The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 12-06.r . -~ E IDIAN~ ' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~;r~ ~ y,~ ,,, REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ~.;a `~ ttAlthough the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected 'A ~ to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 3. ' r . ~ ~~ Sr. 1 < r ~_ 1 S .E'. - S.>: . ~ .:.~ r i' ~ ,. Y, _ is ~1 ' f 5~ ~, ;~ i `? E f, ~w? ;; <.:a w ,; rvl :'.~., i r ~a~ ai, _~'' ~: : ; =_' t_ ~~ i. Y`7 e • Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: Recommend Denial to City Council 8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primeland Developmen# Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 acres from RUT to C-C zone for Settlers Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 87d W. Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 20, 2007 11. Public Hearing: PP 07-024 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 12 commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 20, 2007 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 6, 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 888433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r' f .. H... ..t 4. L.; F +~ 5c. k. d~ ~ t~~h~~ ~ ~ ~~', ~~1~Y~~ 11, i 4 ,`- y a- ~, ,S ~. {,, ` ~ ~~ ~I ~,_ .. s~~ ;;I ff -~ f; _ ~'~ _ `f ;;f • (~E IDIZ IAN~- ~J n LJ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 6, 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: ~P~~ ~`~tr 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~~~~ ~~~, ~/ 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Drtment: ,(~ ~/~. r~_p a 5. Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~v~~~~~~'~ 1~r1 r~ 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approva `(~~~ consisting of 848 residential building lots and 100 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: ~°~~~~~. ``~C ~~ ~ /~, -!~ ~ ~, 7. Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary si development for Castle Rock by .~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 6, 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. J. 3 ~ ~ vx' r ,i ~y r,. ~ %~ A ~,F: .. ~ Ill ~lli ~~ : r ti;. f ~ I. ~~: ,-~tr~ g k l~ -~ Y N.. FI' ~ ~,y; ./ -:'~ t~ L 4 '-~: r ~. ~ ~ ~ ~a s *' } ~` e _ ¢ L f ~ ~ S 1 ~' i ~ k~.. { + ~ ~'. ti~ ~ ~ A i t , 1 1 j_ n' ~~;' _. ~ Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Road and west ~` ~~; of S. Eagle Road~~~~~~~~ ~ _~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~, ~,~ ~ ~ 8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 '' zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -NEC of W. ~ ~' McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Roa ~®~~~~,,~ PC~~~( °~ nom' ~' _' 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 ~~ ~~~ '` commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development ~~ Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Ro and N. Ten Mile Road: ,~~T ~ S~ 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 ~~ r~'~` acres from RUT to C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~,/~ to ? ~~ l ~ ,>f. ~~ ~ 11. Public Hearing: PP 07-024 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 12 commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed ~` C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: ~~-~~~ ~® fa~~~l~`7 :..;;; ~~ ~ o ~~ }. ~ G `. µ~ ~!r~ is, r ~ 1~~ is ~z ~~t` I~. -`t ;~ _-;: q -'act i.. :, ~. _: ~^ ~. ~~- >~ `~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 ~.' All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. h ri d/ '- ' or ea ng, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents an ~ ~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. a; ,`,S; r , ~„ ~~~~~~r~~ ~ ~~. ~~~~~~' " ~r~l~ ' ~ 3 '~ S ~ ~ zi x~r~'fr z n~ f rav~'t ~ ~ . aka ~.t a r ti~,r. ~ ' '~ ,t=~ ' ~ ~ ,~a~ ~ i ~c, r.~ ~ ~ f a n ~. ~~ff ~T5~3~~9 j ~ ~-~',. p ~ ~~. _ 5 +~ y~~ f~"~~ ~r~h > - ~ ? f.r x ~^ ~ i.~ ~ R~'16 ~ fi ~~ ry ! E~ tiro x s ., i ~ ~' 9 ~; r' ~~'YA f `ay1 L'4 i~1~t G t~ ~'4{- } Y ~~~C •+ w+aYk- h Y _ S r s~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 3 i T 3 F1 it r s ~ r,r%-'~{, ~.. E 1 ti¢~ I:. ..~ y h ( 1' 1~f; f A ~ C~yj} __ a l '*» t i ~ t Y- - ~. 2 k r ~< r s,, . ~i ~t _~ S ~+: ~f r~,.. c i ~~ ~ ~c .!~ ~ '~ °~ . i ten ?~€ ~~t"ki~',~i~ ,,;~ " L A ~ ~ . t--.. N~ t~; r ~ l~ ~~~:~ ~L~ E ~v ~ ti .~,~. ;:~~41i. C~- - z ~' .i ~ . ,; ~,~rj ~7~ :~ `~ Yir, ~';~' ~I :~ i 'J ,,1 ;ti. °, t~ ~I I~Se }"~s-t -Fcr R~ ~ ~ I'~c~i ~ ~ (~~cs ~ ~ ,~. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~' E IDIAN I D REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 6, 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 November 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: 5. Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 848 residential building lots and 100 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: 7. Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 6, 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. s .~w ~ti ~t s ~5~~ ~I. ~. rt ~~'i ` r ~; 6 `~; ~ ~ + ~ , f ~ f 4 ~kr ~ ' ,` ~ 4 ~ X11 ~ ` ~ ~ asg. 4 ~~~ {~. ~~ ~ ~ r . s ~ ~ ~,~,~'~~F ~ ~~ ~~~±i 1". 3z &tY.C i~S5 ~ jl"~ur i`u ~X 3 N fit. ' $; fGt ~; ~r~ ~ :F ~ ~I~, ~ 4 . .+ '+ 7 ~ t. h ~ ~ ~ r~ F ti ~ ~; rl~~ p p6L 1~ '. ' ~' '~ ~~~ ~ ~7. ~ #it + - e . ~~ of ~ "~.- ,' ~ _ .I .~~~~ jY tv~'L~F~ ~~ ~ ,YW,~t x ~ r£si~.. .~ C ~ ~ lp y '~'~4'N 9 ~a~~~~. i _ S .. Y y ti '' _ ?~ `6y`~ ~ ~ ~ y~t.M Pc ~ '~ _` +1 it ~ii g@ ~ z"t 3~ $ ~fi 4 r a+~' ~ ~ i ~.Ya 'y. ~~,l ` ~ ~.~ t ~- i ' ~R ,w i' yyy!!! ~.~`,~`i~~11 '. 3~ ~~ Y'1 ~~ y Y t.a t ~y; F t5 t}~ r GL~~*~r p° 1 -y `~ ~ ~x YI' ~tc )~ 5 ;~ ~ ~3'a r ~ 1~ s ~' ~ h•: . i ~'}''4 -Ttu fi.~t~t -~uf~i . A ~ ~ ~' ~ ~1 Y ~ 1 # 1.-\ 31 JF~~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _ 4. ~ s ~ ~ ~i ~~ ~ ~ ~^b~.,~" ~jr ~i~ ,. ~~. . 't~~ '4 ~ qY{'41~ ~I, n ~~, ~ K' x v.i+r t W ~ • -. ~ . f J Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: ':~y~ 8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona ;;` Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development ~,~ '~~ Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: f~:~' 10. Public Hearing: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 ~`~-. acres from RUT to C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: ~, ~' >~ 11. Public Hearing: PP 07-024 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 12 ~. commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed ~~~4. - C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 ~~ ~~. W. Ustick Road: Zia n~ "': } ~'.'.~~~ ~` ^, ~i< A'r ~'j~ ~' e ,.~ ~' :-," 4 .. .: ;; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 u, e~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '' ' Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearing, x.<_;a'~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~3 2 , < .r~ur~ ~ .. ~~' <~br!s ,~~ r'' ,i is ~~: x g , ~' ~ft ~~ ~'' '; y ~~'+~~ F ~} ~+ b . , p.E. _ a ~ r/ ~ I r ~' rz ~ f n { y R ~a~ is rc fl . ~ ~~~~ ~ F+' K a ~«,e~~. - a ~ ~~ ! ? -~ d''~ ~i~~a Y S..r, y ~~rzh , 4 ;~. r _ t~ 4 +.~ R,3 ~~ u f ~ ~ ~~Ye i + is f _.~ l•.aPjC ~ ° ~i h +~ ~~ ~; - r.~ ,``,i ~~, # +; ,n ~ i~ r; ~' ~ t,, r ~ 4 u-~ ~n,F . ~ ~w~.,i x s ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ~_ g ~ i a ~~~ f _ ~' _ ;~ r. ;t !.. a ~. Kh~ I ~ , ~. § ., a~ ; .t~rt,~iy. ~. vae ' i x a4•,~ ~~.~ 9r t .L l~iJ r i~~~` ~~,~t 4 ;. ~ t., y ah4~~}: i~ ,~ I Wei ~~' ``a ~.• ~. .~~ ~` ti' ~yvr _. ~,~. <: i";~ : ip Vii;, .',k. ~. E~:' ~. ~, L.y; -. ;:; r'~' Yp. ~'f ''.. ~' :,' ~. ~. ~; '~ G r' x. ~J,, i;..v . --A' ~ i ~;a. ~:~ F ~:~~~- ~_~, ~> s~i,-_ ., ~!' ~:~ 4?°'` Date/Time ~12-03-2007 LocaIID 1 2088884218 LocaIID 2 ~ Broadcast Report ~ ~ 11:41:45 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " I-'tf'CISe i-C~'t it7 ntr~. C.