The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 11-150 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 15, 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 Tom O'Brien _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe —0—Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams – 1650 Dunwoody: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC – NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: RZ 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC – SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 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. 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 518 lots consisting of 443 single-family residential building lots; 1 residential building lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 residential building lots consisting of 61 future condo units; 4 mixed use lots consisting of commercial retail on the 1St floor with 12 residential lofts on the 2nd floor; 9 commercial building lots, 1 school building lot, 1 civic/social hall lot, 46 common lots and 5 other lots on 177.43 acres in C- N, TN -C, TN -R and R-8 zones for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: CUP 07-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to convert the existing Caven home into a civic/social hall in an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 20, 2007 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 20, 2007 11. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from Ada County RUT to an R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development — 1235 E. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 4.92 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development — 1235 E. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Public Hearing: AZ 07-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C -C zone (21.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 (12.87 acres) for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots and 10 common lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C -C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 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, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • (:MERjDIAN*,,-.-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING p A REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 15, 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: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 4 proms a-5 A�'1� r� 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: /1_ io rro v -e— B. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: AP Pro vr— 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams — 1650 Dunwoody: 1-<& C, m w7e rucL Ar p I�ott�P � 8' 6k) 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: 4ngoPr=Vc0t�,erntinued Pub a 18 2007. `RZ 07-014 Re uest 6. Coq for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: 7. eonCeinued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 518 lots consisting of 443 single-family residential building lots; 1 residential building lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 0 residential building lots consisting of 61 future condo units; 4 mixed use lots consisting of commercial retail on the 1 st floor with 12 residential lofts on the 2nd floor; 9 commercial building lots, 1 school building lot, 1 civic/social hall lot, 46 common lots and 5 other lots on 177.43 acres in C- N, TN -C, TN -R and R-8 zones for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory9 Road: kt 60 8. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: CUP 07-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to convert the existing Caven home into a civic/social hall in an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory ed Road: �/ � m rn n4 Pa va� -1-D 0'?/ `� 9. Contin/ued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek P/r�o'perties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat `^Road: -1v �� 3 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: ►� r pt c i -i`� � (� � d2 4-6 ® � 11. Continued Public Hearing from Octobd 18, 2007: AZ 07-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from Ada County RUT to an R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development — 1235 E. McMillan Road: Re-6vm� 12. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 4.92 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Matador Sbdivision by Equity Development —1235 E. McMillan Roa 13. Pu lic Hearing: AZ 07-017 Request for Annexation an Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C -C zone (21.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 (12.87 acres) for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: IJ `'i�l/%Gc-� � 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots and 10 common lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C -C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: 1�t c AP Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 016q�R Tos� for4b[k N)O_Hcz_ E IDIAN . MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 15, 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: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams — 1650 Dunwoody: 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: RZ 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 518 lots consisting of 443 single-family residential building lots; 1 residential building lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 0 residential building lots consisting of 61 future condo units; 4 mixed use lots consisting of commercial retail on the 1St floor with 12 residential lofts on the 2nd floor; 9 commercial building lots, 1 school building lot, 1 civic/social hall lot, 46 common lots and 5 other lots on 177.43 acres in C- N, TN -C, TN -R and R-8 zones for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: CUP 07-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to convert the existing Caven home into a civic/social hall in an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from Ada County RUT to an R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development — 1235 E. McMillan Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 4.92 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development —1235 E. McMillan Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 07-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C -C zone (21.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 (12.87 acres) for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: 14. Public Hearing: PP 07-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots and 10 common lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C -C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 15, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Broadcast Report Date/Time 11-13-2007 06:23:51 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"M 1 " 06qu -105f- No+i c�- C;VE IDIAN MERiDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING t o A at o REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue. Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Cound are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the abilHy of the presenter." 1. Roil -calf Attendance: Tom O'Brien David Moe 2. Adoption of tho Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: Wendy Newbon-Huckabay Steve Skidoway Michael Rohm - chalrman A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: S. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams - 16W Dunwoody: S. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07.012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 268.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC - NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: RZ 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC - SEiC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07.015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 618 lots consisting of 443 single4amily residential building lots; 1 residential building tot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 MerMw PWmbV and bordrlg CommWm+ Mednq Agenda - hloventber 15,2W7 Pegs 1012 Alf mateftla pmsenM et pubAc rnwlttP dm9 boom* property of the Cly or Mer11kn. Anyone deMi tg accommodation for disabNas related to d= m*nte atW9 br hearhV, pWm oontad the City CleNe 018ca ad 868 4433 at least48 hours prior to the puff m eft. Tn+.I 0nnae Cennnanl • 9 Tn+al Panpc Cnnflrmpri - 36 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 390 3810160 05:58:33 p.m. 11 -13-2007 00:02:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP9500 002 390 8989551 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:40 2/2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 390 2088848723 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 390 8886854 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 390 2088985501 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 390 18467366 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 390 18950390 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:40 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 Broadcast Report Date/Time 11-13-2007 06:23:58 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 390 2088882682 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 390 2083876393 05: 58: 33 p.m. 11 -13-2007 00:01:00 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 390 2877909 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 011 390 2088885052 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 390 8881983 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:35 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 013 390 2083776449 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:01:00 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 014 390 4679562 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 015 390 8886700 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 016 390 8884022 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:01:55 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 017 390 3886924 05:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:40 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 018 390 8841159 105:58:33 p.m. 11-13-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 019 1390 8840744 05:58:33 p.m. 11 - 13-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC IHS ICP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct Broadcast Report Date/Time 11-16-2007 10:26:49a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5 "x11 " (�E IDIAN IDAHO MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. 'Although Me City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truMful end honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roil -call Attendance: Tom C'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Slddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approve res Am&4dW 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting: A ppro vr_ S. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Ap pr- --c 4. Public Bearing: AZ 07.015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams/ - 1850 D� h'!lr?Et f-tVpY'O�'CP.� 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 268.38 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCai Properties, LLC - NWC and NEC of /N Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue- -It' venLueeQ ! G`�j �� 6. Conitlnued �ri rem O�ctobe 1r 8, 2007 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.58 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC - SEC �o"ff S. Meridian ljoa4 and E. Victory Road: �or►tT fYt 04 ApprovZe -h �x9GtIiG� 7. need Public Hearing from October 18, : PP 07-015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 518 lots consisting of 443 single4amily residential building lots; 1 residential building lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 r.4erWh n Plmming and Zontny Corrfml Wm Mee" Agenda— November 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2 AO materMe presented StWo mednos WwH become properly of the Cityof Meddlam Anyom deshtrq eccommodoWn for disabMs related to deoumeate andfor heaing, please conw the C ft Clarke Office at SS04433 at least 48 house prior to the public meoft. Total Pages Scanned: 2 Total Pages Confirmed: 36 No. Job Remote Station Start TI me Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 413 3810160 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:02:56 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 413 8989551 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:44 2/2 1 EC HS C1321600 003 413 2088848723 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 413 8886854 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 413 2088985501 09: 55: 23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:41 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 413 8467366 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 413 8950390 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 !r Broadcast Report Date/Time 11-16-2007 10:26:56a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 413 2088882682 09: 55: 23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:35 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 009 413 2083876393 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:01:09 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 413 2877909 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 011 413 2088885052 09:55:23 a. m. 11-16-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 413 8881983 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:01:00 212 1 EC IHS CP21600 013 413 2083776449 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:01:08 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 014 413 4679562 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 015 413 8886700 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:01 0/2 1 -- HS FA 016 413 8884022 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:02:04 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 017 413 3886924 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:01:09 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 018 413 8841159 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:36 1212 1 EC HS ICP28800 019 413 8840744 09:55:23 a.m. 11-16-2007 00:00:38 2/2 11 JEC IHS ICP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct • Meridian Planning and Zonina Meeting November 15, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 15, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Members Absent: Commissioner Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Stickland, Sonya Watters and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe - Vice Chairman 0 Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to start the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have one change tonight and that is Items 9 and 10. Both of these items related to the Belhaven Subdivision. That will not be heard tonight and it will be -- at the time that we get to that item on the agenda we will be continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th. So, if there is anyone here for that project, we are not going to be hearing that at all tonight. So, other than that, the agenda stays as presented here. So, with that change could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the adjusted agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? 0 o Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 2 of 60 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on that and the first is approval of the minutes of -- from the October 18th, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Item B is approval of the minutes from the November 1 st meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? Moe: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. O'Brien: None. Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. O'Brien: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: That's the housework that we have and before we open up our first item, I have a few things that I'd like to say. As you can see, we have got a pretty full house tonight and as a Commission we try to take everybody's testimony and pay strict attention to what's been said and the only way we can do that is if one person speaks at a time. The person that is at the microphone has the floor and the communication will be between that individual, the Commission, and they will direct any questions to the 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 3 of 60 Commission and if we need to request clarification from staff -- but that's the direction it goes, from the individual speaking, to the Commission, and, then, between us and staff. And it's very important that you remain courteous to the individual at the microphone and we would expect that from them the other way as well. The -- the procedure is we will open up a Public Hearing and the first thing we do is we ask the staff to present the project and what they do is they will present it in a fashion that relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. That's their presentation. Once they have completed their presentation, then, the applicant will have 15 minutes to present the project from their perspective and that 15 minutes is all inclusive, so if there are multiple presenters from the applicant's perspective, all of them need to encompass their testimony within that 15 minute period. Once those two portions of the opened project is complete, then, it will be open to the public to speak from their perspective and each individual will be given three minutes to speak. If there is one individual that is speaking for a homeowners association that is going to speak for a larger group, that person will be given ten minutes and that does not specifically preclude any other individuals from that subdivision from speaking, but, generally speaking, it should encompass the thought process for that group as a whole. But if there is something left out and the person feels it's appropriate, then, they are certainly welcome to speak as well. But each individual -- additional individuals have three minutes to speak, then, the applicant will have the final word. They will speak -- they will have the chance to respond to any comments from the public. At that time we will close the Public Hearing and if, in fact, we have enough information to move forward, we will make our recommendations to City Council. And that's the procedure. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams — 1650 Dunwoody: Rohm: And so with that being said, we shall now open the Public Hearing for AZ 07- 015 related to the Dunwoody property and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.88 acres of land from RUT Ada County, to R-2, low density residential. Here is the property right there. The property is located at 1650 Dunwoody Court on the northeast comer of Dunwoody Court and North Locust Grove Road, approximately a third of a mile south of Chinden. This property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Dunwoody Subdivision. This is an aerial view of the property. Rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County surround the property. This property is contiguous to property that has been annexed into the city at the southwest comer across Locust Grove, Madeline Estates, zoned R-4. A new home has recently been constructed on this property. The applicant's request for annexation is based upon the fact that the property has already been hooked up to city services. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 4 of 60 applicant is requesting annexation as a stipulation of being hooked up to city water and sewer. The requested R-2 zoning district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of low density residential for this property. The city's lowest density residential designation is R-2. Letters of testimony on this application have been received from John and Patricia Gridler, Michael and Kim Callahan, David and LuAnn Bean, Kent Borgman, Terry Copple, Maurene Miller and Richard Price. And Don and Sally Abkin, objecting to the annexation of this property into the city with an R-2 zoning designation. The primary concern voiced by these folks is that if an R-2 zoning designation is approved, it would allow the property to be further subdivided in the future. I'd just like to clarify that while the R-2 zoning designation would allow for a maximum density of two homes per acre, the property would first have to go through the platting process, which requires that adjacent property owners within 300 feet be notified of the Public Hearing. If this happens in the future, the public would have an opportunity to comment on the request at that time. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning request to R-2 as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thanks very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Not at this time. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Williams: Marshall Williams, 1650 Dunwoody. I purchased the home or the ground. It was Ada County. They tell me you got to go to the city to get services. Requirements. I go to the city. They say to get a water meter and sewer hookup I need to annex. It's a pretty simple application. There is no question about -- it's just an application for annexation, not for a lot split. Simplifies it. I am -- we are asking that it be annexed, so we can have the city services, which is a requirement by being so close to Locust Grove that already has city services and we have built the home, already done the install of the water and sewer, so we are -- Rohm: You're ready to go. Williams: Ready to go. Ready to go. Rohm: Okay. Williams: That's about the size of it. Rohm: Did that property have septic service and well on it prior to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 5 of 60 Williams: There were no -- no services that way. And that's why I went to the -- oh, district health and they told me that I'd have to go to the city. Rohm: Okay. Williams: So, there are no -- no prior services on the lot. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'm just curious. You had the house built? Williams: Yes. Moe: And what jurisdiction did it go through for building permitting process? Williams: Ada County. Moe: Did go through the county? Williams: Uh-huh. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I don't have. It's pretty cut clear. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Before we take testimony and I certainly want everyone to know that we want to hear anything that is brought before us, but the thing that I also want everyone to know is the Planning and Zoning Commission is not a vehicle for enforcement of CCRs and if there are issues between the property owner and what you folks perceive to be the covenants within your subdivision, that's a private matter that is not even part of our hearings here tonight, so any testimony that is received -- anything related to the CCRs of the subdivision, really doesn't cant' any weight itself as far as the application for being accepted into the city -- annexed into the city. So, with that being said, I will call the first person. Patricia Gridler. From the audience -- I assume it's Patricia -- she indicated that the president of their association would like to speak first and that's certainly acceptable. So, would the president like to come forward and state their name and address for the record and -- and you have got ten minutes, sir. Moe: Can we poll the audience so we know -- • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 6 of 60 Rohm: Oh, yeah. Who are you speaking for -- could I get a show of hands for -- okay. Thank you. Borgman: Yeah. My name is Ken Borgman, I am the president of the homeowners association for Dunwoody Subdivision. I guess it's pretty simple what our concerns are. Our concerns, obviously, are of the -- with the subdivision portion. It's not really the annexation portion. We are -- our concern is about the overall impact of what this will have. We mentioned CC&Rs. I won't get into that. There are some CC&R issues that we do have. But the main thing is that when MarKar first purchased the property and everything else and a sign went up there, one of our homeowners called on the sign to find out what was happening there and he was told that there was going to be three lots on that subdivision. Well, we -- I think I have already furnished a couple of pieces of paper for you, copies of two different letters that we had sent to the -- to the person who sold MarKar that lot, as well as to the Marshalls themselves -- the Williams themselves. So, addressing that concern. Obviously, when this came up and we were -- got the notice of subdivision and allowing -- which, essentially, the subdivision would allow up to -- or the -- up to three homes to go onto that lot, it kind of matched up with what our homeowner was originally told when he first called. Of course, right after he called the for sale sign came down and they presented a home to us to build on that lot. Well, that lot is a one point acre lot and the home that was built was pushed right up as close to the Dunwoody Road as possible, leaving a -- quite a large area behind it, followed up by the fact that when they submitted the architectural plans, they, basically, architecturally landscaped it to what amounted to almost a patio home in the back of it. And even the plans even had a line -- almost like a lot line drawn behind them. So, our biggest concern, obviously, is that, you know, our subdivision is made up of homes sitting on -- between one and a half to two and a half acre lots with single homes and that's what our CC&Rs, obviously, call for as well. We want to make sure that that -- that lot stays a single home lot and one of the things that we had talked -- and I submitted today was the request for a development agreement by the city that -- as a part of this, if they -- to go on with the annexation and the rezoning process, that there be a development agreement that requires the applicant not to subdivide this lot and, quite honestly, if we can come to that type of an agreement, you know, the homeowners and us, we really haven't had much of an issue. That's our -- obviously, our biggest concern. Other CC&R issues we have we can deal with at the appropriate time, so -- Rohm: Thank you, sir. O'Brien: I have just one question. In your covenants do you allow animals on your property? Borgman: Yes. O'Brien: Do you? Horses, cows, whatever? • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 7 of 60 Borgman: Yes. O'Brien: Okay. Borgman: Yeah. And we do have a number of homes that have horses and stuff with -- on their property. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. As I go through this list and call each one of you, if the homeowner president has already spoken in terms of what you wanted said, you can say from the audience that I have been spoken for and we can move to the next person on the agenda. So, Patricia Gridler. Gridler: Good evening. My name is Patricia Gridler. My husband and I live next door to the property in question. When we purchased our home a little over a year ago, it was a vacant lot and we were told that a home was going to be built there. We were very happy about the situation and -- but as time progressed and we were informed of different situations that had occurred, long before we purchased our property with the possibility that Mr. Markar at one time did want to put more than one home there, we weren't rather -- very pleased when we had over an acre and a half of property, so did everyone else, and set their homes that way and it afforded a lot of privacy. And as you can see, a lot of trees, landscaping, and so forth. It's a rather unique subdivision. Anyway, that's background and I'll go on. But the main issue with us is -- being next door to this situation is that if the R-2, which the city says in order to annex it has to be R-2, technically -- we don't have a problem with the technicalities of that, but the problem is that once that lot becomes approved by the city as annexed to the city with an R-2 designation, we feel that that's an incremental step into further subdividing that property at a later date. And as Mr. Borgman stated -- and he feels that he came up with a plan for our subdivision, we agree -- and we were just told about that ourselves this evening, but we feel that to accommodate a complete situation where we wouldn't feel that the city at a later date may not honor our covenants, which we have all signed, including Mr. Markar when he purchased the property, that they would be single family properties and with one -- only one home on each piece of property. And so we would just urge you to consider the situation, that if an R-2 designation is approved, that there is some legal and binding situation between Mr. Markar and the city, as Mr. Borgman suggested, so that at a later date that designation isn't used to subdivide further of our subdivision. And that's about it. In closing, I would ask that all of you think of your situation when you purchased property and devote the majority of your money into your home, that the -- the thing you purchased your home for isn't changed by somebody else's monetary gain. Thank you. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page S of 60 Rohm: Thank you. O'Brien: Just --excuse me. Rohm: Ma'am, we have a question for you. Gridler: I'm sorry. CJ O'Brien: So, where you're living now, is that -- are you part of the county? Are you -- Gridler: We are county and we are -- well, in the picture we are to the right. O'Brien: Do you have a map up there? Nary: Can you pull the mike down, ma'am? Can you pull the mike down a little bit? Gridler: Oh, I'm sorry. Nary: That's okay. Gridler: So -- Nary: There is a pointer that should be attached to that. It's on a little chain. Gridler: Oh. This is -- all right. This is the MarKar lot and this is ours. The back part of our lot is agricultural. The front part is all landscaping. You can see the berm. The way the property line is, the previous owners had both lots and they, apparently, as history -- we didn't know at the time when we purchased, but I guess quite -- not too long before we purchased this -- the home on this acreage, the people that sold to us also sold Markar. He -- they owned all of those -- both of those properties. And this is an incidental matter, but this berm here is surrounding our property -- actually, surrounding our home and part of that berm, when the previous owners split the lot, part of it is on Mr. Williams' property right there. So, part of that berm is his and -- but the rest is ours and that's where we are located. And his home, as you saw in the picture earlier, is right here. All the rest of the property is vacant back here and, actually, foot by foot, I don't know, if you probably divided it up, you could probably -- it's probably pretty evenly -- two other lots of acre each behind his home. O'Brien: So, I assume that these are like horse barns or something, those other outbuildings here? Gridler: These people have a shop behind their home. 0 O Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 9 of 60 O'Brien: So, those -- I assume that there are certain sizes that you can -- you're limited to on those types of -- Gridler: We are limited to two -- two animals of each variety, whether it's horses and -- with the covenants they specifically say what kind of animals you can have and how many. But it's mostly farm -type animals. O'Brien: And this might be a question for staff, I'm not sure which, but are there allowed in your covenants a possibility of putting what they call a little cottage for grandma on the property? Gridler: No. No. O'Brien: All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Gridler: The -- uh-huh. You're welcome. And thank you very much for your time. Rohm: John Gridler, did you want to testify? From the audience he said that he's been spoken for. Michelle Borgman. She's been spoken for. Toby -- Toby -- he's been -- from the audience he says he's been spoken for. Alisha Hams. She's been spoken for. And Bill Wiser. Wiser: Yes, I'd like to speak, please. Rohm: Absolutely. Wiser: My name is Bill Wiser, 1842 East Dunwoody, which is kind of in the middle of the gray wall there to the right. I attended the meeting -- the neighborhood meeting for this upcoming decision process and we were informed of needing connectivity to water and sewer required annexation. I did not hear anything about R-2 zoning at that meeting. So, I guess I'd like to say if -- if a meeting is going to be held, I'd like if all the facts were presented, not just some of them. Be that as it may, where we are at is, you know, I'm just -- I support the statement of my president. We'd like to have some assurance that we are not going to have continued legal battles and expenses set up because of, you know, poor decisions up front. And if we allow R-2, we just set the ball rolling for us to attend more meetings and spend more money to uphold the covenants. Maybe a suggestion is we understood from that meeting, neighborhood meeting, that the lot just to the north was allowed to hook to the sewer without annexing, but only promising to annex if adjacent properties -- he wouldn't object to annexation. If you could do the same thing for this lot, that would solve all the problems, because he would not be required to do R-2 and he could be hooked up and he would sign a statement that said in the future he wouldn't object to being put into the city and, then, we don't have a problem. So, I just want to suggest possibilities here at this meeting that might • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 10 of 60 enable communication to prevent further legal action in an effort for a silly thing that should have never happened in the first place. If the planning were done appropriately, there wouldn't be a house there without services, it would have been resolved before he built a house. So, I'd just like to say, let's -- let's get the planning in order here and do the right thing, so that we, you know, minimize the expense for everybody to do what's written and, you know, will be enforced. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. That is the end of the list of individuals that have signed up, but if there is anyone else that would like to testify on this application now is that time to come forward. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to testimony received? Williams: Marshall Williams, 1650 Dunwoody. Also referred to as Mr. Markar. I have Mal -Kar Design and Construction. The -- oh, several things have come up there that were interesting to us. Early discussion of subdividing. That had happened. I had talked to Planning and Zoning about that and decided against it. So, our application is to have a single residence. The house where it sits, CC&Rs require a 50 foot setback. I don't know how much concrete I need to pay for for a driveway, but I thought that would be great, to have the house set where it's at. Minimal backyard. I'm a builder. The home's for sale. You put animals in there, you don't want to do landscaping. So, their question about a minimal backyard is, hey, if I lived there, why would I want to cut the grass? The property to the north, which is this gentleman right here -- and, then, also I understand that that property right there, which is part of the Dunwoody Subdivision -- and you have to ask staff about this, but I believe those two properties have already been -- have the utilities run to the properties and are subject to signing on for annexation to the City of Meridian. And that, therefore, puts everybody that is around them already in the process of having property line annexation. So, I'm kind of after the fact that those properties are already in the motion to do that. So, doing our property really doesn't do anything to them, because it's already been done. So, the property line itself as being annexation, they already have it on those two properties. The -- what else here? And, then, the R-2 zoning I believe was -- it was remarked that it would change zoning, because of annexation into the city at that town -- or that community meeting we had. One of the requirements for that meeting was 300 feet, everybody be involved. We felt that everybody on Dunwoody Drive should be notified and so we sent out letters to everyone letting them know what was going on, not just the people at 300 feet around us. And I felt that was the proper thing to do, let them all know in the subdivision that that's what has happened. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant before he sits down? Moe: Mr. Chairman. You stated something that you are -- you're living in the house now? • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 11 of 60 Williams: No. Moe: No. But it is up for sale? Williams: Yes. Moe: And although you're saying that it's going to be a single house -- Williams: Uh-huh. That's what it is right now. Moe: If, in fact, the -- are you selling in that vein as well, as far as whatever -- Williams: Yes. It's advertised as a single family home on an acreage. Moe: Thank you. Williams: I, actually, started that home as my own personal house, but I really didn't get to know the neighbors that well, so I decided not to live there. Rohm: Thank you. All right. That concludes the public testimony on this. Any discussion with staff before we close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: The only question I would have is why the inconsistency, if they have that kind of an answer for us here, is why would one be allowed to hook up to sewer -- or services not be annexed and this individual has to be? I'm not sure -- Rohm: And I think maybe to direct that question to staff, maybe we can get an answer. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, the property has to be contiguous to a property that's already been annexed into the city in order to request annexation. Rohm: Are there other lots within the subdivision that do receive city services that at the time that they received them the properties were not contiguous to city -- property within the city? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Scott with Public Works is telling me that, no, no other properties within Dunwoody Subdivision have received services. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? O'Brien: No more. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 12 of 60 Rohm: All right. As we normally do this, I will poll the Commission and get their final thoughts before we move forward. So, with that being said, Commissioner Moe, do you have some final thoughts? Moe: Well, as far as the -- I have no problem whatsoever with this property being annexed into the city and we have already pretty much stated in regard to the CC&Rs that, you know, we have nothing to do with those. I guess I would -- I am kind of curious with staff in regards to -- this will come back if, in fact, somebody wanted to subdivide that, it would come back anyway, so at that point we would be able to act on it at that point. So, I will be voting to approve the annexation. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm a little concerned that we have not -- seemingly nothing that we can do to assure these homeowners that this isn't going to have three -- three houses on it in an iterative process. I mean is this -- this house, though, is subject -- it's in the subdivision; right? Dunwoody Subdivision? So, it's subject to the CC&Rs when there, so -- are all these properties around -- and this will be annexed as R-2, as they -- I mean the two to the north will be annexed soon, I assume, once this one is? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, they could annex once they are contiguous, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I thought the north two already had service -- city services. Stickland: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, to my knowledge they do not at this time, but as Anna spoke they weren't contiguous at that time. We also have another application that's coming through later tonight for Three Comers and if that gets annexed in, the Dunwoody's property, or the applicant's property, it really doesn't make that much difference, you will have it to the north also. The whole subdivision of Dunwoody, if the application to the north goes through, will have utility services within 300 feet. Newton-Huckabay: And I -- regarding the homeowner's request for a development agreement with the city, what is the city's response to that? Nary: It's up to you. Newton-Huckabay: To us? Nary: It's the recommendation to the Commission. However, you want to -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean if you want to have a development 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 13 of 60 agreement with that condition, that's certainly your -- within your purview to recommend that to the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Have we -- I don't recall ever doing a development agreement to that nature in the past. It almost skirts our enforcement of CC&Rs, essentially. Nary: I can't recall a development agreement for -- with that type of restriction. Maybe Mrs. Canning can, but I -- I don't think we have ever had one. I mean understand -- I mean this particular lot is pretty small. It's going to be awfully difficult to subdivide it anyway. There are restrictions on that. And I think that's maybe what Commissioner Moe was referring to is there are restrictions to that type of development anyway. Mr. -- Chairman Rohm's correct, I mean certainly the CC&Rs are a private action issue, so that's not really the city's purview, so -- but you can certainly recommend it if this Commission wants to, to require a development agreement and the City Council will have to make that decision on whether or not they think that's appropriate. It is unusual. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a little follow-up with that. Basically, I was -- I felt the same way, but the point is is that there are CC&Rs for the subdivision anyway, so whoever is going to come in and purchase this property is going to note that it's a single house already, so they are purchasing anyway -- you know, I don't know that we need to put a definite agreement onto this. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Well, I concur with the other fellow Commissioners. I think we are not the policeman of the CC&Rs in this case and I think in the long term they will be that police agency to make sure that this doesn't happen or whoever buys the home will enter into an agreement with the covenants, et cetera. So, I don't think it will be within our grasp to be able to enforce anything. I think that the annexation is the next step in this process and I agree with it having to be annexed. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I don't disagree with having the property annexed. I want to make that clear. What -- I just don't want to -- I don't want to enable the situation from -- you know, from getting more than one house on the property by our recommendation. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But I don't know that I'm ready to go so far as to set a precedence of a development agreement like one we haven't done in the past. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 14 of 60 Rohm: Thank you. Being the chairman, I'm the last person who gets to speak and from my perspective I think that what we have here is we have an application to be annexed into the city and the R-2 zone is the most restrictive zone that they could have placed on this property and it certainly falls within that -- those guidelines and I think that at such time, if, in fact, the current owners or any other choose to make changes and request additional splits within that lot, then, there are vehicles to address that at that time and we are certainly not promoting that in any way, but that's why we have those kind of applications and they will take their due course. So, from my perspective, our job is to address the application that's before us tonight and move forward with that and if, in fact, future development changes it, then, at that time we will address those issues and each and every one of you will have an opportunity to speak at that time and you will be heard. And that's the conclusion of my comments. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-015, as presented in the staff reporl for the hearing date of November 15, 2007. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-015, which is the request for annexation only of 1.88 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for the Marshall Williams family. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 15 of 60 Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center by CenterCal Properties, LLC — NWC and NEC of N. Eagle Road and E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from October 18th, 2007, AZ 07- 012, associated with the Meridian Town Center and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 258.39 acres of land from RUT and R-6 zones in Ada County to C -G, general retail and service commercial district. The property is located on the northwest and northeast comers of State Highway 55, Eagle Road, and Fairview Avenue. Here is an aerial view of the property. To the north of the property on the west side of Eagle Road is River Valley Elementary School,. zoned R-4, and offices in Stokesbeny Subdivision, zoned L -O. To the north on the east side of Eagle is vacant land and single family residential properties, zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County. To the east are single family residences, zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. And a bank, zoned C -G. To the south are commercial uses, zoned I -L and C -C. And to the west is a church zoned L -O. The site currently consists of a couple homes and associated outbuildings that will be removed upon development of the property. The site consists of four legal properties that are held in common ownership between Walter and Eugene Kleiner. Eugene Kleiner will retain ownership of the 60 acres at the northeast comer of the site, east of Eagle Road, shown depicted as DA No. 1. His intent is to develop the property as a park and dedicated to the city. The plans for the park site are still being developed and there are no details available at this time. Mr. Kleiner should work with the Parks Department on the design and dedication of the park. With regard to the northeast comer of the Fairview -Eagle intersection, depicted as DA No. 3, this property is under contract by CenterCal and will be the first area to develop. The remainder of the property depicted as DA No. 2, will be held by the Walter Kleiner family. Some of the property may be developed by CenterCal, but it may just as likely be developed by another group. Because these will be properties developed separately and by different owners, the applicant has requested the staff prepare the report by analyzing this property in three sub areas related to each future ownership. These areas are depicted as DA No. 1, DA No. 2, and DA No. 3 in Exhibit A.3 of the staff report. And on the overhead here. Staff has prepared development agreement provisions according to the boundaries shown and they are contained in Section 10 of the staff report. This is a copy of the conceptual development plan that the applicant submitted for this site. It shows building locations, square footages, and proposed uses. The portion of the property that is under contract by CenterCal, which is right here, contains more detail than the other portions of the site that will be retained by Walter Kleiner, which was previously shown as DA No. 2. The overall concept plan shows 2,689,425 square feet of building area, which consists of 1,498,775 square feet of retail area, anchors, shops, and pads; 835,800 square feet of office area, and 354,850 square feet of residential { I J Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 16 of 60 area. The applicant is requesting annexation with the C -G zoning district, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed use regional for this property. A variance to UDC 11-3H-4 is also requested, which prohibits new approaches from directly accessing a state highway at points other than the section line road and the half mile between section line roads. The applicant is proposing four right -in, right -out access points, two on each side of State Highway 55, Eagle Road, and two right -in, right -out, left -in access points, one on each side of State Highway 55. The Commission is not required to make a recommendation on the variance application. Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation request as presented in the staff report, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the development agreement provisions proposed in Section 10. 1 think Anna would like to add a little more on the -- regarding the development agreement. Canning: Chairman, Members of the Commission, if -- you will note in the staff report that the development agreement was, for one, broken into three parts, which you have never seen before and two rather lengthy. And there is a different kind of concept presented for the Walter Kleiner Family's DA in that it proposes an allocation plan and I just wanted -- I had done most of the negotiation with folks with regard to the DA provisions, so I wanted to be able to answer any questions that the Commission may have regarding those. Rohm: Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Not at this time. Rohm: Sonya, did you have anything else or that's the end of the staff report? Watters: I'm done, Commissioner Rohm. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Ford: Good evening. Honorable Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Ashley Ford. I'm planning project manager for WRG Design. My office address is 1173 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle. And I'm pleased to be here tonight on behalf of CenterCal Properties. For our presentation tonight I will be covering a few general items and, then, I will turn over the remaining time to Jean Paul Wardy and Andy Wilk for a brief PowerPoint presentation and more detailed discussion -- excuse me -- of the CenterCal portion of the project. We do have representatives this evening representing each of the property owners. They do not have -- they do not plan to be a part of the presentation this evening. However, they are here to stand for questions regarding their client's respective land holdings. First of all, we would like to take a moment and thank staff for their hard work on this project. Excuse me. This has been a complicated project due to the multiple land development agreements. Staff has 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 17 of 60 been working diligently with the last -- with us for the last few months to make this as seamless of a process as possible and we are thankful for their assistance. We come before you tonight with an overall annexation of 244 acres, with a zoning designation of general commercial. Meridian Town Center is proposed as a high-quality lifestyle center. This is in lieu of a traditional strip mall or mega mall. We truly believe that this is the development that far exceeds what the City of Meridian envisioned for this property. Many hear the term lifestyle centers and really do not understand what this means. To us a lifestyle center is a more upscale, a primarily outdoor shopping center. These are designed to resemble villages or town centers. And they are attractive and have attractive streetscapes and a mix of uses that may include retail, office, and residential. These types of projects are a growing alternative to the inconvenience of malls, as we all know, and are much more attractive and inviting than typical strip malls. These projects are inviting to those who wish to park their cars and want to escape to a place where they can shop, eat, watch a movie, and socialize and just in general relax. We believe the project will be a centerpiece for the city or a new center of gravity, as we call it. Meridian Town Center meets and exceeds the goals and policies for the Comprehensive Plan for the city. While this is a request for an annexation only, we have provided a concept plan to you to demonstrate not only what CenterCal has in mind, but they do have the principles of the Comprehensive Plan at heart and the City of Meridian's best interest in mind. The important Comprehensive Plan policies that we feel apply to this project are demonstrated through our comprehensive -- or our concept plan and these include, first, the policy for planning for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities, as can be seen from our concept plan. There are quite a mix of uses from open space to retail and residential. The policy for encouraging appropriate land uses along transportation corridors. The site is located, as you know, at the northwest and northeast comers of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. The development is located at the intersection with the highest daily traffic counts to be found in the state. It is our belief that the intersection -- at this intersection Meridian Town Center will be well positioned to serve the strongest household demographics in the Boise region. The policy for locating new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas to compliment the adjoining residential uses. As this project is located on a major thoroughfare, it does make a lot more sense to put intensive uses, such as the retail and the office uses in this location. But we also believe it's incredibly important to integrate those uses so that they are a benefit to the surrounding residents as well. The policy for supporting a variety of residential categories for the purposes of providing the city with a range of affordable housing opportunities and the policy for encouraging multi -family residential uses for projects, with a potential to serve as employment destination centers. The Meridian Town Center project will serve as an employment center in this area. However, vertically integrated housing has been incorporated into the project and ultimately providing opportunities for housing that simply does not exist in the City of Meridian today. The policy for continuing to allow quality mixed use developments. I'm going to let CenterCal talk about the projects they have done throughout the country and the quality that goes into each of these developments and • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 18 of 60 kind of what their mantra is for this. The policy for developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed -- the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common usable area, such a plaza or green space. And as can be seen by our concept plan and architectural renderings for the project, the Meridian Town Center project does utilize plazas, they utilize green space, and they want to create an inviting environment. The policy for the project as developed adjacent to low or medium density residential use, a transitional use, is encouraged and with the provisions that is located within your development center before you this evening. We believe the project will set a new standard for mixed use development. We truly believe this. And will be a good neighbor to those surrounding neighbors. We also believe that the proposed uses transition to and integrate into the established uses within this area, not only from vehicular, but also pedestrian. And so with this brief land use summary, I want to tum the remainder of the -- excuse me -- of the presentation over to Jean Paul Wardy and to Andy Wilk of CenterCal and they are going to tell you a little bit more about CenterCal, a little bit more about their vision for this project, and answer any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Ford: Thank you. Rohm: Just to give you kind of a reference here, we are 8:55 left, so that's how much time left in the presentation. Wardy: Good evening, Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Jean Paul Wardy, I'm president of CenterCal Properties. Thank you for giving us time to speak and allowing us to bring this project forward. CenterCal Properties have been around for about ten years. We build projects all over the west coast and I'd like to show you some of the projects we have built. It will give you a sense of the quality of the projects that we build. This is a project in Tualatin, Oregon, which is a suburb of Portland, called Bridgeport Village. It's anchored by a grocery store, movie theater, Borders Books, Cracker. Similar in quality and scope of what we intend to build in Meridian. We have some renderings and pictures of what this project is. It's about a half a million square feet of retail and just under 100,000 feet of office. I'll give you a sense for the architectural components and the plazas and public spaces that are -- are really successful in these projects today. One of the things that make these projects successful as well is gathering places, a lot of restaurants, a lot of public amenities, and we think that will carry through with the project in Meridian as well. These are more pictures of our Bridgeport Village project. Children's play areas and gathering places are also important. This is another project in Portland that we recently finished called Cascade Station. It's anchored by Ikea. It's a trans -oriented development adjacent to the airport, served by two light rail stations. Some different amenities. You can see the light rail stations. It was a project under construction. It's now finished. This is another • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 19 of 60 trans -oriented development we built in Gresham, Oregon. It's adjacent to Gresham City Hall and is also served by two light rail stations. This project is about two and a half million square feet, anchored by a 350,000 feet retail medical complex, about a thousand residential units, so -- Nyberg Woods is a project we recently finished in Tualatin, Oregon. You can kind of see the Tuscan theme. You will see in all of our projects they are a little bit different. We spend a lot of time trying to spend time in the communities and understand what the communities really want and try to be successful in representing those -- those ideas in these projects. One of the things that is important to us in these projects is that we really spend some time on the architecture and landscaping and really build the -- the quality of these projects that will last. We are a private company, but we intend to own these projects for the long term and we build them in such a way that we think the quality shows through. Blackhawk Plaza is a project that we are acquiring and redid in Danville, California, which is the Bay area. The existing project had a very large water feature. We came in and did a complete remodel, added a high-end grocery store, restoration, hardware, anthropology, some higher -end tenants. So, aerial photo of Blackhawk. You can see the existing water feature. We also believe very strongly in sustainable projects. This is a project we are doing in the Portland area. It's a former landfill that we are reclaiming, so we are redoing this project. It will have a LEED certification that we are working very hard to do. But we are excited about this project, because we can take a project that's currently not on the tax rolls and put it into productive use and create a tax base for this community. You can see it currently has a driving range sitting on top of a land fill. It's the only thing that has been installed. We are also putting in a methane mitigation system that will keep methane from migrating off site. This is a rendering of what that project will look like. This is a transit oriented development that we are just about to start construction on in Salt Lake City, served by a UTA rail stop and it will be about 850,000 feet of retail and about 150 dwelling units and it's just in the -- just ready to start construction now. This is a rendering of what that project will look like. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Wardy? Wardy: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Which of these developments most closely would you relate the Meridian Town Center one to? Do you have renderings? It looks like maybe I'm -- Wardy: We do. We do. And I'd like to -- I just wanted to fill you in on a little bit of history of the company. I'd like to turn it over to Andy Wilk, who is our development executive working on this project, and let him explain the specifics of this project. Newton-Huckabay: Perfect. Wardy: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 20 of 60 Wilk: So, I have about 30 seconds to explain to you a 244 acre project. We are very excited to be here and thank you for allowing us to make this presentation. It is a very large piece of property. What's very exciting about it is is that there is a component -- it's not really developed in this plan, but there is a 60 acre park and that's something very new for us. We have had transit oriented, or have done many different kinds of centers where we have reclaimed land, where we have dedicated pieces of property. On Nyberg Woods we took at 25 acre site and dedicated six acres as a reclaimed wetland and got rid of the invasive species and, you know, it's home to ducks and beavers and kinds of other animals. But we made that kind of habitat. Here we have a grass farm and that's what it's been for quite some time. We are excited about the park and we feel confident that we can integrate the park as an integral part of what we are doing and really take it to the next level as far as a lifestyle center goes and tum it into really a community center. If you would go to the next slide. So, this is a little bit closer view of the 50 acres that we are focused on initially. It does create a village, it creates a plaza, and to answer your question about what it most is similar to, the images that you saw of Bridgeport Village, those photographs, especially the one where you see all the families around the playground, that's not staged, it's like that every day. People like to hang out there. Park your car, get out of your car, walk around, you know, shop, dine, be entertained, explore, relax. And that's, really, the kind of environment that we create. Anna, can you go to the next slide? So, these are renderings of what we believe Meridian Town Center will look like and they are similar. They create a lot of pedestrian focus space. They are gathering places. They are places to sort of chill out, if you will. The next slide just gives a series of different images around the center. The architecture is very critical in how this is done, the scale of that, and we are starting to introduce what we don't have at Bridgeport Village, for example, but we will have here, is a residential component. We are now integrating that into our projects. So, we propose to have residential above retail in this project and we are learning more about how to do that successfully on many of our projects. This project will also be going after a LEED designation and for those of you that are not familiar with that, that's Leadership and Environmental Design that allows us to look at sustainability, not only in the construction of the project, in also how the project is operated during it's life cycle. And so you can see just a number of different views, mature landscaping, just all types of features that we would look for. A lot of times people will say, well, it's got a very European type of feel when they come to Bridgeport Village. It's because it is a village. It is meant to be intimate and comforting and safe for people to enjoy. So, that's the end of our presentation. And I think I'm out of time. Rohm: Close. Wilk: If I have got a few minutes I can talk about my family. Moe: I think they put you on hold is what they did. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 21 of 60 Wilk: Oh, they put me on hold. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant? Very nice presentation. Thank you, all three of you. O'Brien: I have some questions. Rohm: Oh. I just asked you for -- O'Brien: Oh, I did. I thought I said -- Rohm: You're on. O'Brien: I said bunches. Wilk: And if I might interject before you question, depending on the question there may be different people answering. Is that okay? Rohm: Yeah. Absolutely. O'Brien: So, I have a question for you. So, in your marketing -- I'm sure you have done lots of over time. What is -- then, you take it on traffic movement when you have -- in this particular instance -- and I don't know how many other places you have had the same situation where you have two right -in, two right -outs on each corner. How does a person get from a restaurant on say the east side of -- or the west side of Eagle Road and, then, want to go to the movie, how do they get there? Wilk: Well, that's a good question. What we are focused on, of course, is this piece, but we are looking at the larger context of the site. You know, we can envision a mother or father or both dropping off their child at the park to play soccer -- I do that with my kids -- and being able to just park your car once and walk over and have a cup of coffee or have lunch or pick up something at the grocery store. Now, between the west side of this site and the east side, we need to explore how to get people safely across Eagle Road, because it is a very busy, very large street, and that's something that we will continue to work with. We have our traffic engineers here, but we will continue to work with ITD, with ACHD, and the city to make sure that we get those connections, because what we don't want to have happen is what seems to happen often in retail and we get away from that when we do these lifestyle centers, is people will drive from place to place to place to do their shopping or entertaining or dining. What we want to do is give them the destination to park once and spend some time there and get out of the car or maybe take an alternate way to get to the site. Public transportation, if it's available, or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 22 of 60 even riding a bike. For the neighbors that are close by they could even ride a bike here, so -- O'Brien: Yeah. I can see that, but I don't know how real that is in this area. I envision a tunnel underneath Eagle Road and Fairview to accommodate those issues, but -- Wilk: There is -- there are many solutions. We locate sites on all types of challenges like that and we just have to explore each of those situations and find out which solution works best for that situation. I don't think we know the answer to that question right now, but it's something that I'm sure we will discover. O'Brien: It's along the same vein of the traffic movement is also, of course, comes safety. So, I am sure at times in some of your developments they have had safety issues with pedestrians and vehicles. Have you had to adjust anything in your development to accommodate the safety of pedestrians walking from their car, you know, a half a mile to try to get to a store the other side of the complex? Wilk: Absolutely. And you will see in the staff report, there are some comments from staff about providing safe pedestrian routes. So, I don't want to go back through all of the images, but Cascade Station, for example, which is at the airport, and it's a very long site, it's about 30 acres -- actually, it's more than that. And people will want to be able to go from end to end and rather than get in a car, we provide a safe pedestrian route. So, we are very aware of that, it's very important to us that people feel safe here, especially because we have a lot of families come to these sites. So, when there are small kids involved, we just don't want to create a situation that there is in conflict. The other situation that we deal with is we want to learn from other sites. So, not just our own, we look at other conditions, other projects that have been done, and when we see an unsafe condition, we say to ourselves, well, we don't want to do that. And the third thing is that we don't hire our traffic engineers to only look at what's going on the outside of the project, but we also bring them in to help us design the internal circulation in such a way that pedestrian and traffic for cars, so that we can avoid those conflicts, because, of course, they are very experienced in doing that, that's why we hire those traffic engineers. O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Victor Villegas. Villegas: Good evening. Victor Villegas. 1405 West Main Street in Boise. I'm here today to speak on behalf of Blue Cross of Idaho regarding this application. As I have indicated on my sign-up sheet, we are not in opposition to the application, nor are we in support of the application, we are actually a neutral party. The interest that Blue Cross of Idaho has regarding this project is the concern over traffic. As the staff report and • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 23 of 60 ACHD's letter indicated, Eagle and Fairview is the busiest intersection in this state and it was interesting to see in ACHD's letter that the last time that they looked at this corridor it was the Pinebridge Subdivision. That is the development that's just south of Blue Cross's corporate campus, right there on Pine Street, and with respect to that development, the traffic study showed that there was going to be approximately 32,000 vehicle trips per day. As this Commission is aware, they recommended approval, the City Council did, in fact, approve that application and there were certain agreements with the Pinebridge applicant with ACHD regarding the -- the extension of Pine Street. Now, what brought up the red flags here with Blue Cross, at least, and at least prompted us to come out here and to address you folks today, is the fact that there were a lot of comments in the staff report, as well as ACHD's letter, that they haven't met yet to discuss a traffic study on this project. There is also some talk about increasing the service capacity of Eagle Road through the STARS funding, yet those negotiations are ongoing as well. Really, at this point what Blue Cross is asking is that the Commissioners do keep that in mind, because it is a very important issue and is, obviously, very important also to Blue Cross, whose campus is right there on Eagle Road. Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Lars Anderson. Absolutely. From the audience Lars indicated that their engineer was going to speak first and we'll go from there. Stanfield: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Scott Stanfield with Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. As Lars indicated, I represent Bock Builders. They own land that is along the northerly frontage or northerly boundary, east side of Eagle Road. We anticipate coming forward with an application very soon. I just have some questions. We, generally, agree this is a good land use, it really makes sense for this area, but we have some concerns and some conditions that we would like to perhaps entertain you into a discussion. They all relate to River Valley Road, which is along the northerly boundary. We have seen a couple different concepts in the neighborhood meeting, a couple different concepts through the city, and some concepts this evening and Eagle and River Valley Road kind of moves around, so we are concerned about the ultimate location of where River Valley Road would be. River Valley Road is along the northerly boundary that runs east to west and, then, curves to the southeast on the concept plan. The concern is where is that going to be in relationship to the northerly boundary? If it's south of the north boundary, there will be a -- for lack of a better word, a spite strip created and River Valley Road will likely be our only sole access point as the city's ordinance prohibits another access along Eagle Road along our frontage of Eagle Road. So, we respectfully request that ingress - egress easements be provided north to south from our north boundary -- excuse me -- from our south boundary to River Valley Road's northerly boundary, where ever that may be. Obviously, if it lines up on the boundaries, than it's a mute point. So, that's one condition we would like you to discuss and contemplate this evening. The second one is the timing of River Valley Road. We anticipate moving ahead real soon and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 24 of 60 because of that being our only access point, we have two ideas we would like you to kick around. One, that they build River Valley Road -- or at least a portion that connects to Eagle Road along the north boundary with phase one or they not build it, but provide us an easement or the necessary right-of-way that Bock Builders may develop that along the frontage, plus the 12 foot lane that ACHD requires. So, those are the two options we would like to present for River Valley Road. We do have some concerns about the traffic study. We haven't seen one yet and specifically what is the timing that the traffic study suggests that River Road be completed from Eagle Road down to Fairview. And with that I think that's all I have to say. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Stanfield: Thank you. Rohm: Lars, did you want to come forward at this time? Anderson: My name is Lars Anderson. I'm the project manager representing Bock Homes. Just wanted to bring this site plan up to show you our current site plan has changed from last year when you saw this site plan. We have addressed your requirement from last year and we will come to application soon. As part of that we ask that -- and we want to make this very clear -- we are in support of CenterCal's project, we just ask that any approvals you give to their annexation request that you include River Valley Road as a condition of that approval that it be built in conjunction with their phase one. That is what we are asking tonight. Or allow us to proceed with the construction of that, even though it's not on our property, so we would ask for the right of way of that. The reason why is ITD is saying that the road needs to go straight through Eagle Road, we cannot bring it on our property, therefore, we would be landlocked without this condition. And that is all. Thank you for your time. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Before we continue, could I get staff comments on -- on these testimonies? Does that same -- from previous projects we have always made it a condition that there be continuity and ingress -egress to adjacent properties and without going out onto the main roadways. Is there assumption that that's the same with this project or -- could you speak to that just a little bit? Canning: Yes, sir, Chairman Rohm, I can. I have had discussions with David and Carl Kleiner with regard to this issue, as well as Mr. Wilk, and it is incorporated into the Kleiner development agreement in two places. As you will recall, the Kleiner piece, the DA No. 2, came over and, then, kind of swooped down, so -- there we go. So, River Valley Road is on the DA No. 2 and a portion of Records Road -- or most of Records Road -- or possibly all of Records Road is also on DA No. 2. There are two provisions • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 25 of 60 that talk about that. The first one is that prior to any other land use approvals on the subject property, owner shall dedicate the right-of-way to extend Records Road from Fairview Avenue north to River Valley Road and extend River Valley Road from Eagle Road east to Records Road as an ACHD public street. So, we have said before you do anything else, before you get a boundary adjustment, before you submit for preliminary plat, that plat's got to include those road dedications. I have repeatedly expressed to the applicants that those two -- that road connection -- those two right there -- are of key importance, I feel, as this -- as this progresses through to City Council. So, I have made sure that I have done what I can to insure that. So, that provision is on the DA No. 2. The other provision on the DA No. 2 is that the extension of Records Road shall be deemed -- oh, song. Owner shall connect to CenterCal -- I'll find the right spot. Owner shall sign a cross -access agreement with CenterCal Properties and shall submit a copy to city staff prior to development of the north parcel. So, this is kind of the north parcel. So, we are saying you have to have cross -access with CenterCal. And owner shall sign a cross -access agreement with Bock Homes allowing Bock access to River Valley Road. So, we have made it very clear that they are not allowed to create a spite strip. The only way they could create that is through subdivision process and we are -- have told them that that's not the way we do business. We have encouraged them to work with Bock to have a portion of the road on their way -- on their property, if they can come to that agreement, we can fold it into the development agreement at some time, as appropriate. So, we have been talking about that and I do believe that that issue is addressed. The third thing we have, which I thought Sonya -- Sonya thought she had a copy of the staff report printed out. Unfortunately, we don't, so she's getting a copy right now. But within DA No. 3 1 believe there is a provision that before you pull the fifth building -- before you request occupancy on the fifth building, we need to have that road. It needs to be done. So, those are the three things. Newton-Huckabay: Records Road and River Valley? Canning: River Valley east of Eagle. Newton-Huckabay: And Records both? Canning: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Before the fifth building occupancy permit. Canning: I believe that's the way it's written. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Canning: I'm looking for a nod from Mr. Wilk, but he's shaking his head, because that -- he does not agree with that provision, so -- • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 26 of 60 Rohm: Well, we'll wait and see what it says when Sonya gets back with a printed copy. In the meantime, we will continue with testimony. Randy Rindlinbauker. From the audience he indicated that he didn't have any additional information to provide. Mark Vandelee. From the audience just here to answer questions. Greg Williams. And the last one, Chris Brand. Brand: Good evening. I'd first like to thank the Members of the Commission for their time and public service. Rohm: Could you -- name and address? Brand: Oh. I'm song. I'm Chris Brand. 1097 North Rosario, representing Petra, Inc. We are a general contractor, proud to be located in Meridian, Idaho. Just wanted to voice our support for the project. We are located -- our corporate headquarters is located to the west of the Blue Cross - Blue Shield campus, of which we are proud to have built that facility. We are also building your City Hall currently. So, we are proud to be doing that. And what I'd like to say is from a building perspective, what I have seen on the renderings outside and looking on the internet at CenterCal's projects, they are of very high quality, I believe that bring retailers to the valley that we don't currently have. The way that -- and style that these buildings are built and the grounds around the buildings are very expensive to build. Ornamental iron, water features, these things aren't cheap, they are very high quality, and I think they would be an amenity to the City of Meridian. Thank you for your time. Rohm: Thank you very much. That is all that have signed up to speak to this. Would the applicant like to come forward and make some final comments? Wardy: We would just like to thank the Commission and staff for all the hard work that's gone into this project and thank you for allowing us to bring it forward. Rohm: Before you sit down, one of the things that came up in the discussion was that cross -access agreement with properties to the north. Do you have any comments or responses to testimony offered up or --. Wardy: The property to the north would really be a part of the property being retained by the Kleiners. So, it's not something that we can really speak to Rohm: All right. Thank you. Wardy: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 27 of 60 Canning: Chairman Rohm? Chairman Rohm, I believe Mike Ballantyne is here for the Kleiners tonight. He was earlier. There he is hiding in the back. Thank you. Ballantyne: Thank you, Anna. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Michael Ballantyne, 250 South 5th, second floor, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We have had a number of discussions about this. A lot of it has just been educating the Kleiner family on the ways that the traffic situation works in the Treasure Valley and our understanding is that the -- the folks from Bock Homes have offered to participate in the road costs and dedicate some right-of-way and think the Kleiners just haven't entered into agreement with Bock Homes, because there is some question as to how much of this ground CenterCal will totally be purchasing. If -- they may, in addition to the ground that's shown there, purchase some additional ground and, then, it would be CenterCal's responsibility to work with Bock and this traffic study needs to be resolved and all those pieces need to fit together. But Kleiners don't -- aren't opposed to working with Bock Homes to make sure they have access. I think it's been addressed a number of times and I think it's been beat to death a few times and I think the Kleiners fully understand the need there for cross -access, so -- Rohm: Yeah. I can't speak for the balance of the Commission, but I can say that from my perspective we, as a Commission, always want to insure that there is cross -access between one property and the next, so that we don't get in a situation where one property can hold the adjacent property hostage and those cross -access agreements should always be in place prior to moving a project forward. That's my perspective. Thank you. Ballantyne: You're welcome. Rohm: This is a beautiful project. I think you have done a great job putting a presentation together and from my perspective it seems to have incorporated a lot of things into it that the City of Meridian needs and so before we move any further, I'd like to ask staff if they have got any comments that they would like to offer up in reference to testimony previous received. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I believe we have addressed the concerns. The concerns expressed by Blue Cross are certainly ones we have heard before with regard to the traffic. I would remind you this is an annexation application at this point. They are -- they will need to move forward with ACHD with a traffic study and, as noted in the staff report, they are moving forward with the STARS legislation. That is not tied to this agreement, but it is what they are hoping to mitigate some of the traffic impacts associated with this development and improve the situation on Eagle Road. ® 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 28 of 60 Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some last comments? Newton-Huckabay: Not anything of real substance. I really appreciate the quick nature with which your presentation was delivered, though. I can't say how grateful I am for that. I have had -- fortunate to go to some of these lifestyle centers in other cities and I just think they are wonderful to go to. A lot of times you can -- you can take the whole family and being a family with teenagers, nobody's ever happy and these kinds of places there is something for everyone. So, I'm looking forward to that. And I also like the nature of they are very pedestrian -friendly when you're there, so -- and that is something that's a little bit different than what we are used to having here. So, my only hope is that there is a bike path from north Meridian this far over by the time this all is done, so I will be calling the parks commission and see how we are doing on that. But other than that, I think it's a great project. I would be anxious to see if the STARS legislation works out on that and curious on the traffic study, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Oh. Yeah. First I want to make mention to staff what a wonderful job you guys have done. This has been a huge project. And everyone involved. It's -- you know, there is a lot of work been spent on it and there is a lot more to go to solve some of the issues that have been brought up, especially the traffic issues. Getting around those kind of shopping centers on places -- and I, too, had the privilege of visiting these type of centers I believe back in Baltimore, had a couple of really really nice areas that I really thought were great and, then, I think in Florida as well, in the Palm Beach area. I don't have anything that's really -- sticks out in my mind as far as any concerns of issues, but, like I said, there is going to be a lot to be done yet in the future, especially trying to figure out how we are going to move a lot of vehicles in the couple of right -ins and right -outs, how do we get from one place to the other. If I want to go to Wal-Mart from the theater after I get out, how do I get there? You know, maybe I'll have to go all the way to Chinden. I don't know. But those are the kind of concerns I have. But you can appreciate where I'm coming from, if I want to go to a couple stores there and they are on opposite sides of the road, that's -- that's going to be a problem, I think. So, if the right engineers get going on it, I think we can -- we can resolve that -- that problem. Along with an underpass or two under Eagle and Fairview might work, but whatever. That's all I have. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Uh? Newton-Huckabay: If you have to go all the way to Chinden, you might not want to be driving anymore. 11 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 29 of 60 O'Brien: Amen to that. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a couple things. You guys did a great job. This will be a very nice addition into the Meridian area here. I only hope that the rest of the development will take heed and make sure they develop the same way as you guys start out going with this thing. I think it's going to be a great addition to the city. End of comments. Rohm: Ditto. End of comments? Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: You want to do this, too? Newton-Huckabay: I will be happy to do the motion if I can get my computer to work. Moe: Can you read from here? Newton-Huckabay: I got it. And we have made no changes to the staff report? Moe: No, we have not. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-012, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th, 2007, with no modifications. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to move onto -- forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. Thank you folks for coming in and thanks for all the public testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 30 of 60 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time we are going to take a short recess for ten minutes. (Recess.) Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: RZ 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh by Kasterra Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-015 Request for Preliminary Plat for 518 lots consisting of 443 single-family residential building lots; 1 residential building lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 residential building lots consisting of 61 future condo units; 4 mixed use lots consisting of commercial retail on the 1St floor with 12 residential lofts on the 2nd floor; 9 commercial building lots, 1 school building lot, 1 civic/social hall lot, 46 common lots and 5 other lots on 177.43 acres in C- N, TN -C, TN -R and R-8 zones for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: CUP 07-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to convert the existing Caven home into a civic/social hall in an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh by Kastera Development, LLC — SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Road: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin by opening up our next project and that is the continued Public Hearing from October 18th, 2007, of RZ 07-014, PP 07- 015, and CUP 07-017, all items related to the Cavanaugh project and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are a request for a rezone of 13.59 acres of land from R-8, medium density residential, to C- N, neighborhood business district, and 16.49 acres from R-8 to TN -C, traditional neighborhood center. Preliminary plat approval of 517 lots. Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing Caven home into a civic social hall in an R-8 zone, and a development agreement modification to address the new neighborhood center plan and conversion of the existing Caven home into a civic social hall. The property is located at the southeast comer of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and East Victory Road. To the north is commercial property, zoned C -G, and residential property, zoned ® 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 31 of 60 R-4 and RUT in Ada county. To the east are existing and future residential properties, zoned R-4 and R-8 and a grange hall, zone R-1 in Ada County. To the south are future residential properties, zone R-4 and R-8. And a storage facility, zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west are residential properties, zoned RUT and R-6 in Ada County. This is an aerial view of the property. Currently there is one existing single family home on the site that the applicant is proposing to retain for a civic social hall. It's located right there at the southern portion of the development. It's currently being used by Kastera Development for a real estate sales and construction office for residential dwelling lots within the development. This property was annexed into the city in 2006 with R-8, TN -R, and C -N zoning and a preliminary plat was approved at the same time under the name of Tenana Valley, as shown on the overhead here. The previous plat contained 548 single residential lots, one commercial lot, and one school lot. Since that time the property has been sold and purchased by a new owner Kastera Development. A portion of this property, shown as phase one on the preliminary plat, received final plat approval in June of 2007. It's this area right there. The C -N and TN -C zoning designations requested with the rezone comply with the Comp Plan future land use map designation of mixed use neighborhood and neighborhood center for this property. The requested zoning designations are shown on this map here. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the rezone area, as shown on the overhead, that depicts commercial and multi -family uses right there at the corner of the intersection. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 517 lots, consisting of 443 single family residential building lots, one multi -family residential building lot, consisting of 32 conceptual future apartment units, eight residential building lots, consisting of 61 future conceptual condo units, four mixed use lots, consisting of commercial retail on the first floor, with 12 residential lots on the second floor -- lofts. Excuse me. Nine commercial building lots. One school building lot. One civic social hall lot. Forty-seven common lots. And three other lots for parking lots. All on 177.43 acres in the C -N, TN -C, TN -R and R-8 zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to develop this property in eight phases as shown. Timing of the commercial portion of the development will be determined by market demand. Access to the site is proposed from three public street accesses to Victory Road, South Standing Timber Way, South Enter Way, and South Mesa Way. And a right -in access point is proposed between Standing Timber Way and South Enter Way. Staff is not supportive of the right -in access point and it is not approved with this application. A public street connection to Rumple Lane, a private street, is proposed at the south boundary for access to State Highway 69, Meridian Road, at the half mile. Staff and ACHD are requesting that the applicant close and/or incorporate Rumple Lane into an extension of Harris Street currently on the west side of Meridian Road as a standard residential collector. The new extension of Hams Street should extend from the intersection of Meridian Road to connect with then stub street Reflection Ridge Place from Reflection Ridge Subdivision down there to the south. Stub streets are proposed to the outparcel on Victory Road and the outparcel on South Meridian Road. This parcel here and here. Stub streets are also proposed to be extended from previously approved subdivisions that have been -- that have provided stubs to this • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 32 of 60 property. Access to the future condo units in the TN -C portion of the property is proposed from an alley. Staff is supportive of the proposed streets and access points as proposed, except for the right -in access from Victory, as previously stated. The landscaping as proposed on the site per the landscape plan is shown. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along Victory Road. A 35 foot wide buffer is required along State Highway 69. Twenty foot wide buffers are required along South Standing Timber Way and Rumple Lane -- Harris Street. And ten foot wide buffers are required along all local streets within the C -N zone portion of the development as proposed. The UDC requires the development to contain a minimum of ten percent common open space or 17.7 acres. 27.6 acres of open space is proposed, which complies with and exceed this requirement. Additionally, this site is required to have eight amenities. The applicant is proposing the following as amenities. Three pedestrian bridges across the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh runs -- bisects the property right here. A multi -use pathway, ten feet wide, along the south side of the canal. An eight foot wide sidewalk along the north side of the canal.. A pool, hot tub, splash park, water plaza, open play area, a civic social hall, bus turnout, and additional open space beyond the required amount. Because this development is located adjacent to a state highway, a berm or berm wall combination is required to be constructed within the buffer adjacent to State Highway 69, a minimum of ten feet higher than the elevation of the center line of the highway for noise abatement adjacent to residential uses. So, that would be from this area south of the Ridenbaugh along the highway. The applicant submitted a letter in response to the staff report requesting that a berm not be required in this instance, because of the topography of the land in this area in relation to that of the highway. The UDC allows the director to approve alternative compliance where the applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Alternative compliance may be requested with this application for approval by Council or may be requested later prior to final plat application. The applicant has submitted design collages for this development that represent architectural elements proposed in Cavanaugh for the residential and commercial portions of the development. The images are taken from the architectural vision and guidelines for the development. The applicant has also submitted a list of 21 unique design features of the Caven home that will be used as a reference throughout the Cavanaugh architectural guidelines. This list is included as Exhibit A-8 in the staff report. These are commercial properties and residential properties. Conceptual elevations that include construction materials were submitted for the residential lots, future condominiums and apartments. Those are shown on the overhead. Staff is supportive of the proposed design features, design collages, and the conceptual multi- family building elevations, as they represent high-quality architecture and construction materials. Because the multi -family units are a permitted use in the TN -C zone, they do not require future Conditional Use Permit approval. For this reason Commission and Council should review the conceptual elevations submitted with this application to determine if additional design requirements should be added. As part of this application the applicant is requesting approval to convert the existing 13,000 square foot Caven Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 33 of 60 home into a gathering place for neighborhood and community events as a civic social hall. The UDC requires such uses to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the layout and features of the property, along with proposed parking and access to the property. And the applicant states that the proposed civic social hall will be available for public and private neighborhood gatherings, meetings, weddings, relaxations, spa, banquets, parties, picnics, seminars, and recreation. And because of the size of the civic social hall Kastera envisions that multiple functions can occur during the same time. Facilities include a library, commercial kitchen, banquet rooms, recreation rooms, computer rooms, meeting rooms, swimming pool, tennis court, spa, barbecue and picnic facilities, patios and decks. larae lawn areas. restrooms, storage rooms, and garage. Anticipated capacity for outdoor events is estimated to be 300 people. Anticipated capacity for indoor events is estimated to be 100 people. Finally, the applicant is requesting to modify the existing development agreement approved with the annexation of this property to address the new neighborhood center plan and conversion of the existing Caven home into a civic social hall. Staff has included the applicant's requested development agreement modifications in Exhibit A-10 of the staff report with staffs comments. Staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the development agreement as shown in Exhibit A-10 with recommended changes as noted on item number 5.1.14. Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications based on the findings listed in Exhibit D and the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. I will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. O'Brien: Could you -- I have one question, Mr. Chairman. On the road access on Victory, could you point out again which direction are they favored? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, I didn't understand your question. O'Brien: So, the two accesses -- or, actually, three access points -- I'll use my pointer. So, is this a right -out only? Watters: I believe that was full. O'Brien: It's right across the street from the D&B I think or Victory Greens. I wasn't sure if it aligned with that property across the road. Watters: The -- excuse me. Right -in driveway aligns with the one to the north across the street, across Victory. • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 34 of 60 O'Brien: It's right -in, but it's no -- no left out there? Watters: No. It's proposed as a right -in. That middle driveway right here. O'Brien: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions? O'Brien: No. That's all I have. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Sonya, on your condition -- let's see here -- 7.1.4 in regards to the sidewalk that's figured to be on those two outparcels on each side of the school site, was that done the first time this -- this development came through? Is that how we -- I can't remember. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, that is, actually, ACHD's condition of approval and I believe it was in -- Moe: Same as the last -- Watters: -- the first round, yeah. Moe: Thank you. I guess one other one. I guess while everybody's waiting. In regards to the rolled curb, as opposed to vertical, is that ACHD requiring that as well? Thank you. I'm done. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. Can you hear me okay there? Thank you. My name is Wayne Forrey with Kastera Development and our headquarters address is 1550 Tech Lane in Meridian, 83642. And we have several of our staff members here today that we could call on maybe during questioning and answer session, but I will be making the presentation. And about halfway through I will ask Ben Haught, our architect, to come up and show you a material board as we go through some of the exhibits and also we have a PowerPoint presentation, so I can stay within your time limit, and the city staffs going to hit enter for me occasionally. And if we could start that and get to the first screen. But I would also like to say, you know, this is a project that is very important to our company and to the community. We are bringing something very unique into this neighborhood and we have had some really terrific meetings with your staff over the months to analyze the market and this neighborhood and innovation that we can bring into this neighborhood. So, I want to thank staff for your support in helping us along. So, let's go to the next slide if we can. This is a rendering of one of many • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 35 of 60 entrances with a pergola with vines coming into the project. So, figuratively, we are going to go through this entrance here and see our presentation. If you would hit the next one. Who is Kastera? We are locally owned and we are part of the DBSI group of companies. DBSI is headquartered here in Meridian on Tech Lane. We are developing 14 different communities here in the Treasure Valley and about one-third of Kastera Development employees actually live in the City of Meridian. Next, please. This is the motley crew that I get to work with. I'm the old guy with the glasses there in the center. But the other four all live in Meridian. This is our planning and development team of Kastera. Next, please. We have quite an experienced, talented team behind this project and most of these folks are here tonight. So, if we have any questions in any discipline, we can get them up to the podium as well. Next, please. Cavanaugh is really a very well located development. It's just 45 seconds from 1-84 and really central in the valley. Next, please. But you will see we are surrounded by development, so we went into this thinking in terms of in -fill and that, of course, brings a whole set of planning dynamics into a neighborhood when you think about in -fill and filling in some of the gaps that maybe have been overlooked in other developments. Next, please. So, as staff mentioned, the city -- your Commission and the City Council previously approved the Tenana Valley project and right after it was approved the developer sold it -- put it on the market and we acquired the project. We just love this site. But we started to have some questions about could this be a better project. Are there enhancements we could make? And we had some questions about the home right here -- this is the Jerry Caven home. It's a beautiful home and the prior developer wanted to tear it down and that was a big question in our mind. Is there a better way to do this? We met with your city staff and they said, you know, it wouldn't hurt to maybe take off the gloves and do some rethinking on this property and we met with the highway district and others and they said the same thing. So, we felt encouraged enough to go ahead and create a new master plan to make enhancements to this site. Next, please. Our development approach -- there are five major things. We decided to continue with the final plat of phase one and, in fact, that's moving forward now. We decided to submit a new application for a preliminary plat, bring a village center into this community, which would require a zone change, and we wanted to reuse and preserve this beautiful Caven home, so that required a Conditional Use Permit and, then, a development agreement modification. And as we worked with staff you had previously approved 548 units and we set that as a goal to stay at that number and no more. So, we have accomplished all of this without increasing the number of units. Next, please. Our final plat's been approved by the city. It's going through agency process. Probably preconstruction in January and we will start construction in February of '08. Next, please. So, here is a copy of the plat that we have submitted to the City of Meridian. And next slide. Here is an overview. This area here in the black oval, that's generally where our phase one final plat is that's going forward. We have retained the school site. We brought a village center into this project, redesigned some of the street patterns here to bring a nice boulevard, almost like a Park Center Boulevard into this area. We have created this civic social hall lot and, then, a whole mix of housing, all within that • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 36 of 60 cap of 548 residential units. Next, please. So, bringing this plat forward, we have achieved something that Meridian has been wanting to achieve for some time now as a true village center. Taking your Comprehensive Plan to the implementation stage and making that work. We have asked ourselves these questions. Can we make it walkable? Absolutely. Can we connect it to our neighbors? Yes. Can we buffer it appropriately? Yes, we have done that. Is it viable in the marketplace? Yes, it is. So, we achieve better traffic flow. We have exceeded your minimum requirements for parks and trails. We have over four miles of trails. And we now have a 13,000 square foot community center with two swimming pools. And look at all the mix of housing we have achieved. Apartments. Lofts. Townhomes. Condos. Some alley loaded homes. Standard home sites. And even estate size home sites. Next, please. So, now let's talk about our zone change application. Next slide, please. This is really the focus of our zone change application, this area right here. We did quite an exhaustive market