF ., Aiu. ,i'~ t fr. ~, ~ EYr ~ :. 1 ~ i,... ~ ~ ;a, r-' v ~ ~ x ~~4 ~~ ~' .~~ k f i "~, ).rl. ~e.~%~' d ~ ~~ h~"v'"~ '~ Nkyir -_ t ~ 1: ~ ri _ y~ ~' . ' , _ ~ rr ~ t ~C ~'-E'S' ! er ~ '~. ~ Y ~ '^'' t 1 ~ ~ ~~~ T T 4 uu i(~ ~~ l' ~ i l.t ~' ~. R ~^l E y '. i j ~ 1~y~~ R~ ~a .l~', llG .~ ~.F, Y t ~~~ ~~? ~ ~ } ~f h 1 j y f .y 7 ~ ' T ~'S? tar- r i~° 9j .~ s , y i , _.q~ t~i ui ''~.'r` ;tea'. ~.. ~, ' ~ ir _ ~ >-, t ~ vt ,tit .,y }-- ~t .. t ~ ~ w 7~ CS .. ~:~ f ,~ ~. ;;I ,~.I ;~ ;r. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 5. Pictures of Building on Lot 2, Block 1 ;,~, ~. ,.,. :. -~,- Exhibit A !e ,r1+ t,~ : ~:$~a k #~ 4, .;~1 ~ .7': 1 Ear •~ ~'f 4 :*' ~:r~ y '. §S ~ y .,r._ , ,F di J`~ _ _ xr. r . ~;` ' .y . ~ . ~ } f ~, `~ `, ~ h „'~~a. : ,ai '` t ..,~ 3+~' .J T~ ~~', ~ - - dL N:i", r s., sb T; ~ . ~ ~~~ ~'4 ~i ~'} ~' ~ W,d f ~} A 1 ~ y,: '~'l^~ y . s . a r1,;.,. J~ ~ viii, 3 n c .2' ~ _ 1 I { FAY%Y.r~ ~ ,~ 1y ~ 1 ~ r '~' 1 5 y $ 5 ~ 4 l } Z .n~. ~ ~ ~. 1 .. H ! .!!~ .~ t n :. 3YIyN[ '?-t.'~i= j~~~~ '4`.'.F;~ 1 ,~~.3., ~ ... ' ~'. a e(• ..'~-'~; rte', sr i..,_-.,.~... 4 t r '~ ~' ~ i 5~ ~x~'.x'-3r~j. r } r ";5 ~f.,~E k~ ~ V~Y ~;' e< i~ rr k; ~~Ei CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAi~ DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~G DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 ~, B. Conditions of Approval ~;; ~' `'' 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT `~ 1.1 Site Specific Condition G3 of Az-03-034, requiring each office-zoned lot to obtain CUP approval, shall be deleted. The applicant shall comply with all other previous conditions of approval for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision (AZ-03-034, PP-03-039, & FP-04-055) and all applicable requirements of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP-03-062) for this site. 1.2 All future uses on this site shall comply with the provisions of the Unified Development Code in effect at the time of submittal for building permits. T`'s` 1.3 The project shall remain in substantial compliance with the conceptual site plans submitted with d . CUP-03-062. 1.4 All future buildings on the subject site shall substantially comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. If it is determined that any of the buildings do not substantially comply with the approved elevations, they shall be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. 1.5 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure, or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). 1.6 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy. ~- ~ Temporary Certificates of Occupancy ~ be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (e.g., landscaping, and irrigation). A bid from a licensed contractor must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.7 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a sepazate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.8 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of Razzberry Crossing's approved Final Plat /Conditional Use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 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. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~ 2.1 Applicant shall comply with all Public Works conditions of approval for Razzberry Crossing 6t-'v. ~',~ ~, Subdivision (AZ-03-034, PP-03-039, & FP-04-055). -: 2.2 All lots are currently serviceable and Public Works has no further comments on this application. ~°~: ~_:- ~;~ • 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 All parking lots greater than 150 feet in length not provided with an outlet shall be required to ~' ' >~ have an approved turn around. ~: ''= 3.2 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather G:~ - surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. K ~ ; ` 3.3 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire `r; . Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.4 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.5 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as F ~ measured around the perimeter of the building. ~. '~: Exhibit B NF-_. Y~ 1 '- ~ x~~ ~, . r'iYkjR- ' ' L ... y ~~~ ~ ~t "1' fit::;' j6'< '' ~ i,: r-- ~;,',. ~~ -' ~ c ' - ~` Y ~,. ' 'Sy t x ~ '~j '~~ ~, ~ ft~V~ ~ S S;I+y- Y ~. ~ ~ ~ r. I ki T ~, Y ~~- rf t -1 q 3 .~ ~ ~; t ,t~rfj., ~+.,. i 9:..:r r ~ ~'r i4` ,i ,. ~i! a ~ ~ '3c ~%~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. kr , ~^. P Tlt , '., ~: ~~~ ) ~l. ~~ ' `k r~`r , , _ ~ •~€ c SE . ., . ~ r. ~~i3r/ t ~. ~~v4~, ~+ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAi~ DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 3.6 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.7 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT - NO COMMENT 5. SANITARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Forthcoming ~x , PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~; _; ~ C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance ~= :' 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: ~;~° < The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: ~~ ~ A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the ~~ i `' dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. '~~ The future uses on the subject property shall meet all dimensional and development regulations of the designated zoning district. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (LJDC 11-3C-6). Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff s analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the ;~ ` : proposed use. 3y y' B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and f'..' in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for this property is Mixed Use -Neighborhood. The subject properties are currently zoned L-O. The proposed . elevations and future uses are generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see ' " > ~.; " Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) ~r'~ ~ C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other <: ~ uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the ~~fl- `~ . general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of '' the same area. The Commission fmds that, if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this ' report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the uses in this .:, a" ~' development should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the 4 . j.t: ; i _~,,~;.~: ~ existing and intended character of the area. `; ~ I D. 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 uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development y_~;r will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. r' ~ E. 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. z>-=~< The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Main line services to this site were previously ;,~,~: reviewed and approved with the Razzberry Crossing Subdivision development. The ~-,. Exhibit C ~~ , tom - I ~Y - t.~. ' ~ ":eft t~,~}..yr, ji z ;I .t;~ }~ 1 . :w1- 3. ~ Ft f~pf~~ 1. i.s ~-. ~ :. ~ -, t ~S t .. k'1 f + ~ A 4 ~ •". b i' ~~~ ~ t U~ ~ ~~`x ~ n~ i ~;J we y ~ ~ ,4 rG -~ ,`, ~} y:,;~i;l` a ~+w-~, ~~ ~ ~z.Lr~ F ;.. ~ , - ~ 4~~'tq;' . yi ` a h L+.-:' - Ck`; . ~ hr ~[ e ;.1(J~~:: 1~(~tl.( ~. n ~ ~ ~,+~~ K f ~ ^ ~ IK `~~~' * .. ~ :~ ~r. . Tt .n t •. l ~ ~ `,y~ ` .lyv~~ ~~ b..:= J ~ ~ i~jfs .} .: rF V ~i iC?i ~~ ,z,~~:; w ,;~~_ n ~ a. Fr..; ,. ':°' .-:~ tt~ J '~ ;;:~:, ~ ':=~~r a, . ~~,f,' ,~ ~~` 's? .} .,~~ ~, s, Ssf `; 6 ';~~ ~tC r ;~~~ f~ ~, '. r`~%~ .