~ N(J li~~ - li'-UJ' 11L~? ; ~~i~E IDIAN kAEW RtAN PLANNI ~G AND ZONING t p A Ft o GUt..AR liA E1YNCi ArviENDA City Caundt Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, i!dertdian, Idaho thursday, December 8, 2047 at 7:00 pm. °Atthough the City of Meddien no longer requites Sworn testtmany, aN preserXaNonS before the Mayor aRd City CouncN are expected to ba truthful and honest t4 best of Ste abttJty of the present~rr:° 1. Rott-tali Attendance: Tom CI'Brien David Mae 2 Adoptlon of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: Wendy Neu+tan-Hudcabay stave t5lddoway Mi+~tael Rohm -chairman A. Approve Minuses aF Novemt>aar 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Tn4n1 Pnnoc Cr~nnar~l • 7 4. Continued Pubuc Hearing from November 1, 2007: CPA O7•~09 Request for a Comprehensive Pian Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the Future Land Use Mep and include realien0ai uses In neighborhood centers fur South ~Aertdtart Area by City of Hendren Planning Department 8. Public Hearing: AZ 47-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.28 acres from RR to R 2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.18 acres) for Cat;tls Rock by Providence Davebpment Group, LLC - sotrUt of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Prelimhtary Plat approval consisting of 848 resldsntial building tots and 100 common /other tote on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-$ zones far Castle Rock by Provtdertce Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road ark west Of S. Eagle Road: 7. Public Hearing: PUD 07.001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Devalapment for deviations from district requirements tD provide an appo-tunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by A9er~ian PlarmSng and Zordng Cmnmtsalan Meeting /~em~ - Oeaentber & 2ixt'r Page 1 of 2 AH ma~`ela presented et pub8c maet4nga ~eii t properly oPtha tlty al ARerWlan. Arryone desiring asrAmmodatiai for df~bdi@ee roleted to dowmertta andfor tu3mfttg, pease COrdaG the Cfiy t:lerMa!?ffltt:a at 886-633 at least 48 hens plor to the puaUc meeting. Total Pages Confirmed ~ 30 No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 478 3810160 11:23:50 a.m. 12-03-2007 00:02:01 212 1 EC HS CP9600 002 478 8989551 91:23:50 a.m. 12-03-2007 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP21600 003 478 2088848723 11:23:50 a.m.12-03-2007 00:00:24 212 1 EC HS CP28800 004 478 8886854 11:23:50 a.m. 12-03-2007 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 478 2088985501 11:23:50 a.m. 12-03-2007 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 006 478 8467366 11:23:50 a.m. 12-03-2007 00:00:25 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 478 8950390 11:23:50 a.m.12-03-2007 00:00:35 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 ~S iri 1~ ,~ ...5f..; '; vi ~' rtJ i~~~'- ~ ~Ki~~"s ?r 7 ~~ ~ ~. r • ~ r ;:' s, n iii '` ~' -sirj •~ , a ~ ( ~ Y~ hrt~ b'taG, ~t 1C~ ~~3. ~ 3 f R3~. .` i F* 5,3. m ~~ ~_., __.. +Jt ~ ~~ { ~ 4 'i 7 ~ k ~~i ~ ~ °~ yf ~ ~,.` eA" ~1Y J } e k Cf~hf ~. ~~1~4.d .. ' µ.i ~~ `~~'• A r.. 1 `f`£ ., 1. ]~ ~.~S~f k y , y,, (h } fl f ~ tt; ~ •~IC'1 x - r.. n. .. .. ~}.' ....~ ~; ~te ~ e b ~'r, .~ ~ ~ ~~~ ... MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~' ~ E IDIAN REGULAR MEETING ='~ ~ ~, AGENDA ~ City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ,4~.;.; ~~ , Tx; ' Thursday, September 20, 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." r~= .+, 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~, ,.. ;~. Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~' ` ' David Moe Steve Siddoway °~ Michael Rohm -chairman `.: y: ` { >_ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~, ~<< ~' `' 3. Consent Agenda: } A. Approve minutes of September 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~. ~`' ~' 4. Public Hearing: CUP 07-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for °'~" 171 multi-family dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located '` / I within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi-Family ~' ~' ~~ Development by J-U-B Engineers -west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, ` ~ '' approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and '/ mile east of Ten ~ ~~~` ~ --:,,, Mile Road: s, ~~' `; ~}:; x ~~~ ;; x e'-: ~.;. ~'- ~': .. Y~i :~ fi. -. ~~?~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 20, 2007 Page 1 of 1 ~~:. 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. :_ _ ~; ~ ~ ~~~. ' t 3' ~"k ~~ ~ d q, ~ t '~ !.~ ii A ' ~/klj< kn ~ Y ~~~lf ~4 $ ~ir t a p; ew L- T t' ~ -~ Ir '.1 as %~i k Sst of 4 _~ ~ ~,4 t adt ~t~l,' ~~ s ' ~ ~~ 7f^Rt S;r - - + s ~ ~ ~ ~ { > ~~ : ~ ~ slE: -'~' ^ ~ ~^F r i ~' °~ ~ftft ~ r~~i`~ _ ~; ~ ~ ' y ~ F n 5 r:~* ~~ ~, ni ~r ~a't nJ~~~:~ hi..N ,i W n~.a!~,. ~ t ~ °I ~,,~ ~at i~ i _tP' f 3 y t i~Ja ~2a13 ;; s~v,t: 5 i ,ja t ~. ~ ~5 i n~.h, 'r ~ ~+~dLE L~ ivy r~ ~~ ~j~l' Y• K y " '. ~ ~ z n~ a. y ~t~yR i tly ~~ a r.t.a _ '~ ~ ~''~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~'~w~ ~ i ~si.~t i ~ .. , €~ _ ,L s ~'~ ~ ~' ~" ~~ I Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 6, 2007 ~~;w ~~ Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 6, 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, Commissioner Steve Siddoway and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. ~.- `'~'~ Others Present: Bill Nary, Nancy Radford, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Stickling, Sonya Wafters Pete Friedman and Dean Willis. '' `' Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien Y "~,'1 X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway s.:x,. X Michael Rohm -Chairman ~;:, Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. - '' Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: <. ~. Rohm: Okay. The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we ~:~ ~ have one change in tonight's agenda and that's Items No. 10 and 11 for Settler's Square - Subdivision. That project will not be heard tonight. As I understand it, it wasn't properly posted and there is nothing wrong with the project, but it just didn't get posted up on the ~~°~ ~~ property in the length of time it needed to be, so it will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 20th. And that's the only change to the agenda, so R.:-~ could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. #7 Opposed same sign? Motion carried. ~~ ''' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~::;~ ~ ~~~ --~---~-~-F-~ t f t~ ~ t ~; ,.,. ~~ ~,7, ~: ~~ a , ~Y ~r F~ ~ ,'~a ~~~E ~ ~ -, ~ ' M S,', 1.Y IS - n elf 3d ass c}@k. K ` si 'i, tk, ~r.1'y~, ' ,~.. J F '< r rt V 1a f• ~ji,~, ' n~~y E~ d ~ >~; ~.* i 3C 9~, ,xt ~ ~ ij.L `FI ,:r 1 '~1~ a ~ 1'., i k ~ ~ h ~45i ~'~' . ._ ~ i-.. Y k - ` b ,. C ff 7 ,r„~ ~ ' ,~ '%~~ `~`~ ~~ '~ ~3~a rr ~ 4 ~~~A , ;, dF SJr:Wls Y 5_{cF `~G4 t i ~~( ~~ i ~ s ~~ y ~ ~:~ $ :. h ~ '. h s ~~ '~ !~_ ~a ,k ~~ y~ ,~~;~ w ~,~ ~ ~' 4 ,,~ ~ ~ Nf ' '•' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 6, 2007 }~ -; Page 2 of 55 Item 3: Consent Agenda: ~~.-a A. Approve Minutes of November 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning f'v Commission Meeting: r~ ,~~.;. Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is the approval of the November 15th Commission meeting minutes. Could I get a motion to accept the -k ~ Consent Agenda? :: O'Brien: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: 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: ALL AYES. `,~ ~'; Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2007: CPA 07-009 ~~:~ Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new ~:~T: designations to the Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in ~ Neighborhood Centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian "~ Planning Department: ~; Rohm: Okay. The first item on our agenda tonight is the south area and it's a little bit ~_~~ different than most applications. This is a change to the Comprehensive Plan that the ~~~:, city itself is proposing and this one is a text amendment and so with that being said I'm ~.~;: going to tum it over to Pete and he can give us the staff report. ~:. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you will recall, ' on November 1st the Commission conducted a Public Hearing on our South Meridian ~ ,, t Plan. That plan had been in the making for almost 18 months and during the hearing that night we had presented you with a revised land use map, as well as three text °~ amendments. At that evening there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the mixed -- ~~~'-• , proposed mixed employment designation around the intersection of Lake Hazel and '~~'' s Meridian Roads. As we indicated that evening, the mixed employment is a new ~ ' ~ ° designation for the city and it currently is only found in our Ten Mile specific area plan. ~~~ Because of the location of that intersection and proximity to future transit corridors, staff s .,- ~ had recommended amending the designation -- the text of the designation to include residential uses where it currently doesn't in the Ten Mile plan. So, as the evening g~;.'r;',`~, progressed and the testimony was presented, there was testimony from Brighton Ai; s~ f'_.:~1 ~ Corporation, who owns property in that area that was being recommended for the mixed d ~_~~ 'q ~r, ~'~~~ ~s ~~ ~~:~y ~ a ~ P y ~ ,,. ~~ ~ r ~' `. i, .r ,'~k `4„ 1 ... ,_ .,"... f +; ,.': i - ~~ )'I{ ~1 ~~; ry i,~;; 7~ ~ .iri ~ , i i ~ ~ .; x- 'i ~~ ~L±'. C~ cSn 1: ~iqi.~ ~ ri 1 ~i'KgR t'` ~ i ~ i y 4q ,.~,~ . .. 1ti1.': ~u~i ~ ~ ?~` , ?