analysis and we are convinced through our research that a village center with a mix of uses is really going to be a positive addition. And we organized our master plan around 12 components that comprise neighborhood living. Let me just walk through these 12 briefly here. We have affordable workforce housing. We have rental apartments, plus upscale living. We have some daily essential shopping and needs, like food, medical, and bakery. Leisure shopping, like clothing, dry goods, beauty, and specialty stores. Plus employment -- and some of these would be stand-alone employment centers. Our economists project about 830 new jobs will be created in this development. Plus we have a transit service here in the center and also bus stops here and bus stops here. So, we have brought transportation into this project. Services like insurance, legal, professional, and technical. Education. Book stores. Learning center. And conference center. Leisure and relaxation has been brought into this with art and it's a very walkable, strollable development. Banks, savings and loan for the financial and even worship. All of those 12 components have been embodied into this village center. And the clusters has been oriented -- you see the angular orientation here, so that if you're at this intersection, it draws your eye right through this area, through these water features here, like you're looking down a village center, which it is. More water features and into the park back here. So, it's a beautiful vista that we are trying to keep very attractive, because this is one of the entryways into the City of Meridian. You might be familiar with Bond Crossing in Boise. That project is a relatively small village center. It's about half the size of what you see here. And so we wanted to have it large enough that we could have a true village center and not be impacted by size in that sense. Now, I want to talk just a moment about this use right here, which we envision. It says grocery. That would be a neighborhood market. So, let me talk about that for a moment. We have received some really positive feedback from folks like Paul's Market, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods. And, then, just this week we got some feedback that Wal-Mart might be within one mile of this site right here and that, of course, raised some fears with some of these other market venders and people and that's just the reality of commercial development. If you could approve a Wal-Mart and it could have a negative effect, you know, on some other choices in a village center, but I want to explain to you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 37 of 60 that on the other hand, Kastera has the ability to develop this project and attract tenants with or without big box competition. It would just shape maybe this use. Instead of maybe a Paul's IGA, it may be more of a specialty market, like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods that maybe would have a competitive differentiation from Wal-Mart. So, this -- and if the Wal-Mart does come, this could end up being maybe a mixed use, like a medical use or an employment, as well as a market. So, we can work within the C -N zoning that we have applied for. And, by the way, our economists did some calculations for the city and the difference between Tenana Valley that you have already approved and our project with enhancements, brings about 24.6 million dollars into tax revenue to the City of Meridian at build out. That's the difference. So, it's quite an enhancement that we have made to this property. Let's go to the next slide. I want to give you a sense of scale. Two more clicks, please. Those are our zoning areas. Now -- one more click. If we are looking back from the highway into this village center. This is a view of a successful project in another market called Redstone. And we used this as our inspiration for this village center. Next, please. Now, if you're in our village center and you're looking back towards Meridian Road -- click, please. And this is the Redstone, same -- this is the same distance where I'm standing here taking the photo. This would be like Meridian State Highway 69 back here. This is actually in the Redstone project. So, I do this to give you a sense of scale. One more, please. And, then, looking behind, if you were on Victory Road looking into the village center -- and here, again, is the same sense of scale. And the neat thing about your traditional neighborhood commercial is you require multi -story buildings and that's what we are proposing to bring forward into this village center, just like you see here at Redstone. Two more clicks, please. This is a view of looking at the condominiums and these buildings here are retail. So, this is the village center retail with loft residential up above and, then, here across the street, very compatible, are condos. And I'm just showing you that for a sense of scale again. As what our village center could look like. We are going to have unique architecture separate from this. Next, please. So, some key elements of this zone change -- we can demonstrate that a true village center can be developed here in the City of Meridian with your Comprehensive Plan and we are going to call it Boardwalk at Cavanaugh. We have three separate housing types, lofts, condos, and apartments. It's walkable. And I put question marks after market, because our objective is to continue to get a specialty food store into this neighborhood. If Wal- Mart does come, that might change the dynamics somewhat. But that's our first goal, is a neighborhood market. We provide neighborhood services. We increase employment tax revenue. And DBSI and Kastera have the financial strength and the national exposure in the market to bring really great tenants into this project. Now, let me talk to you about some architectural styles. We will get Ben Haught up here and let's go to the next slide. Ben Haught is our architect and he put together a booklet, design guidelines, and in this it outlines 21 design criteria that any architect can take to use to design a component of this Cavanaugh and each of these 21 items are listed right here. So, when you look at this rendering -- for example, on this one -- this happens to be the -- I better get closer to the microphone. Sony. This happens to be the condominiums and 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 38 of 60 it's the alley view, so you're seeing the back of the building, but we showed this so you could see an example of four-sided architecture. When you see this number here, 20, that is 20 on the list and it's stucco and you can see the different colors of stucco here. Number eight is transom windows. Number 13 -- or, excuse me, 21, right here is the copper trim and fascia material here. And you see the colors and so in our design guidelines any architect would come in, but we say to them you have to meet or exceed at least 12 of these 21 components. That gives them criteria to design to. So, it gives the architects flexibility, but there is an overall theme and staff has been supportive of that and that's in the conditions that they like this concept of an overall design theme. Let me -- let's see. Let's go to one more click. This is the lofts. Again, it's the alley access. You can see the back of the building. Even though it's the back, it's extremely attractive. But you can see these numbers here correspond to the numbers here and so that you have themes to keep -- could I have just a little more time? Let's do a couple more clicks here. One more. Let's talk about the conditional use a moment. One more click. You saw the blow up -- this -- I wanted you to see the Caven home. This was the home that was going to be taken down. And we just felt we needed to preserve that and protect it. Two more clicks, please. You saw the site plan of that to use it -- one more click, please. And one more click. One more. In the -- I have a handout I'd like to give the Commission. It's our response to the conditions. It's a -- so, there are only four conditions that we would ask to be modified and have some flexibility. Condition 1.2.6E requires the berm wall along the entire Highway 69. But if you notice, there is only a portion that is below the highway. One more click. You can see part of this site already has an extensive berm. It's well above the highway. And so there is about 420 feet that really needs that wall and the berm. Not the entire length. There is enough berm here that we wouldn't have to add to that. The next condition, 7.1.4, if you could hit click again. This -- we totally agree with having a sidewalk across this parcel. And this is the school parcel and they will be putting in the sidewalk here. But this is not an outparcel to us. This is the grange. And so we would ask that we not have to put a sidewalk in front of someone else's property that's not an outparcel, you know, that we are surrounding. The third one here is rolled curb -- curbs in the streets. We would prefer to do more expensive and have vertical curb. ACHD allows that. It's a developer expense. We think it makes for better safety. And, then, the last one on this list is the Mesa Way. We have agreed to do that and we'd ask that you add the words -- the owner of Lot 24, Block 15, shall -- at the beginning of your condition. So, that means, then, that both Kastera and the school district will make the road connection. And, then, I would mention one more thing. ACHD approved our project. We had this as a full intersection and they said that from a traffic standpoint this needs to be a right - in. So, this is a full and, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, this does line up with the road over here with the gas station and Double D. This one is -- there is no road over here to line up with, but we were restricted to a right -in only by the highway district. So, this has all been approved by ACHD. And, then, we have this, the major entrance right here and, then, there is a new public street right here, which lines up with Mesa. So, when staff mentioned they were not supportive of the right -in, the highway district • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 39 of 60 makes those decisions and they have approved that. They actually restricted us to a right -in right here. So, with that that concludes our presentation and we hope you will approve our project. We are excited to bring this into Meridian. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I had one question. I don't know how pertinent it may be, but is there any consideration for utilizing the open space or parks there for a child care center or -- as part of the neighborhood services? Forrey: Actually, it would be in this facility right here. O'Brien: Okay. Forrey: Commissioner O'Brien. That's been one of the uses that we would bring into that civic social hall. And that would be one of the uses allowed in the Conditional Use Permit process. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Rohm: Any other questions? Moe: I have none. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Ben Forrey, you're part of the same presentation? Did you have something you wanted to add? Thank you. Craig Kalchack or -- wow. From the audience he's been spoken for. And, then, Ben Haught. Ben Haught. And -- did you just -- have been spoken for or did you want to add something to the presentation? Haught: Ben Haught. I live at 4040 West Perkins Street in Meridian, Idaho, just a few miles down the road from this site. And proud to be a part of the Kastera team and I think the approach taken to this project greatly enhances the original approved project and I think the Caven home is a fantastic piece of architecture and a lot of the staff was able to come and tour it and it would be a shame to see that structure get tom down. The idea to preserve it and to make it a theme throughout the community I think is a fantastic idea. I'm excited to be a part of the project. Rohm: Thank you, sir. There is nobody else that's signed up to speak to this project, but if there is anyone out there that would like to, now is that time. Thank you. There is no testimony to rebut, so if -- I don't know if -- do you have a final comment? Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, before he says that, I do -- I have -- I probably have a question for you. As I heard earlier, you said that you can make it from Victory Road to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 40 of 60 1-84 in 45 seconds? Forrey: Right. We timed it. Moe: And we are going to get you ticketed here pretty quick. Forrey: It was, actually, my son. Newton-Huckabay: I want to know what time of day that was at. Forrey: My son went out and timed it. So, yeah, I'm a little concerned with -- Moe: You're both not obeying the law. Rohm: Final comments. Forrey: You know, when we -- when we bought this project it had an approved preliminary plat. We could have easily just said let's go build it. I mean we are in the home building business and the development business. But we really sat back and when we first met with Anna Powell and, then, others on her staff and, then, got into working with staff, we said, you know, here is a chance, maybe, to take it -- take risk here and bring something better and enhance this. And so we had to drop back and think about that. The easiest thing to do would be just to forge ahead with an approved project, but we have put a lot of thought and energy into this and there is some risk in that, but we think it's going to be better for everyone. So, we hope you will approve it and we hope you will move this forward to the City Council. So, you can be very proud, like the one you walked at in Baltimore and Florida, other places, you can say, you know, Meridian's got a great little village center south of the freeway that's just really top notch. And we will do that. If you give us a chance, we will make it happen. Thank you. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any final comments before we close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: None from me. Rohm: Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on these items? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 41 of 60 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-014, PP 07-015, and CUP 07-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I got a question of staff. Sonya, in regards to the condition in regards to the berming and such, is there something that -- that can be worked out through alternative compliance to where that gets worked out or are we -- somehow, based upon the -- you know, the pictures that we have seen and whatnot, I think there has got to be something that can be worked out, you know, through staff to take care of that. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, staff is willing to work with the applicant on that. However, I would like to add on that condition, on E, that the berm be required adjacent to the residential portion of the development, rather than the whole development. But, yes, we can work with the applicant on that. Or you could also make a recommendation, you know, to City Council for -- you know, for them to act on it also. Either way. Moe: Okay. Rohm: I have a lot of faith in staff. I think you guys can work out something to move the project forward. Newton-Huckabay: If this is the biggest problem we have to face, I don't think it's -- Rohm: Yeah. It's not -- . Could I get a motion to move this project forward? Moe: Well, are we done discussing the other issues that -- that the applicant would like to see changed, i.e., going -- not having to do the sidewalk on the outparcel to the east. Going with the standard vertical curb in lieu of roll curb? Those two items ACHD has made as a requirement. Do we want to keep those in force? I, myself, do. It's -- Rohm: Do you like the rolled curb or -- Moe: Either one. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Rohm: I personally like the vertical curb. Newton-Huckabay: Me, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 42 of 60 O'Brien: Me, too. Moe: Well, then, I guess we will make that change. Rohm: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Someone is going to talk now. Hood: Sorry. I just -- I just want to make you aware that you can request that. What we don't want to have happen is if you guys prefer vertical and ACHD requires rolled, the applicant's caught in the middle and can't comply, then, their project stalls, because we have got bodies that have conflicting requirements. So, those are straight from ACHD. I believe they are final conditions. Regardless of it, if you want to change this or not, it's ACHD's report and their staff, it's already been finaled with them, so we can make it say whatever we want, but just a heads up for you and the application that regardless of how this reads, it doesn't really change their conditions. Their conditions are their conditions and they are going to enforce them. So, these ones that start with the number seven are straight from ACHD. Rohm: Can we make a recommendation and they can take it back to ACHD and -- and possibly have a reconsideration? Hood: Most certainly. Yes. And probably some of the things like that could be worked out at staff level and if it's voiced from the city that we would prefer those things, sure. I just require -- if you require something and, then, their hands are tied, then, again, we have got this kind of mess of who has got the authority and, really, the roads are ACHD's, so give you their construction standards. Rohm: Thank you. O'Brien: So, the question I have -- Mr. Chairman? So, the possibility exists that you have straight line curbs on one side and rolled on the other? Rohm: I don't think so. I think that -- O'Brien: Is that with Victory Road or inside the -- Rohm: Inside the development. O'Brien: Oh. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 43 of 60 Rohm: Let's talk about that sidewalk in front of the outparcel. The applicants commented that they would prefer not to participate in that and that certainly makes sense to me. Moe: Well, again -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: Go ahead. Moe: Again, that's an ACHD recommendation. Rohm: That's a requirement from ACHD? Hood: No. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I like -- that one says the district recommends. So, in that case, you know, you can -- it still doesn't change what the ACHD recommended, but you can either require it or not require it. That fully is -- regardless of what you do it won't be in conflict with what ACHD has recommended. Rohm: Okay. Moe: That's why I had asked Sonya earlier whether or not when this came before us the first time that -- if that condition was there and we did approve that. That's why I was curious. I have no problem striking that if you don't want -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment on that one. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It looks -- I mean to the east we have other -- is that -- that's developed already or just platted? Planned. The development to the east of the grange hall. Rohm: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's part of the Tuscany development as platted in Messina Meadows or Messina Hills, one of the Messina names and so, yeah, the grange would be the last piece to get continuous sidewalk in that full mile. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 44 of 60 Hood: I did work on Tenana -- Tenana, whatever you want to call it -- 18 months ago, whenever that was through the process, and the applicant at that time did propose to construct those things and that's why it was required at that time, because the applicant volunteered to do those things and, then, we incorporate it into the development agreement. So, it doesn't sound like this applicant -- well, they are willing to do it on the two outparcels that are truly outparcels, but in front of the grange that's really more off site and it sounds like they aren't proposing that same amenity, if you will. Newton-Huckabay: My personal opinion, in the grand scheme of things, it's right next to. a school -- this is going to be a charter school, isn't it? Wasn't it a charter school? Hood: It was some type of alternative high school or a lesser site, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to see the sidewalk. It would finish it off and -- Rohm: Well, if it had been part of the previous project maybe we should just leave it in. I mean that's not a huge -- I don't think that in and of itself would be a deal breaker. What is it, a hundred feet of sidewalk? A hundred fifty? A hundred and fifty feet of sidewalk? Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to -- I just would like to see it finished off, but I don't know where the grange stands on that, but, obviously, they don't. Rohm: Okay. O'Brien: I don't see it as a problem. They have two entrances to the grange on either side of the building -- I just think it would work well with a sidewalk there as well. Rohm: Do you mind if I reopen the Public Hearing just to hear the -- Newton-Huckabay: No, I don't mind. Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing on these three items. Forrey: Thank you, Commission. Because we have a developer on the east side of the grange, the grange in the middle, and a developer on the west side, maybe the three of us could all get this done. The two developers and the grange could partner together and make this happen. And we'd certainly be willing to do that. We are all for continuity of sidewalks. Rohm: Other than the other developer is not here to respond to that. Forrey: True. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 45 of 60 Rohm: It would be pretty tough for us to -- Forrey: But I guess if you gave us direction to do that, we could sure sit down with them and in good faith try to get that done. Rohm: Thanks for your comment. Could I get a motion to reclose the Public Hearing? O'Brien: So moved. Moe: So moved. Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reclose the public hearings on RZ 07-014, PP 07-015, and CUP 07-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, are you prepared to make a motion on these three items? Moe: Sure. Newton-Huckabay: I just -- I just want to make a comment. I really like the design of this. I don't know -- I'm not the architectural nature, but this one has a little bit different look, more that midcentury modem kind of feel and flavor to it. I think that is going to make it a little more unique. And so I really -- I'm going to enjoy watching that come together. And I remember that house from when I was a little girl growing up in this town and it was the monster house on the hill on Victory Road, so it will be interesting to see it as a civic center, so great project. Rohm: No. I agree. That's -- I'm glad to see them incorporate that existing structure into the development. Moe: Mr. Chairman -- let's see here. I thought I was ready. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of -- Mr. Nary, do I need to do these one at a time or can we do them all three? Nary: You can do them all together. Moe: Thank you. File numbers RZ 07-014, CUP 07-017, and PP 07-015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2007, with the following modifications: Under condition 1.2.6E, I'd like to recommend that the applicant and staff 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 46 of 60 work together to provide alternative compliance in regards to the berm and wall portion. Under -- Nary: Commissioner Moe? For any of the amendments, just so the record is clear, could you reference which one that refers to? I believe that would refer to the development agreement, so that would be part of the rezone. Isn't that -- Moe: Well, you would probably have to work with me on that one there. Nary: I think that staff and commission would be part of the development agreement, wouldn't that, Caleb? Watter: It would be part of the preliminary plat. Nary: Preliminary plat. Watters: Yeah. Nary: So, just to make sure the record is clear as to where you want that amendment for. Moe: In all of these are we -- yes. I will clarify that, that all items that I'm modifying are to do with the preliminary plat. The next item -- that would be condition 7.1.4 in regards to the sidewalk across the two outparcels. Let's see here. I'd like to modify that, that the sidewalk to the east at the grange hall not be required, but would recommend that the applicant work with the grange and the developer to the east to possibly get that sidewalk installed. Under condition 7.1.14, nothing would change there, but I would recommend that ACHD review the possibility of using a vertical curb in lieu of the roll curb. And under condition 7.1.19, at the start of that condition, start off -- insert the phrase: The owner of Lot 24, Block 15, shall -- now I got -- lost my spot here. That will take care of that. End of motion. Rohm: We have got a motion. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: We have got a second motion, so let me see here. At this time I'd like to take a vote on RZ 07-014, PP 07-015, and CUP 07-017, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. • s Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 47 of 60 Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and the applicant, too. Just, again, for clarification, we will make those changes in our staff report. It still doesn't change ACHD's reports or requirements regarding those issues. But we will put in parenthesis, you know, that the city recommends -- it's kind of almost like a rebuttal thing to -- to the conditions. But just so everyone's clear, that would kind of be the format that this will come -- that the City Council will see based on that motion, so -- Moe: Understood. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016 for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: AZ 07-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from Ada County RUT to an R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development — 1235 E. McMillan Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2007: PP 07-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 4.92 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision by Equity Development —1235 E. McMillan Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 48 of 60 Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from October 18th, 2007, Items No. AZ 07-013 and PP 07-017 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning of 5.18 acres from RUT, Ada County, to R-4 medium density residential and preliminary plat approval of 16 single family residential building lots and three common lots for the Matador Subdivision. The subject property is located at 1235 East McMillan Road, approximately a quarter mile west of Locust Grove. The property is bordered on the east and west by single family residential and pasture land. So, these two parcels here. On the south by single family residential homes, which is Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the north, which is the Tustin Subdivision, zoned R-4. The existing residential home is to remain on the site as part of the plat. So, I kind of have my arrow right on there, but the home is located in the northwest comer of the property. Again, here is where the home is shown on the plat. Access to and from the subject site will be from East McMillan. Internal public roadways will be built to ACHD standards and one stub street, which is called East Cooper Ridge Street, will be provided at the west and east boundary for future connectivity as proposed. So, the applicant is proposing to stub the street here for future connectivity when these parcels come in for future development. UDC requires any site five acres in size to have a minimum of ten percent open space. The applicant has provided .4 -- 0.4 acres or 8.1 percent of the landscape common open space. Except for the landscaping along McMillan Road and one common lot that is proposed to contain storm drainage, there are no amenities on the site. Staff has conditioned the project to shorten the width of proposed Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, and add a picnic area or tot lot within the proposed development. Again, here are the common lots here with the 25 foot landscape buffer and here is the drainage lot. Staff -- these are the two lots that staff is referencing to kind of shrink the frontage to allow this -- to increase this common lot and add an additional amenity here for the site. The applicant has proposed six different front elevations with this application. The submitted elevations indicate hardy plank siding or wood siding with variations in siding styles, including wide plank, shake siding, board and batten -- or batten siding. The front facades are accented with stone veneer and varying shutter designs. These building materials and elevations will be included and subject to a development agreement. So, again, here is some of what they are proposing. I know it's kind of hard to see, but the front porch pillars are to have rock accents. You can kind of see the cedar single style there on the front. Additional elevations. Some two story, as well as single story homes proposed in the development. Staff is recommending approval of the project and I'll stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 49 of 60 Whitehead: Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. And for the record my name is Sabrina Whitehead. I am here on behalf of Equity Development and Briggs Engineering. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho, 83705 and this evening I am presenting to you a request for an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat for Matador Estates and the site is located south of McMillan Road. With this development the development took into consideration the character of the area, the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, and as well as the existing residents and zoning out there. With these considerations in mind, the developer felt an R-4 zoning would be the most compatible and the most appropriate for this area. Therefore, with our annexation we are requesting the zone of R-4. Can we get the color landscape up? Thank you, Bill. Whereby we were requesting to subdivide for a total of 19 lots, 16 buildable, three common. What -- lot sizes ranging from 8,000 to 16,000 square feet. This site will take one ingress -egress off of McMillan Road and will provide two stub roads east and west of the site for public future interconnectivity. The site will have pressurized irrigation through Settler's Irrigation District and at this time we don't know who is going to own and maintain it, either the irrigation district or the HOA. That will be determined at a later date. For sewer and water, the developer is under negotiations with the property owners to the west to obtain a sewer easement. On July 3rd of this year I conducted a neighborhood meeting where I had three neighbors attend. The concerns expressed by the neighbor was Curt Herd, who I believe lives over in this area. He was worried about his view shed and so the developer agreed to protect that he would allow within the CC&Rs Lot 3 of Block 2 to only be single story. Another concern that was brought up was fire access and I assured the neighbors that we are going to meet fire code, obviously we need to, and as Joe Silva of the fire department has issued to you guys that we are in compliance. The developer has reviewed the staff report and agreed with the recommended conditions. We are going to be modifying this and adding some more amenities for this development. Overall we feel it's going to be a quality development. It's more of an in- fill, it's going to be kind of a pocket in -fill, filling in the spaces off of McMillan and with that I would like to thank you for your time and consideration, respectfully request that you recommend approval to City Council for our request and I will stand for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Rohm: Good. You're going to modify the lot to -- are you going to put any tot lot items on that expanded area? Whitehead: Yeah. I believe the developers wanted to maybe put a tot lot slash kind of picnic area. Originally what had happened was we thought our annexation was below five acres, 4.92, and we talked to Bill and I thought this might be an issue, it was kind of a gray area, that's why we didn't provide it, but he felt that -- and we have some wiggle room, so I will definitely get this revised for City Council showing the -- an added amenity, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 50 of 60 Rohm: Good. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Bill? I was just wondering if we had the view with the developments that are already approved in that area, the aerial view with the overlay? Moe: Not much. Newton-Huckabay: Didn't we already approve one on that southwest comer, those three there? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, everything in yellow there has been annexed. I don't know why the preliminary plat lines aren't showing up on there, but just this past year, or maybe a year and a half, yes, three, four, five of these five acre parcels have come in. There were two just on the southwest corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. That was all one project. I believe Harp was the name of that one. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hood: And, then, this one's kind of sandwiched between the two remaining five acres of that original county sub. But, yeah, just recently here again within the past 18 months, all five of those have -- have been approved by the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: And were those all R-8 also or R-4? Hood: Those show up as R-4. Yeah. The darker of the yellows are the R-8 and, then, the lighter colors are -- you can see Harp has a split zoning designation on that one, the five -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hood: -- the north part, there is an existing home there. If you recall that's zoned R-4 and the remainder is R-8. So, yeah, everything else that's been annexed is all R-4 in this area. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Parsons: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 51 of 60 Parsons: Also when I researched these other parcels for what we had approved, that the -- excuse me -- the street that they are proposing here will connect in the future with those preapproved -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, excellent. Parsons: Already approved subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks, Bill. There is not anybody that is signed up to speak to this application, but if anyone would like to, now is that time to come forward. It doesn't look like we have anyone that has any objections. This is good. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-013 and PP 07-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Boy. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make the motion? Newton-Huckabay: Sure. After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-013 and PP 07- 017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 2007, with no modifications. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-013 and PP 07-017, to include the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C -C zone (21.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 (12.87 acres) for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 52 of 60 Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots and 10 common lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C -C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Corners by David Dean — 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Last item on our agenda tonight. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021 and both related to Three Comers and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning of 40.4 acres to a community business -- C -C community business district, R-8, medium density residential, and R-2, low density residential and preliminary plat approval of 54 lots, consisting of 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots, and ten common lots for the Three Comers project. The site is located on the southeast comer of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove. The property is bordered on the north by Banbury Subdivision, zoned R -1-P, city of Eagle, which is located north here. To the east -- excuse me. To the south is the Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT, Ada County. To the west is a church site and Central Academy High School, zoned RUT, Ada County, and R-4 here. And to the east is the Fuller Ranchette Subdivision, zoned R-1, Ada County. On November -- oh. Currently there is an existing bam on the site that the applicant is proposing to retain. Because the existing bam is considered an accessory structure and it's not accompanied by a main living structure, it should be removed prior the city engineer's signature on the final plat. It's kind of hard to see on the aerial, but you can kind of make out the existing bam on the site. On November 1st, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for this property to change the future land use designation from medium density residential to mixed use community. Staff is hoping that this application will catch up with that Comprehensive Plan amendment, so City Council can review the project as a whole concurrently when this -- if this gets forwarded for a recommendation of approval. The applicant is requesting approval of 54 lots consisting of 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots, including a private school site and ten common lots. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan of how this site may be developed with a mix of retail and office uses, a private school, patio homes, and three-quarter acre estate lots. The site is expected to develop with office and retail uses, with total square footages between 40,000 and 80,000 square feet along Chinden Boulevard and a private K-12 school adjacent to Locust Grove Road is expected to have an enrollment of 300 students. The proposed residential portion of the development will transition from higher density residential patio homes located internally, to three-quarter acres estate lots adjacent to existing county subdivisions located along the southern and eastern property boundaries. The applicant is proposing one full access driveway to Locust Grove from the school site and one public access for the remainder of the development. There are a total of three public roads. One street provides full access to • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 53 of 60 Locust Grove into the proposed development and provides internal connectivity with the proposed commercial and residential developments and is stubbed in the southeast comer for future connectivity. The other two public streets are looped -- are a loop roadway providing access to the patio homes and a cul-de-sac roadway to additional estate lots. The applicant has not proposed access to Chinden Boulevard with this application. So, here is where the applicant's proposing the school site. Here is where you'll have your commercial along Chinden Boulevard. Patio homes. Access to the school site will be here. And, then, access to the development will be here. With adding the access for connectivity to the residential and the commercial portion of the project. Here is the other private street with the cul-de-sac and, then, this is stubbed for future connectivity. The parcel to the southeast there comes in for development. The applicant has provided several amenities for the site. The concept plan shows an entryway feature into the development and multi -use pathway around the perimeter and internal to the site. A pond, landscape street medians, tot lot, abundant grassy open space, and picnic shelters with barbecues for future residents. Staff is generally supportive of these amenities and is requiring such a provision in the DA. Staff believes that the applicant has done a great job providing amenities to this development. However, a central plaza with seating benches and a water feature should be required within the commercial portion of the development along Chinden. So, here is where all their amenities -- and I'll try to remember here if I can. This is where they are proposing kind of the center medians here. This is the open space with the barbecue and picnic area. Entryway feature in that median. Entryway feature there. Applicant's proposing the pond here. The tot lot and open grassy area here. And, then, of course, you have the pedestrian path -- multi -use pathway that goes around the entire site and runs through the patio home development and also comes up through the estate lot development into the -- providing excellent pedestrian connectivity into the development. The applicant has provided 13 percent of landscape usable open space, meeting the ten percent minimum required by code. With the above-mentioned amenities and staffs recommendation of adding a plaza to the commercial portion of the development, staff finds the applicant is in substantial compliance with the UDC. The applicant is also proposing to phase the project based on market demand. Phase one is to include the development of the school site. Phase two will be the commercial portion of the development. And phase three and four is to include the residential portions of the proposed development. Staff is supportive of the phasing plan proposed by the applicant. Again, here is how the school site is intended to develop. Here also is proposing a phasing plan. So, this is what they are considering a phase 1A, which is the initial school structure, school building, the 1B being an addition to it. And, then, of course, phase two here being a third addition to the school. Also parking lot for the area and, then, here is where they are proposing their playground and their playing fields. This is an existing Dunwoody Subdivision to the south of the site. The site is adjacent to two entryway corridors. Code requires a 35 foot landscape buffer adjacent to entryway corridors. The applicant has provided a 35 foot wide buffer along both Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard, but needs to include a ten foot multi -use pathway along ® 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 54 of 60 the entire length of Chinden. Twenty-five foot wide buffers are