~~ Kiy~a `. {.w ~~~~ryryY~~-. ~1';~P! ~t~ k ~5~ ~ ~? ;' -S . I-,', ~4 .x- s:.` 3R ~. .?., ~~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 Commission fords that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. F. 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. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission fords there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfaze. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or 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 future uses in this location; however, the Planning & Zoning Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfaze of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the future uses will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glaze, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfaze of the azea. H. 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 use proposal 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 historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C • e 4 . ~-, iA ~F':~~ s F ~~ '~ . ;.v: .,' ~~, ; ,;~ a ~; ~~,;, aai: ; ;; January 2, 2007 CUP 06-039 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT Cooper Industries ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-C zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thrv - 3854 E. Overland Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sig n Posing Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at pubBc meeflngs sha116ecom® property of the city of Meridian. '',.t' y' .:~ ~ s °£k~'Z~ ~,aA c TM~.;~~; 1. - ~b~ i ~ ,~ , > [ ' IKX~. hi~_ .~i ~~~~ ~SY 1 ~ :~~'~' ~M1 ~ a~x`~ ° j ~ ~, F ` ,~' ~~~=*~` ~ ~ rK n` .;~ ~`-a~ t s ~Fr~~CY 't j f `.:Y`~. .. 4 F I rSr'.re.. }: t ~ t c tc ~4q ~ /~.. r ~ F ~ .., ~ a q~q~''s ` ~ ' u ~S~R~f . ' ~ J ~' ` JTT, ~ 4~ yy~~ +FY tkh ; ., 'f ~~: 3f' ,.3 ...iY.:.'i: ~ r 4 ' _ ~z1.•.. r y llV fit c....2,zd.. • e Janaury 2, 2007 CUP. O6-035 a' ~;; ;,;; MERIDIAN PLANNING S< ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ITEM NO. 5 ~~; APPLICANT BRS Architects ~; . ~: ,; REQUEST Continued Public Wearing from 11/16/06 -Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru estdblish- r;, F_ ment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern ;:: Springs Building A - 1760 S. Meridian Road ~~ AGENCY COMMENTS f. ~~ 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 Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes ., r,_~< ';;~ ;;; , :; ~.~~ Y', . <_, =. -z;. ~- ~; ~' :x j, - ,:,,~:: ~~; ,- -~: ~,_ ~!. :-%~~w,: See Attached Staff Report No Comment OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~~'' ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ y. ~ ~t'. r,{~.~ G~~~~ I~ f j ~~,~ 7 ,a j~. p.. _. ~~- ~ ~Y 1 r ` ~~ { ~ w i 11vv Ji 'J'~T'ryti~ y 4:.. 1 ~ t k ~ ~n ., 11. .+ 4F0 ".. ~~'~ i 'fi'.> V Y.'..p~K.l'.. Cie'Q Y ~ ~~•'~ ~s ' , ~ ~ 3 ~ . * Kjc{i ~ '~ ~~~• ' ~ ti' y 'CY't4W-. _. ~~ py "'fF ~' t":i_ ~lii ~ t h..,.' r A ~alf { ~ Y ~.: ~~ ' Nib _ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~,~ ~ l~iw ~ T.-_ ~ - i. ~:t~y ,~ ; ~r , r ~, :F,ai; y ~ ~ r~.x~~n~~~` Y~yy. ~- .~ • e 1=':.~.ZY.. ~~ `'" January 2, 200.7 CUP 06-036 ..i(;' s; r MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. 6 • REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /1 b/O6- Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establish- `~ ment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district #or Southern ~, ' Springs Building B - 1800 S. Meridian Road e s;: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: "i CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY ,..:, , CITY POLICE DEPT: • + CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ',~i,~ " CITY WATER DEPT: t~ CITY SEWER DEPT: S .