~~~ 1 ~. ;,' -'' t:~ ~,~ „r , `~,~ _~ ~ 1 {> ~x' ,~;; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 3 of 55 employment designation, which is currently designated mixed use regional, so as the Commission deliberated that evening, they actually moved the land use map -- future land use map forward to the City Council for consideration, but deferred action on the text amendments and as you will note from the memo that I provided you what we were able to glean from your discussions that night was that you perceived that there was a need for the types of uses that are contemplated in the mixed use regional designation. That is the higher density retail and commercial services, but you also had some concem about just either retaining it on the Brighton property or applying it equally to all the properties that were proposed to be the mixed -- mixed employment. So, your direction to us was to go back and rethink the text of the mixed employment or come back to you with another alternative. In addition to their testimony about their particular property that they own there, Brighton also had proposed some language to address many of our mixed use categories and so we met with Brighton and we have been examining them also and we don't propose to go in and look at all the mixed use designations currently. We want to go back and take a look at those at some point in the next year, but we did -- we did have a meeting and we did discuss kind of what the intention of this was. We looked at what our intention of our mixed use designations were and we felt that the best course of action would be to recommend to you a text amendment for the mixed use regional category in our Comprehensive Plan. And that by redefining the mixed use regional designation, we would also recommend deleting that mixed employment area and, then, making all that area that was originally proposed for mixed employment, re-designating it mixed use regional. And we have provided you with the proposed text, but to put it briefly, we think that the text that we have provided and have recommended for your consideration and approval actually fosters true mixed use. What we have happening now in many parts of the city is the mixed use regional definition doesn't provide enough emphasis on achieving true mixed use. I mean we may get a mix of commercial uses, but we are not seeing the mix of commercial retail, residential, and public uses. So, the language -- we wanted to include some real clear -- real clear purpose statement and intent and the direction in the standards that we are recommending, that to have the mixed use regional designation, a future developer would have. to include a residential component, that there would be a cap at 50 percent of a site area for retail development, although with some of the density bonuses that we have built in there it would be possible to go higher than the 50 percent in exchange for the provision of public space, open space, public .parks, civic areas, and that sort of thing. So, that the public -- a public benefit accrues with the ability to achieve higher retail uses. And so we feel that the purpose statement of -- that we have provided really truly articulates a more mixed use concept, which is what the -- what the Comprehensive Plan is out to achieve. So, we are recommending that to you. I would note that in the text that you received from us there were two changes, we made two little errors in the bonus provisions. One is in the third bullet and that talks about a bonus of -- gives you an example and it should be ten acres, instead of five acres, and, then, in the last bullet for the bonus language it would be three acres, not two acres. So, in summary, we are recommending that you adopt the proposed changes to the mixed use regional, as well as the other two text amendments that we !;r;, f4~~,fii j ~_ ~ 4, 5~t4 ~. , ,, y ,; tiT~ F Fts~~~. ~ . 3 {, N R s w"` ~7g St'~:: AnS} ~' A~~° n s. ~e ti . .: ~ yI Z Y ~k d-"~t`4~' ~` 6* ~ "~ i~~~.: ~... ~' kr _ # ;~r w~ti~. ~ F F S• r~ ~ ~ t ~~ j i,.r as - ; ~> ~ si v ~Y '; ~:;:~~ ~ 1 GY,, , y."4 y: ,t K 7 ' 1 r~ ~+fi ~ au :5+~ -~. tp:.^..~_ .. ~:u ~~ ,q \rr~ a .;~, ,~,' '~ ,„ ~~,;'; ~:~U,;: ~a ~~d b~ n': I `. t ;41 1 li ~; ~', ~ ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 4 of 55 had proposed as part of the South Meridian Plan, that included adding the medium high density to the Comprehensive Plan. We currently have not included a medium high density designation in the overall Comp Plan. We have that in the Ten Mile specific area plan. And, then, we have also added some provisions for residential to be included in the neighborhood center designation. And, then, we would recommend deleting our previous recommendation for mixed employment in the South Meridian Plan. What we found we were going to have happening is that we would have mixed employment designations in our land use map, but we, in essence, have two different mixed employment definitions. One would apply in the South Meridian area where it wouldn't allow any residential and one would have applied in the South Meridian area. So, our recommendation is just to remove that mixed employment designation from consideration as part of the South Meridian Plan. So, with that I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Rohm: Pete, I think you did a very good job. I like the changes. Any questions of staff? Okay. Do we have anybody that's signed up to speak on this? There is not anybody that has signed up to speak, but at this time, Dave, if you'd like to come forward you're more than welcome. Tumbull: Thanks, Mr. President, Members of the Commission. My name is David Tumbull. My office address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I don't know that I need to add anything to this, other than I think that what Pete's presentation provided you is a back drop of some of the testimony, actually, that I provided at the last hearing, which was that I thought that the land use designation was appropriate, but the text really needed some working over, because the mixed use regional designation as it has existed heretofore, has not really fostered a true mix of uses. So, we met with Pete and with Anna and we worked through some of these issues and I thought that -- I think we all felt that it was important that there be a residential component required and that through this text amendment what I think you are going to do -- previously, you know, amenities that were required ended up being probably more token amenities, instead of real amenities and there weren't any real incentives to provide public or quasi-public space and this text amendment gives these incentives and I think that what it really will do is force some more innovative design, because you will be required to have those mix of uses and so you can't just go in and slap in commercial retail space without considering how that's going to integrate with the residential or nonretail commercial space. So, you have to give a lot more thought to how those uses are going to integrate with each other and I think you will see a lot better designs by virtue of this text amendment. So, we are in favor of it and we appreciate Pete's comments and I will stand for any questions if you have any. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Tumbull? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application at this time? Okay. Thank you. Any last thoughts by Commissioners? Commissioner O'Brien? • rid` ~~ G ~ 1`7 ~ ~ Y~ hr 1. 7 V} k, ~ 4 ~. i ~~ l r~' ~~ ~+Y ~. ~ 5 J~V yyr~ ^{~ z r• k t~ ,~ 54 ~.~' K*~~ . ~rv P ` ~~~~ , .. ~~ - rfi.~. ~x, ?~: ~r ~y~~s~~v*% ~ , s , _ ' tvr r~ a~~'v t~Et ~~ '~~ . ~ ~ ,x{,~~ b .~~-r . ~eiitK~.~ .. .. ~'`rJ C't'~9ffi`~~ ?4 n e~' l ~ i. ~~, ,~ t "`~~~!!! t ~ ~ Q 'b r~'f'l` S'i~p ~ M, -Y- .. '.i., t; ~:_: ti+'I ti.~ z'al; ' z?~ . ~~~' ;.1r', ;.r: `=~,' ~ I ,~I >z -; ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 5 of 55 O'Brien: I don't have anything that I could add to what's been -- to what I read here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Nothing further to add. Appreciate staffs work with Brighton Corporation and working out something that sounds agreeable to both, so -- Rohm: Okay. Good. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Nothing other than the fact also staff and Mr. Turnbull working through that. We were going through it in our last meeting. It was a long night on some of that, so I'm glad you guys got together and we were able to work some of that out. Rohm: And I guess my last comments on it would be that I think that what we have now before us is much more to the benefit of the city as a hole as we move forward and we will get a better mix and that's what the whole thing is all about is getting a good mix in these areas of -- within the south area. So, I certainly appreciate your work and the help from the public as well. Anything else, Pete? Friedman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, if and when the Council does adopt this text amendment to the plan, it will not only apply just in the south area, but it will apply citywide in the remaining undeveloped areas that are currently designated mixed use regional and I think in looking at our maps they pretty well fall into place, because it really is intended for those areas that are located along real prominent intersections of major arterials and state highways. So, I think it not only will help us in the south, but it will help us citywide. Rohm: Very good. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Let's see. How about a motion to move this forward? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: That's works forme. . '~~ ~. x M~ x ~` ~y ,a" ,~. 1~ hi ~° # a-` ~lY~L, ~ - T r 4 , .f i i~+ iA _ v ~: ~r ~~ S ~ ~~ Yf orb a "'~ ~r A a -. +3~ s~ ~3 St, ~:~'', s ~~ -_ YY k ..'l,- rf~~krr.