also proposed to buffer the existing and proposed residential uses from the commercial district. The applicant is also proposing trees to be planted within the 25 foot sewer and irrigation easement along the south and east side of the school site, here and here. City code requires any additional -- requires an additional five foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restriction. An additional buffer -- five foot buffer should be required to allow the planting of trees along the southern and eastern boundary of the school site. The applicant has also requested alternative compliance to allow the center median to serve as the required landscape adjacent to local streets. This request is approved at the discretion of the planning director. So, if we were to go to the plat, it indicates a 25 foot landscape easement here and here. The landscape plan does show trees within that easement, so that's why staff has kind of conditioned them to add an additional five feet and plant those trees outside of that easement. Also with this -- one thing I didn't mention -- and I wanted to clarify -- is the applicant, as part of the alternative compliance, they are doing these nine foot medians, but one thing they are also having six foot landscaping here adjacent to the -- the commercial project and an additional six to ten feet here. I think it's six feet. To buffer the residential as well from the street noise. So, when you look at this site -- when you look at the total buffering here between the commercial and the residential, it substantially exceeds what code requires, which is 25 feet. So, that's why staff was supportive of the alternative compliance. As stated earlier, there are 11 commercial lots, including the private school lot proposed for this site. The applicant has submitted conceptual streetscape plans for the commercial portion of the site and front elevations for the private school site, but does not call out building materials. The commercial buildings and the private school for the proposed subdivision will require design review. So, here is kind of the conceptual elevations that were provided to staff for the school site. I wish I could have -- I wish we had a colored scanner, but we don't. There is -- so it looks like stucco and some brick accents on it. Again, the city has -- city code requires -- there are certain guidelines that we have that -- for buildings that are adjacent to entryway corridors and those provisions have been incorporated into the DA -- development agreement for the project. So, here we have the school site. Moving on. Here are kind of the conceptual elevations for the office complex. Again, no building materials, but you can see -- it looks like a composite roofing stone or brick accent, stucco, could be some wood accents, too. I'll let the applicant kind of clarify that tonight. Front and rear building elevations were submitted for the patio homes. Building permit -- building materials for the proposed homes include a stucco, a fiber cement siding, concrete tile, or architectural composition shingles and brick or stone accents painted in earth tone colors. All residential buildings are -- on this site should substantially comply with the above-mentioned residential building materials and colors in all commercial buildings, including the private schools, should be subject to full compliance with future design review and as a provision of the development agreement. So, here is -- here is what they -- the applicant's provided the staff, kind of your front elevations and your rear elevations. It's kind of a unique project that they are proposing. If I could just go up to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 55 of 60 the -- the plat really quick. The applicant wants to, basically -- we are going to require -- code -- the R-8 zoning requires that there is a five foot side setback and the applicant wanted to kind of allow the house to sit on that, not having side setback requirements, so -- they had originally requested a variance, but with this innovative idea we have had -- we have done in the past, we have had the applicant, basically, face the houses where the backyards would be along that five foot easement. So, it gives it an appearance of there is no lot line and so that -- actually, the -- the person's patio home, their backyard will actually be on the -- the adjacent lot -- on the side yard. So, it's kind of a unique -- a new -- not really a new concept, but kind of unique to this development. So, I wanted to point that out to the Commission as well. And with that staff is recommending approval -- recommending approval of this project and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Questions of staff? Will the applicant -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm not really following what you're saying regarding the side setback. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'll try to explain, although it's hard without having a diagram. Essentially, if you have got two lots that are side by side, like Bill mentioned, our code would require each building be set back five feet off of the property line. That's the case for this development. What they are going to do is provide a five foot public use easement on the other side of the lot, in favor of the lot owner on this side, creating a private patio, really, on someone else's property that goes right up to the side of their house, but it creates their private patio on -- half of it on someone else's property. And, then, that's reciprocated on the next lot over. So, there their patio area is kind of screened by the side of someone's house. Now, there are not any windows or anything like that at eye level on the house where your patio area is, your barbecuing whatever, those types of things. So, the windows have to be up higher, you know, so people aren't looking down on your kind of private space, but that's the idea. The buildings are -- there is still separation between buildings, it's just your yard there, your five foot setback, isn't really your setback, it's your neighbor's -- it's your neighbor's yard and, then, again, that just kind of goes down the line and it's offset. So, if you can kind of just forget that there is a lot line there, it looks pretty normal, other than there is no separation between property line and the building, essentially. If it were -- if the building were on the property line. It's a way, like Bill mentioned, to get away from a variance, a zero line setback -- zero side setback without doing a variance. It's another way that we can just put that easement on the plat in favor of this lot for this guy to use. Does that make sense? I wish I had a diagram and maybe the applicant does have something that we can show, but -- Newton-Huckabay: That makes -- that makes sense. I understand it. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 56 of 60 Hood: And your fence, then, wouldn't be on the property line. Your fence would be in align with the -- any structure over there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Or the structure would be -- Hood: Sort of added the fence. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: You can go on. Sony. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Mokwa: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with Toothman-Orton Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard, Boise, for the -- for the applications, the owners, Dave and Luann Dean. I really don't have a lot to add beyond what staff reports -- the staff has already reported on. I do have a couple of comments I'd like to make on their request on the conditions. I don't know if you would like for me to stand for questions first or go over which conditions I'd like to have a little bit of modification to or request a little modification to. Rohm: Let's go with that first. Mokwa: I don't know if you all received a copy of the e-mail I sent to staff. That's it. So, those are the conditions I'd like to -- and I can give you some additional explanation on that. The first was condition 1.1.2. You know, we do show a water feature and it's labeled as a water feature in this concept for this entry into the higher density R-8 area. It may very well end up being a water feature. We don't know that at this time. We prefer not to be quite that specific in our condition. We'd like to make it something that works well with the other entry feature. Those issues aren't worked out at this time. It's more of a final design. So, we plan on doing something nice, obviously, above these two entry points, so we'd just like to have a little more flexibility and not be quite that specific with that water feature language in that. The second one Bill talked a little bit about. One thing I would like to mention, you know, we are proposing this as a boulevard, sort of a commercial street section with a boulevard, all the way up to this last commercial lot in this area. At that point we transition down to more of a residential, more narrow street. But even through here we are proposing detached sidewalks with planter strip along both sides of the street. In this area here, in lieu of the ten foot -- I guess you would call it the ten foot landscape buffer that's required in the -- in this zone up next to the sidewalk, we are proposing this alternative compliance for the nine foot median and our thinking was that the nine foot was a good trade off when you consider that we have got -- and the city -- the city minimum is eight feet. We have got a six foot strip between the sidewalk on either side of the road, plus the nine feet, plus we have a ten foot common area lot along the backs of all of these lots, so they don't have double frontage. So, they are backing up directly to this more commercial street. And the 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 57 of 60 reason for -- that this was important to the overall concept of the project was that the goal for this commercial area through here, is that all of these lots be up close to the -- to the proposed six foot sidewalk on this boulevard and present more of a pedestrian type -- urban pedestrian type look to this portion of the -- of the development. This larger lot back here is intended to be a common area lot that will be in favor of all of the other lots for ingress -egress and shared parking and utilities. So, you know, when you consider that we have got six feet -- six foot planter strip, the nine foot island, a six foot planter strip, and a ten foot common area lot down here, we feel like it more than makes up for our alternative compliance request of the ten foot landscape buffer. And, then, the last one is we would just request that this be something -- this is the -- the location for the existing barn. We show that on a platted lot that's a lot of an area of .93 acres. We would like to have some flexibility to keep that. You know, when staff showed our proposed phasing plan and the school -- with the school being the first phase, the proposed commercial being in the second phase, the R-8 area the third phase and the R-4 area the final phase, one thing we know for sure, the schools the -- the first phase. Some of the rest of this is going to be market driven, so we would like to have some flexibility in what goes first and along with that, you know, this is a fairly new barn that the owners have put up. They would like that to be able to remain until this portion of the project goes. We don't know at this time when that phase would come up. If it does come in the sequence that we have shown, you know, it could be several years for that. The owners and the developers of this project, they live right down here and they currently use that as an accessory structure to their -- to their home down here. So, you know, if somehow that condition could be worded such that it could be something that's worked out at either the development agreement or that -- you know, the city engineer won't sign the final plat for which this bam is located in or this lot is located in -- you know, we would be fine with that. We just don't want to -- we don't want to -- to have the city engineer's signature on phase one of the final plat, which is the school help up, because there is a barn on a lot here that's going to be platted in two years, so -- with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Rohm: Thank you. I think the first question I'd ask of staff, what -- how do you feel about their proposal to leave the barn there until they get to that phase and at that time remove it? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is fine with that. The barn can exist there until they were to come in for a final plat for phase four or whatever phase they would call that at that time. Then, the barn would have to be removed. Rohm: Seems reasonable. Moe: Mr. Chairman, along those same lines, Bill, in regards to the alternative compliance in regards to the -- the planter area and whatnot, that can be worked out? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 58 of 60 Parsons: Yes. Staff is in agreement. We can change that. Change to nine foot wide, rather than -- like the applicant said, it's -- code requires eight feet and they are exceeding that, so that's acceptable. Moe: And I guess the next question I'd ask, do you have a problem calling it an entry feature, as opposed to a water feature? Parsons: Yeah. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- yeah. No issues. I mean if they -- if they do some kind of water feature up here like we are proposing with the plaza, we are, essentially, getting the same thing. So, we are fine with that. Rohm: Thank you. John Gridler -- or -- and Patricia Gridler? Either one of you need to speak -- want to speak? They are gone? Oh. All right. Oh, well, they are out of here. There is nobody else that has signed up for this project, but now is the time to come forward, if anyone would like to speak. Newton-Huckabay: You sat here all night and you have nothing to say? Mokwa: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do want to mention that we do have some folks here with the school tonight and we also have the architect that's worked on some of the renderings that you have looked at and I know those folks would be happy if you have got any questions on -- on any of that. I think you have done a pretty good job presenting it. Rohm: I'm pretty happy with that presentation and -- both by staff and the applicant there any final comment from the balance of the Commission? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 07-017, PP 07- 021, and the ALT 07-015. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021. The third item was -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 59 of 60 Rohm: Yeah. That one's not open, so it's been moved and seconded to close these two public hearings. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: That's the alternate compliance that -- Rohm: Yeah. We don't -- not as -- not an item for our -- Moe: So, then, I don't have to deal with that. Rohm: No, you don't. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may clarify real quick. You don't have to deal with it. It's approved at the staff level. If you have comments or want to modify the approval, that one modification that the applicant requested that staff concurred to, is effectively you acting on the alternative compliance, so -- but it's not a noticed Public Hearing. Moe: Don't need to mess with it, then. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2007, with the following modifications: Under -- let's see here. Well, that would be under the annexation and zoning under 1.1.2, the first bullet point, and, then, the fourth arrow under the third line where it speaks of picnic shelters with barbecues and water features, I would like to strike water and put entry feature on that item, please. I'm stumped here, but we will try this. Under item 2.7 in regards to the bam, do I need to make reference that I do want staff to work with the applicant to change the development agreement to let the bam stay until it's developed or what? Hood: We will make it state just that. We don't need to work with them. It's just that until that's platted. Moe: So noted. In that case, end of my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 60 of 60 Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are out of here. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:13 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPR�VED � e �� p i MICHAEL ROHM — CHAIRMAN 0 1`2� I06o 107 DATE APPROVED Gd r� saves • R �,i �- rad i E November 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-14 REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: COMMENTS Oev-o V--& 9P1,*,, V L41 I o"o Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: 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: Vtl d A�, �,j �Vqco f)tf\ I �-) / � 0 Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • 11 November 12,2W7 AZ 07-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Marshall Williams ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property - 1650 Dunwoody AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Staff Report No Comment No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Various Letters of Opposition / Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 12, 2007 AZ 07-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT CenterCal Properties, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/07- Annexation and Zoning of 258.39 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Meridian Town Center - NWC & NEC of N. Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS 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 See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments OTHER: Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. November 12, 2007 RZ 07-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/07- Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanaugh - SEC of S. Meridian Road & E. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS 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: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Revised Plat / Landscape Plan / Site Elevations Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 12, 2007 PP 07-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued PH from 10/18/07 -PP for 518 lots consisting of 443 single-family residential bldg lots; l residential bldg lot consisting of 32 apartment units; 8 residential bldg lots consisting of 61 future condo units; 4 mbred use lots consisting of commercial retail on the 1 at floor w/12 residential lobs on the 2nd floor, 9 commercial bldg lots,1 school bldg lot,1 civic / social halt lot, 46 common lots & 5 other lots on 177.43 acres in C -N, TN -C, TN -R & R-0 zones for Cavanaugh - SEC of S. Meridian Road and E. Victory Rad AGENCY CITY CLERK: See RZ Packet 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: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: November 12, 2007 CUP 07-017 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/07 - Conditional Use Permit approval to convert the existing Caven home into a civic / social hall in an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh - SEC of S. Meridian Rd & E. Victory Rd AGENCY CITY CLERK: See RZ Packet 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: COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 13, 2007 AZ 07-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/4/07- Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 November 13, 2007 PP 07-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/4/07- Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet 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: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. • November 13, 2007 AZ 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15,2W7 APPLICANT Equity Development ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/07- Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Matador Subdivision - 1235 E. McMillan AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • November 13,2W7 PP 07-017 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT Equity Development ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/07- Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots & 3 common lots on 4.92 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Matador Sub - 1235 E. McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • November 13, 2007 • AZ 07-017 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT David Dean ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C -C zone 121.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 zone (12.87 acres) for Three Corners - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. November 13, 2007 PP 07-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 15, 2007 APPLICANT David Dean ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential Jots, 11 commercial lots and 10 comon lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C -C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Comers - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet 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: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.