` ~` CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Afftdavtt of Sign Posting Contacted: , Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 5.w .~ ~a. ", x ~~~~=b ~ :, ;. Y^~' W~ Y+Yr.A4,~,1 F ~' ~I~~ a ~~~ 3L~ ~ I ~. , 6 , H f t~3 ~`' . ~? ~ j i ~ ~'. J, ,ice. F. ~,.r~`~ i'i(N ~ [L?~, wC< *~ Vin. ~.ra . -, r.-.,,~,+~. k'; _, 1~,4 ~ ~~ ~~F l / j ,~'~ ~} } ~~S i.~'~ -. - .-~: fJ~s ~r~ 3 t ?G; ~ F:`: _ _ - ~ iS . l • M!~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,n•. ,~~ f .a .. • ;:>; t ~: ~~ ~~: . ;S ,, ~,... , ~, January 2, 2007 PP 06-063 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 14 building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe Subdivision No. 2 (North) - NWC of Ustick and Eagle Roads AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Aftached Staff Report 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: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: 1., Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubOc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ ~ ii #y: ri ~ ~ . . c •~. 11 / i ~ t - 1 "..9 ~ fcY _ r s7 ~ ~ ~' _ i ~ i =i,:. ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ T,~ 4 ~t: k~ ~~ ~ ' i ~~;51, {.:~ L K ~~ J ~ - r ~`-~ ` ~rF~ ~, _ .... .. - T ~~+.~i-- , .~~ ~~ `.. +~Rr' t~. ' ~ ' . 6 q ±~ ~.}~ _ a:~.: ~ _ 4 l ' r J X .~{' ~. ~ 2 viY:", 7 a ~`~~ - !Y ~' r ' 1 ,x + , ~M. t_; .ply a~e F - ~, ~. .~'t 3 1~ j.a ;--. ~ H~ f( ~Jr;~Yi. t '~`.'S y ,~... • ~~ ;~ :,,3:!: ,~~~ L~ ii ...:;i:~.; ~', ; ; ~,.. ~~ ~;: ~: ~ t '~:~ I=: >:. _ ~. __~ ;;~ ~_ , January 2, 2007 AZ Ob-O61 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision - 3935 W. Franklin rd and 280 S. Black Cat rd 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: See Attached Stafif Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments '~-`'`~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~t:.'~p INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~;> s `" ' ' OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting/See Comments from Cherry Lane Christian Church ~,: Contacted: Date: Phone: ~'~ ~-; Emailed: Staff Inifiials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ctiy of Meddlan. t ', a:~: r i = ~i~ f+^ R r ~ ~ d ;~ ~~e . ~~.• I ~ ~ t \ I WW ~ ~ ~~~t `~Y - Y Y ~. Y ~ 1" a 1 n ?' I~ v ~~nt'•~ ~ VV ~' h'YMff N }' i Y I ~ ~ Y~ t~ '.., f: F Y ;L':: .v S ~ ~ ~. ~'J •. p. ~~ y:~::3 p ~~.11 ~ : ~ i` * s.~~`d;~ i o i iii" i.~'; ~ ~~ r~ s~ ' y , . . S . , , ""~ ~r I 9 1. !E:^, ' R V :~' ;s. ~r~ <" . ~:: ". 4~ , a: k~ .. .. ~o. ,. I a .. . t s. „ k < ~ . . ~ . ... .. •1 .... '~ ~. d ~ i T:t. ~; ~:C f A ~ ' ~ n. ~ ! ~ ... .. '1 .. nRA!., .n. ~ ~ t ::' h f • A y t= : , , . n ;,}Yy ... ; . . x t ,. . . . , t c 1 sp ( ., , i ' .ti . 'S 'AJ'L. ~. zk~~~i,• ~Z~ f ~ . 4 t..l ~. ~ ~ .I ..;.~ ~ a , r ,~i, ~•;. i . ~i S~ f `a' #a .~ •~~: ,~ ,+a • ~ ~ `"i .yF' i~"b~~ .q .4,. . 11 y ` .'. I ;' r'k' S . ' ¢ i t, l ~ , s~ « ~~yy fi ~ ,~+Cali•~ r: i a.' ~pii'i' ~ •r->~k% t-p' ; I { h .{. a .~ . ~•.r.. 7."< ~.§:. vY . ~ Y •{~ _ ~r ' t~ ~`tx' I ~{ ~ n ~ i 1. iit ~ ~ t , v~ .~ , ~ , ,w.ty.~ •..'s~'', ,,i,". + ' . I j~ •:F ~,4.iE',`'~~~CiY% rE,` "c,' ' t £!:~ .:~ ~.~?;- t ;~E+ca,,~a:s.Y,t Y ~:~ r,"?:'k~ I • »/i ~ ~i~t '~~ i .l. :4 ar„t-.,x+. , ` • ~ ~ s . :,, j '"tl~ §s C.e~ ~' .. F4+ ~7> ~ ; ; ~~' y".!a ~ •~.~i'. ,,, fi.: . r f I. r f ~ t. ~ 4l ~~ ~k s ..~. . M .tr' LL 3., r 1 . RC~. S'4t "`~.Y~^ ).jr /'eP:•C I ~ w . .,r { ~};k' ~ tea: ' ` ' ~ .' ~~' '] MSC' ~~~~•' L r v •k °ye;.*'a'; E iY , _, ~ j "~.~~~`"F"~'~, 'a;;, 1.: ~ f h w' -;? '~ a, isr, z._,~, ... ..:•fc~.s5`;;~ I i ii5 :.C..r r .d ~ i ' . x . Y .. . ~, e•.' t'`}'r a " R~ ~ ' . lar i i i " ~ .. , rc••~: _ a <<%d„: _ 4 !.t ' yp4[';. i . .. ; s •~~ fI ~ y; :~.•. ~ u ~ Ypa.Y.~ ~ ~ r•4s,1',_ '~' - ;rat'' } : •' ~ Y.r.. YJ ~ \~'.'3;~.1~ - i.:Py'$''~-:~ ,:~' ~`.,, .3 5 ~ i, ss . ~ 1 n'`.