~: e~F~ ~~~ S~ r~ { i L. C 4yt.. .j ~ 3 =tip :ha ~ ( .~ ~ ~1 f d ~~ i 7.'. F t4 S - + r--~~~ i ~ ~ .. j ro. as ~ e, ~,~~ ~ L , t r ~ ~ 1` T~ 4YN ~ ~ ~~ ,~+ :< x r r~ ~ ~ ~ y r yR ~ y r :' raL~.kt ~ ,^ ~ f.. f4 RATS 4 t b 1 x ~ ~? 4'. .c ~~ f A ~ ;'X~~ ~ ~ a` Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 6 of 55 :~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. ~<~ Rohm: Thank you. ~~ Newton-Huckabay: I recommend approval of CPA 07-009, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment to the South Meridian Area Plan. ~.;.. Moe: As stated tonight. ._~ ~~~~ Newton-Huckabay: As stated tonight December 6, 2007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 07-009, associated to the South Meridian Area. All those in favor say ~` aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. 'r.3 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ;. Rohm: Before we open our next Public Hearing, I'd like to speak just a little bit about the procedures that we go through on these types of applications and what we do is the first thing is we will ask the staff to give their presentation and the staff speaks to a project based upon its adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Unified ~~ Development Code. That's how they present the project. Then, once that presentation ~_} ` I is completed, then, the applicant has an opportunity to present the project from their i perspective. Once those two presentations have been made, then, it is, then, opened to _:~ public testimony and, generally speaking, we give each individual three minutes to ~``~r ~ testify and if there is a single individual that is speaking for a homeowners association or a larger group as a whole, that person would be given ten minutes, but it's in lieu of each person getting up and saying, basically, the same thing. So, it's never our intent to limit anybody from speaking, but if a point has been made, it doesn't make that point ''i any stronger by restating the same point. So, as we go through tonight's presentation, it ~ would be nice if we could give each individual their due attention and I'm sure we will ~'~?~ `I , get through this just fine. So, with that being said -- ~;: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. ~~ Siddoway: In my role as the interim parks director with the city, I have had several _ ~ ~ meetings with the applicant on this project and believe I have a potential conflict of interest, because of the amount of interaction I've had with the applicant directly. '`~~ Therefore, I will recuse myself from this specific application. I have worked with ~, ;' ~~~ - _ f ~~,, i ~ 4 .~ ~" ~ ;~ ~. ~, - '~f ~ ( u ~ r kY~} ~~ J . t+ ~ F r + T ~ ~~ } ~~. f ~ .r ,~ ~r r ~, t ~~ ' `~~~ ti '~iN~ ~~~' ~i vt ~~~ .~-r F ~r ~ r + .... '` ~~.n E c~ t -' ~r_ x ~r '~i ~ ~ ~, ~i ~ is yt I t~s ~ .J~ - -''i~~§. ..r_ - -Y " 'S. x , t-r ~py~ r ~~ ~!} #- A~ 111 + { i ~~y~' {+ 4 ~L i i r Yr :` ti~ + u;}~ 4 ~ i i~ ,~ s ~ .. .. v --s` ~°, bi ~~r ~~~ ~° 1~~ ~* ~zf, z ~ R 3~ ~~ ~,. ;; '-~f~ ''~ ~<. .. lA, i -„t >~,, ~,_~; k, ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 7 of 55 planning staff to provide parks department comments, but -- so, if there are any specific questions that Sonya can't answer, I can be available to answer those from a parks department perspective, but I think I'm going to step down from the Commission seat. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 07-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres) for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 848 residential building lots and 100 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PUD 07-001 Request for approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock by Providence Development Group, LLC -south of E. Amity Road and west of S. Eagle Road: Rohm: Certainly appreciate your coming forward with that and you certainly are recused. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and planned unit development request for the Castle Rock development. The property is currently zoned R-R in Ada County. The subject property is located on the west side of Eagle Road, midway between Amity and Lake Hazel. The boundary of the annexation area is different from the plat boundary. The upper left map shows the annexation boundary, which includes the Black Rock Subdivision, previously approved in Ada County. And the lower map shows the plat boundary, which excludes Black Rock Subdivision. This is an aerial view of the property. The property is bordered on the north by the recently approved White Bark Subdivision, zoned R-4. Rural residential properties on large parcels, zoned RUT, R-R, and R-1 surround this property. Eagle Road borders the property on the east. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 224.29 acres, 45.14 acres of which is proposed to be zoned R-2, 179.16 acres of which is proposed to be zoned R-8, as depicted on the map in the lower right-hand comer. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map depicts low and medium density residential uses for this property, as shown on the map in the upper comer. The anticipated low density area is shown in green and consists of approximately 103 acres. The anticipated medium density area is shown in yellow and consists of approximately 121 acres. Per the Comp Plan, low density areas should have densities of three dwelling ,: ~ of 4 ,~':,~'fY~~~~~~ t ~^ 5 '1 ~ ~r~, 3 ~ ± t £~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~t ~ -H~ ~ t c f r ~? .~~ Ad j~. ~4~~ ~. T' S~ ~ if l~ i £. r1j ^ ~~ k yg~yyy! L L1~: 1~ ~ n } '.::7 Ly {~ ] r. ~ t'~i~. ~~ f 4 r ~ Y yJ ~~ +` V W t7 `, < ~ yS' ~} r ~i.; ~1•~~„ , ~,','.'is vt ~ .~y r.~ t - t~aN '~ 154 di S ~~ n _~ ~ t. L 4 = `7pp~~L `R ;~ '~ i ~ f ~ 3 1 ~, .3t ~ s ~ ~ ~ ,~~pyyyj y3 ;, .~ g F,~ ~ i < ~, ~P k~~ E y ~3 ~ H ~k.Y^ h~ a*~~~ ry; t ~ ~ µw ~ ~ . a ~ ,Y ve Fya '` ~ ~ '~ ~ ~$$QQ .~ fit' ,~, - t~^ ~ ` ~ ;~~ y~ ~~e ~ ~ - ~j Ww~i~ a y' t : ~~ 7fi~~ l ~! F it t .. .yk~ u t / 1, Y ~{} -,, ~ : , ~: ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 8 of 55 units per acre or less and medium density areas should have densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. If the proposed density is calculated on the annexation area, which includes the previously platted Black Rock Subdivision, it comes out to 2.9 ~5..; dwelling units per acre, in the area designated for low density, and 4.88 dwelling units per acre in the area designated for medium density, which complies with the densities anticipated for this area shown on the Comp Plan. If density is calculated on the area of their proposed plat, which excludes Black Rock Subdivision, it comes out to 4.48 units per acre in the area designated for low density uses. Medium density stays the same at ~~ { 4.88 units per acre. Their proposed density of the area designated for low density uses - in the plat area exceeds the anticipated density of three dwelling units per acre or less ~`:" for this area. Staff would like to note that the Comp Plan does allow for a step up in ~,. from low to medium if the Commission is supportive of the densities proposed. densit y City services have already been provided to the Black Rock Subdivision previously platted in Ada County. The applicant is requesting that this subdivision be included in ~'~ the annexation area, as a stipulation of services being provided to this area. A ,;- preliminary plat is proposed for 847 single family residential building lots and 99 ~~~ common lots. As previously mentioned, the plat does not include Black Rock Subdivision up the southwest comer of the development. The applicant is proposing to ~~ ~ construct the subdivision in eight phases as shown. One of the common lots, the 7.19 '~ acre city park right here, is to be dedicated to the city for a city park. Originally there was seven additional lots proposed along the west boundary of the park. As the park -- ~~ ~= I at the park -- excuse me. At the Commission meeting on November 14, the Commission recommended that these lots be removed. The applicant has done so, as ,, i you can see there. The parks department staff was previously recommending and is r , =`r5; still recommending that all of these building lots around the park be removed to make it more visually accessible to all residents surrounding the park and to pedestrian and t ~ ' vehicular traffic traveling along the park from the different streets that come into the park area here. There are comments regarding this in Exhibit B of the staff report. Access to r the site is provided from East Taconic Drive, which currently intersects Eagle Road. } <'~`'~ ~ ~ Taconic Drive was constructed with Black Rock Subdivision and bisects the property -;~` ~.~ and the fire and police department are requiring that a minimum of two points of access ~! be provided to this property for any portion of the project that serves more than 40 homes, including the homes in Black Rock Subdivision. The applicant is proposing four stub streets to adjacent properties and two streets connecting to stub streets to the `'`~' subject property from the Black Rock and White Bark Subdivisions. At the print deadline of the staff report, comments had not been received from ACHD on' this project. Since that time staff has received a draft report which should be included in " ` your packets. The applicant has been working with ACHD on a couple of outstanding issues and is committed to providing two signalized intersections as part of this project. r~ One at the entrance of the subdivision and one at the Eagle-Amity intersection directly north of the site. ACHD has approved the applicant's proposal for a transit stop to be ~~ ~. located on Eagle Road south of the entrance to the site. A copy of the proposed `~` landscape plan. The landscape plan, just to note, does not exactly match the plat. This is the original landscape plan that was proposed with the original prior to the removal of ,~ ;,;~,, ~~. "~ -. ~ x:.,41' :aef.:.~...,... 1-•~A yY} qq ~y s , ~l ~r -w t V ~ 15'._Ht. ~ t., ~ i ' =T fi? - Y a ~~ £ sl f ~ ~.~ yr~ ~~ i f~~~r t r `-1. & rr a ~~ + 7:rt `~~ ~~~ w~ .;u ,~~5,, Y ^. 1 !~~a r ., ' e~~ r > ~ ~:! 1 JFY ,~. _~I» k 1. y c~~ L A ~~: S~~ ''p y Y+ ~~ ~~ I ~i ~ ~ f `,'. ~ ~ ~~~ r ~~-~~~ ~, .' ~' ~. t'a ~~; ~~ 1 h~ Y h •c. ~;~. ~~;; iY ~'`~ I Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 9 of 55 k'. f, y 9~ `Y`, ~. 44 :. ;~ -~~ ~" ,:; ,: the lots along the park and some reconfiguration of lots within the subdivision. 22.8 percent of the site or 41.6 acres is proposed for usable open space, consisting of several pocket parks, a neighborhood park, a future city park, and linear open space along the perimeter of the subdivision and along the Beasley Lateral. The Beasley Lateral is proposed to be relocated and remain open and uncovered and improved as a linear open space amenity. Numerous pathways are proposed throughout the development as a recreational amenity, along with a couple of tot lots, basketball courts, gazebos, and picnic benches. A multi-use pathway is also proposed along the Ten Mile Creek in accordance with the master pathways plan. The applicant is also requesting approval of a planned unit development for deviations from the R-8 district standards pertaining to the minimum requirements for lot size, building setbacks, and street frontage as follows: For the R-8 district the UDC requires a minimum property size of 5,000 square feet for single family dwellings that face the front property line and comer properties and 4,000 square feet for units with an alley-loaded garage. The applicant is proposing a minimum property size of 3,100 square feet for the smaller internal alley- loaded units, the Village series; 3,800 square feet for the mid size lots, the Cottage series, located at the northeast comer of the development, and 4,200 square feet for the larger lots, the Legend series, proposed along the west boundary adjacent to Black Rock and along the southern boundary. Reductions to setbacks are requested as follows: Street setback to living area is requested to be reduced from 15 feet to ten feet for all units. A reduction to the rear or alley setback to living area is requested from 12 feet to ten feet for the Village series units, measured from edge of alley pavement. A reduction to side yard setbacks is requested from five feet to zero feet for the Village series units, with ten feet between units. The applicant has also requested approval for the eaves of the units along a zero lot line to project 18 inches over the adjacent property line. Staff is not supportive of any portion of the structure projecting over property lines. The reduction in the minimum street frontage for single family units with garage facing the street is requested from 50 feet to 40 feet for the Village series units; 46 feet for the Cottage series units, and 50 feet for the Legend series units, measured from the garage front setback line and to 40 feet for the Village series units. Thirty feet for the Cottage series units and 30 feet for the Legend series units, measured at the street. The applicant has submitted a product exhibit as shown that depicts the location of the different housing types proposed within the development, along with common areas and cove areas. The applicant is proposing to construct custom homes on the southern lots in the R-2 zone that border Black Rock Subdivision at the north here. Aside from the custom homes, the applicant is proposing three different types of single family detached dwelling units within the development to promote diversity and choice in housing types. The applicant has submitted design guidelines for Castle Rock that include details of proposed design concepts for the subdivision, architectural elements of the different housing types and dimensional standards for the development. Building elevations have been submitted for the different housing types proposed within the development as shown. This is the Legend series. This is a front and corner view. These are the units along the south boundary and the west boundary adjacent to Black Rock Subdivision. This is a rear view of the proposed units. And these are the Cottage y: ,. ~~ ~ ~ 5Ew ;~ ~ ,~ ;~ ;"•. _y,,. ~,~ ~,~_ . ., ~~~_ , ~~ ~~,.~n (y S ~iM]~f~c1 f ',.A 7 ~ ", ~; f g ~S}K 7tY 5# t~. Y ~ Y S ~t {Y~ M~~~iR L ' a . ~J M ~ j i,-r z9t c F f ~ ~ YL, ..p.~ NSf~r~4 S AF ~Iey `t~, 4' •!! ~ .. d ': ~'' a ~~ ~;x ~3~~~ ~~ i 5'~'t ? .r 115;~'~~ "s: - J~ i 4 S ~, ~'~ ~ ~~ :~ r ~ ~ P~.~~ .Y .'". ~}~ ct~it'~H'~f h* ~ ~J ~~ 1',Hh~~t ~` „ r s ~ ~e a #~~ 4 r ";F ~~. r ~ ~. ~.: r ~ '{ =i .;~,~~ ~: .,~ ~~ '~ ,; ~~y ,a ., ,:; ., i {'J a,,"~ `~ _;"1 ~; :; ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 10 of 55 s series, front and comer elevations. These are the units in the southeast portion of the development. Excuse me. Northeast. This is the rear elevations. And these are the Village series. These are the alley loaded units. Front comer and rear comer elevations. These are the internal units that are bordered by the Legend and the Cottage series units. Per the design guidelines for Castle Rock, materials proposed on the wall surfaces of the structures include the following: Vertical and horizontal siding, board and batten, shingles, shake, hardboard, scallops, stucco, brick or stone. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations and the construction materials. However, staff is including a development agreement provision that all structures shall incorporate a minimum of three different types of the aforementioned materials on the wall surfaces. Letters of testimony on this application have been received from Lany and Debbie Wickham and Martin -- I apologize Rabrigius, however you pronounce that. Staff is recommending approval of the subject application with development agreement provisions listed in Section 10 and the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, based on the finding in Exhibit D. And that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Moe: Not at this time. Rohm: We will get back to you on this, Sonya. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. ,'~'~ ~'I Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeny Armstrong. I'm director of planning and land development for Hubble Homes in Meridian. My address is 701 Allen Street in Meridian, Idaho. What I'd like to do is go through a quick ' presentation to show you this project. It's a rather large project. I don't expect to take a `' lot of time in getting through this, but I think I want to point out some important facts `~I, about this project. Next slide. Originally we had proposed on this site 644 lots under _~', `, the PUD ordinance that's allowed in Meridian. We are proposing 848 lots, going from a density of 3.62 units to 4.66 units per acre. What that does by going to the higher density is it allows us to provide additional open space that wasn't there before. Before rA, we had 15 percent of 27 acres. We have increased that to 22.7 percent of the site or 41 total acres in public open space. Instead of one housing type, we are proposing three different housing types. We are proposing upgraded architecture, innovative land ~~, planning, as well as design guidelines and signal lights to intersections. Next. To get the context of the entire site, there is some key prominent features that currently exist. '`"~ There is this prominent ridge that separates the -- the Black Rock homes or up on the top of this ridge and the vertical height is anywhere from a hundred feet at one end to -~; around 35 feet at the other end. That's key when we get into discussion of the location of the housing. The other key future is the Beasley Lateral, which runs about as much water as what you're seeing here. It's currently used for imgation. It is nonimproved. There is just dirt on either -- either side of it. And we are proposing relocating that. ,; ,: ;: ~ ,;~ ~., , _ ~~ ~, , krr? 3 ~~ 1 aaS ~~~~~ ~L -. b{~~~ 'ti ~ ~'~3~ ~ Ys -~'S~, ~~ a' :?' l~ [ti ry ,tt ~v{r E' 'F !~~'' 4i~!R~14i+ y ~ k .X', t' .. .