{JE•F,e4tF•~' ;W~~..r {~ ~i'`' ( y, ,~ .{ I,efi .:k x3 ~~~fN~y.,'e7r4a. ~II R . 3 ~ T S . .. `v ~' S ~ tY.t: ~ , ' ' ; . a.' . :t * . `` i i ` , i' r_ sY ~} .: i I:~ S '~ ' •5°~•r~~" kk ~~ ,~t','$R 'Il ~i'~ 'f`i: x S~ '.Z ~' ' r~' ..`ffi' y . 1y ~ ~i~ I S~ ~ hl ~ .5r11v'a.`~~'f.R~. '.. ~~ YZ~ V ~ .:'L~ .~ ' f.$.xke k ~..yi,P' ,Y a d` ..k ~~ .l . :.4'e ,' +J M :!s ^• f ~ ! i. 5' 'i ;i.t i t 'S~ J~n. .4^. .:f~[`. ys I~~ !. . 4, .i'~ f" "F'.i J ~ ~~1~'y 1.pw Rfj~~ , ' ',<~ 'et¢ .#•a ~:.45 •=~~ i 7%' .t. 1. 7 ~ ... II ~ ~^Z~ I ;,f~ I "~ .raw , • ~.. ` t '".1•( ~:~fa i• G'n..4 . '. 3~ ~ I Y ( f~u;s~ia ti ~,. ~ ,. ~yll .A : III ~l I , ~~;. ~ I I i3`... h b n . 3 ~z l ~ • ` s ~: i ~~~;: ~ ~' ~~ ~~ . ~~ 3 ~ t~~F S ! ~ r3s ' +~ ~ '~C ~ ~ ~ ~~~~.~ ~ ~- ,= January 2, 2007 PP 06-062 ~ t. } , 5 k MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ~ +, 3 ~ ~ - ` ;.~ ,' Inc. ITEM NO. APPLICANT RMR Consulting 9 ~ ~ ~ . , ~~ ~~ £ , _ ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots,l5 common lots 8~ one ' .~.. ` '~ ~''~ school lot on 82.15 acres in the ro osed R-15 zone; lus 2multi-family lots & 2 common lots on 13.42 P P P ,~ ~ ~ ~'~, ~~ acres in the proposed R~40 zone for Baraya Subdivision - 3935 W. Franklin rd & 280 S. Black Cat rd. , ^y~ ' ~ ,.~ *~ p SI ~ A* e ~ P , ~ h ~~'' AGENCY COMMENTS ~ ' ~~' ,~q ~~~,~ ' 1 ~~~ et z .i b }'mow ~ CITY CLERK: See AT Packet ~ } r ~`` ` :` ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 4r~ ~~ ~' , CITY ENGINEER: ` y d: ~~ ; ;~ ~; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~<; ~`~~~w :~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~ I ~ i_ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~ `~`~ 5'. ~ F y2 rah ''> ~~~ 5' ~r ~n CITY FIRE DEPT: ~. ~ ~ ' ~ ~" ' ". ~:, CITY BUILDING DEPT: Y ,}~ lY~ '2~y(~ ~ ~~~=~ ~ =t 2 ~~ wa :~ ~ ~ ~*t !k r~YFfj CITY WATER DEPT: E , ~ ~- ,•%~ €^ i , ~Y,,f ~. ,~ ' k; CffY SEWER DEPT: `~F`~''~'~~,~ ~ `` ' ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ~, f ~ rr } T y+~./~ ' ` 3 K .~ ~1 ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: `i ... ~; i ' l ~i a _ ;~ s ~. as 'c `~ ~ '°g~~~,4' , ~ ! ~t ~5 d~ cy~ ~:~ ` , SANITARY SERVICES: ~ ~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ; ~ fi ! , ~ ~' ` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ ~ ; z _ . . CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: F~ ,~~ ~; ~ ~¢ `` NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~ ~~`~~~ ~ ,~ ~ 4µ 4 ` ~ ~ ~ SEI7LERS' IRRIGATION: ~ ~ T ~, . r ~, ~' ,~ ; `r~ ~~~~~ .g 6S Y ~l KKKK ~~~~ ~µ ~ ~ .~ IDAHO POWER: , ~ j ~ ~ ~ F , ~'~' ' ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ i, {~ ' "~~ h ) ~ OTHER: " ~F ~; `~ 5 Contacted: Date: Phone: w~. • ~~~~ .~ `f`~- Emailed: Staff initials: ~4 _ ~~~,~ ~` ~, ' '' ,: ~, ~ a Materials presented at public meetings shah become properly of tits City of Meridian. f r a ~ ~ ; ~ ° . ~ r i y ~ ~ ?Yr w i w . h~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,.J J LF ~S. ~i. i,sr ~. ~ a~. ~} ~f ~ 4~~i. ~- ~ ' . - r~ ;;.., ~ .r ~ , ,f s ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~~ ~ ~ .. I ~ 'r ,I ,,~< ~ Y ,; N ~. 1 r ~~ ~ Y tV e ~~ ~ 1 'rt ~ ~ 1'~"~ X ~ ~' ~ ri+:. ~F 4~~. ~ •a. ~~ -7- +.-; - - _ ~ J ~' ;; III ~ ,~ 4 ay: ,. _ ~ !y ]]] d ~ 3~: r _ Y ' ~', f '~ .i ? b ~ . t ~~ _ '~J 4r#7]g _ ~~ a. x 3`.~=1„~ ddh i - ~y(~~ . .~, _ t~ri ~ SSr µ£i - 1 t p .'~~ `~: '~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r' _ ~"m ~ ~~~. - ~ _ "c.-~T.; t'.. ~ ~ t ~ ~ x ~ .' ~ i ~' S ~ . in ` a„i., . i ~ e I i ~ ~, I' ~ ask, ~ A' . ''~// ~1 ~ ~ S ~~2ii ,y y, ~ SA - .ti ~ t;- r.. ,.x:.