~ < 3r F + Yyy.. ... r ~ ?t r `~~~ d* '~ 5 r ~ ,.wc,~.k ,- r ~ k ~fi~~y 1 ff ~ ` 4 pit; a 4.~r 5 aCt~ty ~, , , ~ ,,. ti 4 ~ ~ rs ~~~ nn,~.,~ _'~3e4 a ii~'s,, , ~ y:k 3 ~~1rn 2 ,~~~ ~~ - t;t'~ '. t :. ~ ~' ~~~l :i =F~ ,b. `~ i ~~ f'~:, ,~ `;~, r. '1 ':I ~` ~k.,~ ~' ':~ ,_.. ~= a ~~ ~_~' :.i ,~ ~~ f~ =,E '~ I ~- o Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 11 of 55 And, then, there is also the Ten Mile Creek, which is at the -- at the north -- northeast comer of the project. Next. So, when we take a look at the natural features, the key is that we have this current Castle Rock Subdivision that was approved through Ada County and what's key to this is we wanted to provide -- here is the prominent ridge is right through this here. Black Rock Subdivision. And what's key to note is there is this prominent ridge that runs right along the edge of that brown there and so those homes are really up and looking over top of the development. What we saw as important in their view is a distance view, but also we wanted to transition so the homes in the yellow are the large lots, they are the large housing lots and what we have done is create small neighborhoods that are around open space, so those homes up there will view down into those open spaces. The other thing we did from the original proposal was take the neighborhood park and move it from this area of the site, so it was in a more central location, so everybody had a visual of that neighborhood park and that's kind of the central feature of the site. From that housing, the large lot housing, we transition, then, into the Cottage series lots, which are at that northeast area of the site. And, then, the kind of reddish color here is our Village or that's the alley-loaded product that's imbedded within -- with the larger lots around those alley series. The other key feature - - this is at Ten Mile Creek and, then, the Beasley Lateral that runs through the project. Next. According to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, the current Comprehensive Plan in the green area, as staff pointed out, is designated for low density, which allows up to three units per acre. What we are proposing on there is 2.9 units per acre in that specific area. Medium density is shown in the yellow and we are proposing 593 units or 4.88 units per acre for the specific area here. The total that's allowed there is up to eight units per acre by your current Comprehensive Plan, which would be 972 units. So, the total number of units that are allowed under your current Comprehensive Plan are 1,208 units. We are planning on a total of 891 units, which would be 3.97 units per acre on a blended throughout the project. Next. Okay. I want to talk a little bit about innovative design. One of the things we are doing and the reason we are before you this evening is we are coming to Meridian with a whole new concept of what we call coving and I'll explain that a little bit later. We wanted to provide more open space, better connectivity, walkability. What's really important in the current sales and marketing of housing unit are people have -- we are, as Americans, getting more obese, so what's really critical is healthy living and lifestyle, which people are walking more, so you need to provide that opportunity for walking, as well as a more active lifestyle. In addition, we are concerned about transit in the future along Eagle Road, so we are proposing a transit stop along Eagle Road and I will show you that in a little more detail. And, then, obviously critical to building any kind of new community is a housing diversity, especially in today's market where you provide housing for a variety of people and, then, the other key issue is providing a lineal park and open water amenities through -- through the site. We see that as a real positive. Next. I want to explain coving. This is an aerial taken in Utah, shows an example of standard subdivisions on either side. The area in the red line is, actually, a coving concept that goes through the middle of the site. One of the things you will see is along this cove you will see these large open spaces or public parks all along. You can see the housing is all set back -ti'; `~ g ~ ~, _ '~~5+ ~ !' ^ i 1 ~` ~~°~ y s'ic'~ty tlt~f ~{r. Fy x r r p ea '- ! o L,r 5~hh'tiYyY3 J 1 ~ L[ _ F 4444 t FL:ti -. ,~~± ,~: ,, '`~`~"i~` x: ~s ~~ ~ ~. ,.a ~~ s +. ,"b #~c4~ { ' „ # ~~ ~ r~ ~~ iL r~% ' 6 '~ ;~~ P t j{4 ~ .. i, _.1 k~° ~~~ `' ~ " ~~ I .i: ' rl ~ lift'} . y F ;~:.1g~1~ t', ilRp.~ry '{ 4 a y Y'.{§, ,~"""~~,~y IF - ~ ; ~- t 1 ! ,E,S ~ - - - $~$ x F ~ KYW ~'ry I C1334~Y:' i ti ~~' - KF1 j}i((MI, ~~ 'y _ _ ~ r :_:~ .. ,~ ~;. ~: -_~; y ,i R""(` F> ;`as a;r _~ ':;a; "~ x;=:: ,' . <~:;; y.-,:,~ 4~ ,,~ ; -1 :.,~ , :,.~ r~.< Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 12 of 55 from the street and the front yards vary, where all the other houses are all in a row. What this does is provide facade modulation of those housing types and the houses are all turned in different directions, so you get a much more pleasing street scene. One of the interesting things is once this project was -- was built, people were complaining about the higher density, so what the engineers did, they got some of the people who live in this subdivision and the one to the south, they brought them to this intersection right here and they had them stand there and they asked them which subdivision between this coving concept and your standard subdivision has more density and what they said the standard subdivisions have more density, but it's not true, the coving actually had higher density, because of the perception of the homes sitting back further and providing these open areas. Next. So, here is a little exercise in what coving. Coving is about curved streets. What you get up above in the diagram is the same land area, only you have the curved street. As you will note, the houses are setback further from the street on narrower lots that face the front street. This pattern down here is a typical grid pattern in a typical subdivision. What you do is it's the same number of lots in the same area, but instead of two acres of open space, you get four and a half acres of open space. The other thing that you get is a variation in the front yard setbacks, because these homes are set back at different -- and they are at different angles. The other thing is a decreased roadway. In this case here 23 percent of the site is in roadway and utilities, where up here it's only 11 percent. So, it's a great reduction in cost and maintenance over time, because your roadways are shorter, less maintenance for Ada County Highway District, less maintenance for the sewer and water lines in the future when those need to be replaced. Next. Here is our coving on our site. This is a lateral. This is the Beasley Lateral through here. You can see in the green where we are meandering a sidewalk back. So, those homes are set back. So, each of these lots don't meet the -- the reason why we are going in with the R-8 is to get that front yard narrower blocks or lots, but at the line back here we actually meet the width of a normal lot and it's more efficient, because you can bring those -- those curves around and get more lots on the same amount of ground and less roadway. Next. So, here is the cost effectiveness of coving. First, you get a decreased length of street, less maintenance cost, you get reduced public utilities for more efFcient delivery of public services, i.e., less water, less sewer, less cable, less electrical servicing each lot. As a matter of fact, in our initial cost estimates we are reducing the cost per lot almost 23 percent. We have reduced maintenance of that sewer and water over time and we have -- through this process what we provide is increased open space. What this really, truly promotes for future is it promotes sustainable development over time. Next. Our open space, as I talked about earlier, is 41.3 acres of open space. We have the city neighborhood. We have got the village green in the alley-loaded product, we have got the pocket parks, we have got the gazebos, the tot lots, basketball courts, bike paths, trails, and, then, the linear park with the water. In addition to that, we have intensive landscape buffers along Ten Mile Creek and the spine road and that was a result of our neighborhood meeting, which a lot of the people who own up at Black Rock were concerned about buffering the residential that they have to drive through, they wanted more intense landscape buffers, so we are providing that, and also to the property owners to the -- to ~, ~~~~. . ~. °. .:~~ <<~: ~ , ~' ~'~ iy ~ 1., 4}S L ~ ~~[~ ~ ~ s 'r 1 $'t ~ f ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ F~ t ~ ~ :ter ~ F'f d¢35AjE; :F ,F ~>{ 3 -'~ F ,L~ irk eK ~F.~ t ~ ~~~~ '~ ~ L ~x 7 e~s•a~j~~c ~j 5 ~ `~ A S~~Y~~ ~ -. S 7r ~ s 4 (~~ s~ , fi.': . ..~tk Hik ~r I£ f f ''ip~ #~ ~' r~ d d ~,~ 9Y`f!j r~?i' ~4r L ~ ;~ ~F ~ Iti~S`.