~, ~ ,. ~ • °' : ~ January 2, 2007 RZ 06-012 ~~`~_~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING Janua 4, 2007 ~~~ ~, ry ~. ~` "' APPLICANT Darren Blaser ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 1.69 acres from an R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone - 1440, 1516 & 1528 W. Cherry Lane t `' AGENCY COMMENTS 7:. <'.:F bci .,. ~~~ ! _~_ :. ~' CITY CLERK: ~fi, CITY ENGINEER: ~'~ CITY PLANMNG DIRECTOR: See A#ached Staff Report ~}, ~; . A CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~r ,,, CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ; ,: '` CITY WATER DEPT: - ~x ; ~~ `r' CTfY SEWER DEPT: , ~;: Cfl'Y PARKS DEPT: ;r,~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 's SANITARY SERVICES: ~. ~' -.` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments {t , -~` CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment -. 4; SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~_ t IDAHO POWER: ~`. ' ~` '" ' ~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~ ` ' ~ OTHER: ~:. - ~~. Contacted: Date: Phone: G ` ' Emailed: Staff Initials: {, Materials presented at public meetings shop become properly of the CNy of Meddtan. ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~i t r ,~X .f gs h v=~1'M;4 a°t` ~~~) t y z ~ j .. 1 ~ ty'R, ~. T~ ~ ~' yJ.~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ d r'. t5 ~'~. j s ~ +tx~'. ' ~ ¢_"~' ~ r ',Jqq, t ,~ ~ fi~ t._'ty'..1 ,.~ f .~ s~1c~ 1~' 1- ~ M.. 7v 1 Y~ ~;k~~., ~~~$-.a~ ~ D~ r~;.f,-. h~"': ., ' y~ ~ y.,: 4 ~ e ~. ~ 14 i~ s ~ ~~*~j ~~f ~.T~" 3 F '-~~' Y ~ ~ ~, S4 41i. - ~ `~r,~ - ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ G *F~ x'r ~ ~~ f S ~ + .v ~ y:, - ~'.'. .;F;,, ~ .x.,`k~ s , ~~~ .. , .~' a ~,s ~~- -w - j ..,r.~ : ~ ~ e.r , I~~,_Zy ~~ ~_ ' ~ ', January 2, 2007 AZ 06-059 h. - ~' ~- ,, MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 k'z `' APPLICANT Providence Development ITEM NO. ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, "= R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision -west of S. Eag{e Road '~ and south of Amity Road. ~- "' AGENCY COMMENTS ~., '' CITY CLERK: ,; .: ,, . . CITY ENGINEER: ~~ ~: , CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Request for Con nuance `' ` CITY ATTORNEY ~, . CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ CITY FIRE DEPT; ' ' ' x~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~~ :: CITY SEWER DEPT: `~ > . CITY PARKS DEPT: '~ DAN H L Df RI T: See Attached COmnlents MERI I SC 00 ST C ~_~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~- ~' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRIGT: d; ~ , :; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ', ~~ .. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments ~,,s SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~'' ` IDAHO POWER: ~~.~:. INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~.~~ '' OTHER: ~~ ~ ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: ~ ~' Emailed: Staff Initials: ~> ~: Materials presented at public meetings shad become property of the city of Meridian. f:. ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~::.: , ~ ~ ?-r y~ L','kl~+ ~~ ,~> s ~H. ~f, ,~.;. .-, ~ ~~~ ~_ `. c s,•: ~ y yr" 4 ~} r y n~ - ~ r ~t~t «4i -. r y :. . L t ~~ - <x~ or ~ x :. .~ , ~~ ~? y 'SY~~ y ~ T ^ '.? ~~ r, °' - rr ~~ ~~' -=' t a+k~'. ~~ r~~ `~ ~:~,. : } '''~ ,~,, 4 •.Yx.: C xA'r F' 1 tl' ~ - r ~'. ~}1~ ~ k i"rR • • s- January 2, 2007 PP 06-059 ~~_ ~"' ~_ `. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ,r, '~ APPLICANT Providence Development ITEM NO. ~ Z ~u:. ~~' - REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential ¢,.. lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for -~~. Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision -west of South Eagle rd. and south of Amity rd. ~' ' AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ ' ~ CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet ~.~~ -' CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: F-, CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ":~= CITY BUILDING DEPT: '~.~ ~ CITY WATER DEPT: t=~, , CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: ':,,..;~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~' SANITARY SERVICES: ~,;, ~' ' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: f ~' '~ ~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~ ,. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: `` ' ' IRRIGATION: SET TLERS ;`'~:. IDAHO POWER: 5r .' ` r `~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: :~ - OTHER: ~f'> `ti Contacted: Date: Phone: `° Emailed: Staff Initials: ~~ ~::zj Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meddlan. ~. ". ~, ` :I , ~` r~, ,~ i ,, ~ rz{ ~' ~ ~ _ ~~~ > _ r .; ~ 7k a S ~- A y_ i~ ~ .u f ~ . z,.. t.. ~ ~ 'f: , ,~, ut; -:'. ~~I r ..S 9;., RR~.. 3ti~~~,x.,. _ ' .._ .. `1 y„ ' ~ u }3. ~. 4~1 } ~ ~~~~? ~~~ iy k~~: ,,; ~~ I ~ ~- ,~* y b_ 1~'y ~s '.'~~r~' ~ '~.r j 1 IR;'., ~'k' 1 YY NN.~:~L ~~~ U ~~1' ~~ "~ Tsr~.'4~; ' . . s y -~ 'v ^ ~ ,..p: ~3 .~ s •.~,: ~, ~~ ~ r t:i~. ~C j - - ~ tA .~.w.6~` y ~~ ,:,: r t, ~' 1i ~~: ; r ~:, ~& `~: ~: ~~. ~. ~~ f ,;,;. .... :: t `! ~~_,: ~;::~~ ~~~'~- x; January 2, 2007 AZ 06-047 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT Vacation Village Villas, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1112/06 -Annexation & Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision - 2510 E. Magic View Court AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CI1Y WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials prese~ed at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdian. ~w - , r n .•~ ~ ~~~ •,~ ~' i. ~ a'+-~~ ~ ~.. T. "Y'.'~.+ t,R ~'E j 1 .771;x',. ~ x~ ,W~'' ^~ 2 , ~ , ~ l • y y h J. .~ t ~' ~ J~": -- rig'.. _ ~,~~^ Sl 9 T .i P h y t s:", ~u~,~ - I~ fits;. .:.!.. _ ~a "~"i `y„ ~ ,,.:: 1• y. ~~~ ^ a 5 n'~~ C ~ ~ . ~x^^, ';',, ,~ + may,. f ~~.. v .r: , ,r, ~ i ~{!~ ~ r ~. a ~5 k ~ ,~pvr- ~ 3 r ~ ~ i t ix Q~d-~ ~ . v .~ ~~,. ~s~ ~r +~„ ~~ ~~~~~ `> A, -. ~` ;~ ~: kT' i ~' p~ . _c C' 1'"~ ~' `~ ;; ~~.: k:! ?; ~;. ';:~ a- ~- ~;. ~: a ~ . s„ '. *. ~~ ._ , ,i:: ~^ ~~~ i January 2, 2007 PP 06-049 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONfNG MEETING January 4, 2007 APPLICANT Vacation VIIICIge Villas, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /2/06- Preliminary Plat approval of 6multi-family residential building Iota consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot 8~ 3 common /other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision - 2510 E. Magic View Court AGENCY COMMENTS ~~~ ~~~ CITY CLERK: Sew AZ Pccket 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: Con#acted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 5 ~ 1 >' k .~3 ~~~ ~ ~i~ r. ~; '~ t;.~~' ~•~fh , ~ ~..r~ :~: Mk%'~ ~ ~+ i'~~ i._. ~fr~^ V i ~ ~ ~µf.( k^ of Y'*'- J ~~~: ~7 k .f ^?Y~. 7 rt i v. e ~"1 r ~?,~., ~~ ' ;. ~~~ ~eH kl.~{ p Y '~ ~ y. UC ~k ~~ ~ -3 ,. ~' ' ~' x rt .~; i _ ~, .r.a. ~, ~. ~t s t ~1' ~ K L . ~ ' E 1 nt. ~ ':r.. 1 ~'~i , „~: t..x (~~. ~.. ~'' F ~<• t '° ,,f ~~~. ": January 2, 200 CUP O6-030 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ~~ ~~ ~ APPLICANT Vacation Village Villas, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 5 .:,- REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11/2/06 -Conditional Use Permit approval for s~ amulti-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision - `~'` ' 2510 E. Magic View Court ~~ ~~ AGENCY COMMENTS <. ~a '; ~~ CITY CLERK: See AZ Pocket ~~~~~~~ CITY ENGINEER: ~.. , ~.. _~= ~-`, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~~t ~; ~:._~ y ~~ ~ CITY ATTORNEY "' CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~?~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: 1~~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ~. _. CITY PARKS DEPT: '` `' ~_ - MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ,, ~~; ~: '''"~`'° ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: Pis >':''r : CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: r', .F, NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: 5;' i1 SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~: ~} IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: >~ ~-?^-'; OTHER: ~.. Contacted: Date: Phone: ~~ Emailed: Staff Initials: ~~ Materials presented at pubik meetings shall become property of tine City of Meridian. ~_ ~: E:- ` January 2, 2007 AZ 06-058 _~ ._ ~.'- MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ,~ APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT r (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision -4435 S. Meridian Road. AGENCY COMMENTS r4 ~' ; ~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~;-, : , CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~:~~ ~- ' ` CITY ATTORNEY ~: `"`' CITY POLICE DEPT: ~'`,~ CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ``' ~ ~ CITY WATER DEPT: ^. CITY SEWER DEPT: I~Y ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments 4&~~ . ~`" ~: SANITARY SERVICES: ;.#,; ADA COUNT( HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments `° NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments .,~ ~., ~: -: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~° ~= ._: , >~;: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~~ OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: K • Emailed: Staff Initials: F;,.~. :. Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Gffy of Meridian. ~ ~: ~F:~ ~'; ~a 4k ..~ ,m ,~ . - ~ ~ '~y 1 b ,~j~ ~ ;,9 . FL LF 2 (:nj ~~~ , _, ~ .; ~. ` Y .. 1 ,}1 ~.. S''~YFT~• T f;,~yy~i ~ g~i•dr~ -r_~ 7;~I" Z a, ~.~,,~,,; ~~, . ~` ~ ~'~ i, kd F k k ~. ~i ~ -f ;. ~ . $..-. .,`,' ~. ~ ~ k 1 4~~ qM1 ~ d ~ 3 ~' . ~~ N F'' '~ j _ r4..~.. ~j~yr~~ '~N`~'" 'Sx:R~Z4 `„ ~ ~'~'. - [ M .~ l Y r a,~.~... - ~'^ "-~~?- ~~' January 2, 2007 PP 06-057 ,r; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 4, 2007 ,:_ ~a APPLICANT M & H De~tc-;IOpment, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 7 :, ~` REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family `° residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision - X435 S. Meridian Road. '- ~~` ~ AGENCY COMMENTS y; .; CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: ~_: . ~' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~`'' `' .~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~,' CITY BUILDING DEPT: 4, ~~ , ~:- CITY WATER DEPT: r;-- CITY SEWER DEPT: ~~~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ~., MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: . ~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~-~"'' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: r,<:. "' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~:~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~ ~~ IDAHO POWER: ~- ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: ~: , , 5 ~'' Contacted: Date: Phone: ~, ~ ,.. '~ `' Emailed: Staff Initials: ,, ~< °= Materials pr®sent®d at pubtlc m®etin~s sha11 become property of lice City of Meridian. %':~ .. i ..; ~~' s , ~x { ~ ~ r i ~y- ~,<. T "i}n ~ , S; { ~ j ~~1 ~ ! l ~' ' f. ~*Y!ti~~ -~ ~ ~ t~~` " 1 !.. ~?~` i ~ f. . y S , ` ;.t.~ ~ ~e~~F ~ ~- . `~r~r E~ c x _ a ,~,_ w . ' y~~~' i }~"'f.!.~ C., . ~~~~ +~µ~ ~ r 4 _. X CIA. t~'~` ~~ S'~i y -. J.. 3 T. t }~S V t, Y~ ;p w. ;~~;; ~ „~ A ~ ?~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i: `k~ ~ r ~ ~ If +re 1-, ~i