~G -i r k fi y' ~~ -. ; ~.S+n J ~k`Fi. ., ;;1;,, :: ~:~ _. ,,w k ;' A,, ~~, >:~ ` $iy.._ '~ '„~ 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 13 of 55 u the northeast comer across the .Ten Mile Creek we provided additional landscape buffer. The real key to this is providing recreational opportunities for all age groups, all the way from toddlers up to the way to -- to all the way to seniors. Next. Here is the city neighborhood park. We are really proud of this. This is 7.19 acres that's between these two roads here. You can see you get a pretty good visual cue as you come in the main entrance on East Taconic. These trees that are set in a row is like what you expect in a country setting, which would be an orchard type of trees all lined up in a row and that this city park is actually carved out of that -- that orchard. We create this passive area with picnic shelters, restroom facilities. This parking lot, when we met with the parks commission was a huge issue in that we had originally shown 20 car parks and they recommended that we put in a parking space for over 50 cars, so we keep the cars off the streets. We do have parking along -- along the street, but that was a huge issue for a park of this size and we are actually -- Hubble Homes is actually donating this site to the City of Meridian and it has a value of 1.6 million dollars and we are donating the landscaping, the greening of that park, as well as the parking lot, as well as the land. Next. Within the Village area we are providing a neighborhood park. This is about 2.1 acres, which is an entire city block that would have activities of shelter, tot lot, B ball, everything for teenagers, as well as senior citizens to walk and enjoy this neighborhood park. Next. Then, throughout the development, through the idea of cooing, as you see in the light green here, we are able to provide these pocket parks for various uses, whether it's passive activity, whether it's tot lots, and what it really creates is a true sense of neighborhood. It creates a true sense of place where people can walk their dogs, get to meet and greet other people. So, it's a neat thing. These are the amenities within those parks. There is a tot lot, there is stuff for every age group within those parks. Next. The Beasley Lateral, I want to talk about that. Currently the ditch where you see the blue up at the top -- this red pointer isn't working very well, but it comes down straight to the south and, then, along the spine road here and we have chosen to make a diagonal through that area there. You will see -- I want you to focus in on that lineal park. The one thing we are going to have is a wide trailway system about ten feet wide going through that -- or alongside that lateral and to let you know, the land mass varies from 70 feet to around 150 feet in width, so it's almost -- at places it's a half a block wide, as far as that green space. Next. As promised at the neighborhood meeting, we promised to provide a landscape buffer along Ten Mile Creek there and you can see the illustration in the bottom right-hand side there, you can see that roadway is only like 40 feet from the house and through heavy landscaping it provides a unique buffer. We are also proposing the same buffer on the entire distance of the `spine road all the way up to the -- to the Black Rock Subdivision. Here is some illustration of what -- in the lower right-hand comer that shows you what that Beasley Lateral would look like in more of a natural kind of a landscape materials, quite pleasant area to walk along. There would be the -- the wooden bridges across that lateral for the entire neighborhood to use. We also have the regional pathway that would go in along the Ten Mile Creek. We have over five miles of trailways through this, other than sidewalks. We have clear links between all the parks and all the open space. We have clearly 41 acres of connected open space. Next. Here you can see in the red the ~. i ~ ;_~ 1l ~°. .'T~'#.' ~I~ ,~yy ~ ~. 1~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~1~ _~.S '1~ ~~ tF ~tf I {~~ { ,~ R g c ~<"~~ li~ ~~4{~ L `,~ d%'~ ~ ~~l iq a fi s C~r;.~C raj ` - ~f jy -~i i r t ~~ 4 ,~Y. ~ £ s _ ~ yyy~~ E- .:._•` j ~, ~~t,i'S~ - - t ri~,?e ~~ ~.r ~ ;ti ~ '' ~ ~d... i ~~ M a.y ~~~~ t - ~ ~: ~ `~ i. ,~ f 54S.F~Yt ;. ~,... ~ s 1 ~ ~ I A ~ 4 a ~.~. ~~ , r+~+4~ ~,, ~a i a,* h~ K; < ~ ,,hh~i h {7 f r~,~` .°~' ~~3~',~r~~~ i s', ~s s ,.., - ~tH~., .. - - C Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 14 of 55 j, :; ~r ~. ~~.. :.° ~ >,;: r. ~. ~4 ;.: ;;! #;~ :, ~, ~;~ ,9f, =~.~, connection of the interconnecting trailways of all the open space and all these link into the centerpiece, which the center piece is the city neighborhood park. So, people can choose different routes as they are walking through the development and most of them are not along the roadways, so that the pedestrian is always separated from the automobile and you can see around the entire perimeter we have also chosen to provide a pathway and an extensive landscaping, which will also buffer those adjoining properties to the north with a landscape buffer and a trailways system along there. So, it's truly an interconnected community. Next. I want to talk about transportation. We have had a substantial number of meetings with ACRD. What we have committed to is providing a signalized intersection at Eagle and Amity Roads, which is not even adjacent to our property, that's off site. We are also committed to build a signalized intersection with dedicated tum lanes at the entrance to our project, so there is two signalized intersections. In addition to that, I want to point out the impact on transportation. Throughout Ada County the average trips per day per household is around 12 trips per day per household. By adding the recreational amenities and the ability to walk and bike and hike within the site, those -- you have captured reduced vehicle trips that will be generated per day per household, because those people can walk their dog and interact with people on the site. So, it reduces the amount of vehicle trips per day around -- down to nine and a half to ten and that's shown in statistics nationwide, which also impacts and lowers our air quality -- or improves our air quality. And the other thing that we had the possibility of providing a shuttle service that could be operated by St. Luke's, which they currently have one at their downtown site that they operate and other major employers that are -- that are near here. There is the EI Dorado and the Silverstone that are just a mile and a half down the road. We also are planning on building a future ValleyRide transit stop to be located on Eagle Road within the first phases of the project. Next. Rohm: Sir, you will need to finish up here -- Armstrong: Okay. This is my last slide. You got me. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Armstrong: This is the ValleyRide -- this is right passed the intersection. There is Eagle Road. This is the road that goes into our development and just south of that is the bus stop. Next. Oh, I'm sorry, Ididn't -- Rohm: You did have another one, didn't you? Armstrong: I did have a couple more. Newton-Huckabay: I was going to say, staff already covered the pictures. L,~ ~'~ r , r ~~r,w . p,_ `~'ik l~ ~~. ~' ~ ~' `~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~aac<r ~;~ 17 '~ Z~N~,r"s F .. r .{_! ~~3 ~+ ~ i,~~i _ 3r .y. ¢7 .'..~f.SSn e~~S'.*7~'f' y ~^ v } I~il; > :t'~SY~~fJ~~~ f ~p I j. -~ 0 Nc}~ !!4' ~ '~~~ a' ~ .~. .':> :n`y tr ~.~ ~ 1 ': +~~~ ~: { . a, ,. ~~ r, t'~rt,~~SjEs~j r :~~ ` r~ rid r ~~. f ! ' ' ~r ~Ftt' ~ 'r 39 J_.'~` ig' 43 i'. { } ~S V i' ¢ {~ ~^ ~y ~ , ~ `~i r y; z h 4:_ ~xr 1 Y`;' ;il t . , {;;~E ~_ ~;u ~:. >.ti ,, ' `~ ''~ ,,,, 'i -3+' i 7' ~~i ,; ,~; r~~, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 15 of 55 Armstrong: So, anyway, these are the different houses. Can we just click real fast here? Next. This -- that shows you a typical street scene that you haven't seen Next. Next. Next. Next. Here is another street scene. This is the Cottage series. Brand new series. Next. Next. Next. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. That was it. That's the last side. Sony. Rohm: No. I think you did an excellent job. That was a very good presentation and I'd have to say that I look at it differently than I did before you got up there. So, you have done a great job and thank you for your time. Any questions of the applicant before we have public testimony? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one. Regarding the houses that would front on the coved areas, is there -- I'm assuming their driveways would cross over those pathways; is that how they access or -- Armstrong: Yeah. There is -- it's actually awalkway -- a separated sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: So, how wide is that area on either side of the sidewalk? Armstrong: It varies, but it's like -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm trying to get a picture in my mind of what it would look like. So, it's a sidewalk with five driveways going across it? Armstrong: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is that how it -- Armstrong: Yeah. Typically right now what you have is --atypical subdivision has a curb and, then, you have the sidewalk attached to it that people drive over. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Armstrong: And so this is detached, so you have more visual of those cars. Newton-Huckabay: So, you have -- it's -- my -- I guess I want to be clear, it's not an alley-loaded -- Armstrong: No. Newton-Huckabay: No. Okay. Armstrong: And it's not a trailway. The trails are in that -- are interconnected separate from that street. So, that's not a trail. ,, , ~w, ,~?`~ a , w , ~-tib ~ ~: fi~d~i~. ~ ~~ . ~ ~rir7s;f&i5~1' 4, k >- .~{ ~~ fir'' t'~ ~ y > ~ ~~~ F p~,,~ ~Yfi !'~'}+k. r. s> 1. ,~ ) ..C~, ~o ~tny~.C r t+, . r ~"+ d ~r ~ y iq ~ . ~ ,~3 3". i~ ~t i$ ~ i~ 3i r~ , o- ;~ e~ ~~~ r <. ~~ S: ~Gi ~ ~ 4t ix ,.~ v. 1+ ~''~. ~: ~c ~' ~ ~ X'~i'-vfi.. . i v :, i G ~. 4.~ -.. ~ t• Lg S ~' i~'F ~.{' SI.f F ~{a I Sf. 1 NM ~..: ,, 2' : s ,Y' ~i ~ ~- n a,a,_ . 4 k ~ 1 ~ ~G r ~ f cif tt ~~~ ~t-,',. 2t '~ .5613 ,'~'Y*i. _. ~~i 1 t `' `,'x~ °rt'~i~l ~' ~ti k :.a ~~1; Meridian Planning & Zoning '~ . December 6, 2007 Page 16 of 55 >, i Newton-Huckabay: So, these are standard sidewalks? Armstrong: Those are standard sidewalks. ;:~: -t: Newton-Huckabay: All right. That makes more sense. Y4.,:: Armstrong: Does that clarify? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Thank you. '! O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. _~ ~~: ~~ O'Brien: The first question -- the parking slots for the neighborhood park and the use of -_ the park, I'm assuming, is like soccer or little league or go something like that. Is it big .; ~ enough to hold that kind of activity? It shows like a ball field -- I mean -- ' i Armstrong: Okay. These are -- these are actually soccer fields. There is two soccer fields -- O'Brien: Okay. '~` ~~ Armstrong: See the square? =: 1, ~~~ ~~ ~ O'Brien: Yes. ;~ Armstrong: And, then, this is a large baseball diamond that's right across it. So, it's a ='~' ~ large -- pretty large open space. O'Brien: So, my concem here, then, would be with those things that are being used as ` ~' practice fields, as a city park, would be bringing in people from not only this area, but `' other areas, is a 50 car parking lot going to be sufficient? ~~7i `-`'?~? Armstrong: Well, in our meetings in discussion with the -- with the city parks, this is the A;=,' largest -- for this size of park the largest parking lot that you would have in Meridian '+' and, typically, they are much smaller than this, but they -- they felt like that they would like to try the larger size, which would be a 50, so didn't have complaints of cars, you know, parking along the street. O'Brien: In the past -- the reason I have concem, in the past this general area had been ~~~~~ used for soccer fields for some time and -- and I live out in that area and you can hear the kids and people having a great time and it was very very crowded and so I was just `;:E. ~G::~ F :. d i:~s, ,_ ~ ti~~~r t ~pv .; t '~ ~f "~' . F~9~~ , ~` L , , ,~~r ,~ ~ ~ ~ s Y ~ ~: . r e ~ ~~ r' f.^ w'F+a+ ?fj....' ~ . _ ff c ~ ',: ~~w~~cf F.~~ - r, y t~F~r 4 ~ ~i ~~~ _ ~ } # '~`~ ~I~u s".F~~ ijf~,~.` ~w~ j,~ ~ -. x, ( ~ ~~ ~~ ~x Fw ~ ~k ~ S~~ SLKi. 1 i' .' T '~ Y'.b ~ ~~~2f; ` f 4~ { Ft ~ ~ I 4 i 7 ~ s '~7~ 1~~ ~~~~ f e yi 7~k 4 iF~'{~1~~ ~ _ . ~ f~f ~ -~ i a3~ ~~ ' ~ v , ~ ~ 3 ~ ty ~--~ r; t 7 Y ii~f ~ t'~ t~ 7 - S ~ t a x~' i~~ ~ R M y . r' ~ - d~ [Y i GG `" ~~1r~CN~~ ~Y - C ]]] r~i~ ~ ,R. _~.. 1_~f e r'y R3 ~L, ~i ti~^` ;~, G::;, s r` <: ~_~, '~' i u~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 17 of 55 concerned about being able to support a lot of people atone time. And I don't think you can, just looking at it. I mean it just doesn't seem like it's going to be sufficient. Armstrong: What, typically -- we looked at -- based on national park standards, if you take the entire section, this is with embedded within the mile section and this whole property is roughly three-quarters of a mile long by a half a mile deep, but if you take the densities that are showing in your Comp Plan, this park is more than adequate for all the people within that mile section for the number of homes that will eventually be in there. This park will service a lot larger number than is going in currently living here and we would suspect, since we are one of the first developments in here and we are providing connections to all those adjacent properties, that those people would walk to this park. O'Brien: Okay. And that gets me right into another question. You-had a neighborhood meeting and it was -- who was notified -- what was the perimeter notification of people around that area? Was it just Black Rock? Armstrong: Three hundred feet. So, everybody within 300 feet. O'Brien: I don't think so. The reason I'm saying this -- I live there and I didn't get notice or did my neighbors or whatever and we are just adjacent to the west of that. I'm just wondering it would have been nice to have the people along that overlook that area that are up on the fourth bench, besides Black Rock and a couple other people. So, I'm just wondering -- Armstrong: I'm not sure where that radius went out to. Do you know, Justin? I think the city provided that list to us, so -- O'Brien: There was some discussion with the city sometime ago about that, when it includes such a large area, like it has, then, they go outside the boundary of 300 foot where it may impact other people, just in a visual esthetic way and I think that -- it's too late now, it should have been more -- more people involved, but I think there could have been more input, maybe, as to how this thing is going to transpire, especially when it goes from R-4 to R-8. Armstrong: There is also posted notice on site and there is also newspaper postings and there was an article in today's paper, so -- O'Brien: Today's paper. Yeah. But I'm talking about the town meeting. If there is anymore like that, I think we ought to re-look at making sure the people that are overlooking that area are notified. The signals -- and we have talked to Ada County Highway District -- so there is two new signals going to be proposed at Eagle Road and Amity and, then, at the entrance to your -- I mean what discussions were -- did they have about what effect those signals will have a traffic that normally use Eagle Road t M r 4~j~ Y11,~~~'~ ~ '4~ . I f ~ ~,i~t i r t:' t,,,-j4~ ~ z_ ~'`t „ 3 c i ~ ~;~ f, _ t . r ~; ~ Y_ a ~ ~ as ~" s~~, ~ 4k s ._ ~~e _t _ ~~. @a~~r~ ~¢:,~~ . ,~~ L ~i~ r5- ' y- ~jt ~ ~. i 3 r~~ ,~w -~~ n ' ~''-_F. ~~ y , fir ~ ~r ' ~ ,^~~ f ~~,,~ ~. >~~ i ; ~, ~~:~. z y q l rA, `~ c~ i r 7 i Kx~ 1 t _ 1 4 t C tf' 1. . -.r ~Y - H F; ~-FJ ~~ N }: `3u~~~ ~ ~~ t< ~taN~~i+'~ ~~ ~ ~ r~ 1~-~c^,~- ~;~„~ 5 ;, " ~ «` ~ i~~~ .~ j~. ,{..~~ GL M Pi ~. Y ~, ` , ~- W a e tri''.: 1'' .„ ~: ~'F G ¢~-i V; k~' aF"', :~5;~~ ~ ~~~. ~;~_ -r ~:~~ ~,~,, ~: ~: ;> ~~5~~~ -,: ~~~ ;, a li !:~~I ;ti~ ^.~ ~;~ -, ~ ~~ ~~ • • i Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 18 of 55 and would it cause an influx of traffic going out to other areas that don't have signals, Locust Grove or Cloverdale or Lake Hazel? Armstrong: To answer your question, I'm not a traffic engineer, but we did have a traffic engineer from Washington Group who we hired and had substantial meetings on what the impact would be. They are recommending that we not put the signalized intersection at Taconic, which is the main road into our area until after the 400th home or by the time the 400th home -- and I believe that's in the staff report as a requirement, so that's how that was addressed and how they arrived at that number I'm sure by the traffic counts. O'Brien: So, is there -- I don't know if staff has -- is there an actual traffic report? Armstrong: There was a traffic report that was -- O'Brien: Provided? Armstrong: -- provided, yes. O'Brien: I didn't see it. Armstrong: Right now Eagle is at -- operates at level C, which mean it's really good. The next two levels are Eand F -- or D and F, so -- O'Brien: I don't know what those number mean. Okay. Armstrong: But that's -- but that's the number of trips and I believe we -- that road is only at about 20 to 25 percent today, that's what it's operating at on Eagle of what it's capacity is. O'Brien: Appreciate your time. Sorry it took so long. Armstrong: That's okay. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you for coming up and we will probably have you back up in a little while. Armstrong: Okay. One last comment. I did want you to know that we -- we do appreciate the staffs report. We do agree with it, except for the one issue, which is on the three materials, which he handed you the letter on, which we would like to see the wording on that particular item changed. And that -- other than that, we agree a hundred percent with the staff. C W. ~~j ~ ~} r(~~ 4 p .:N n~~ Y. t ( r fl ~?~J.F ~ ? t ~~-` , ~` :r $ ~~ ~ , ~' r 4 ti }T~ i^1 ~' ~i~ ~~ ~'~r c x~p.~ia~~?' #~ ~ '~ Fro- r .~ ~`ir , .r-' ~w e i 3 ~ ~' ~ ~ rF j~t ~'~ ~ t Y '~ X { 4 .: b 5 5 - .lrt'Iti~ P 7 df~l1~ v R`~t~_ ~. ~ ~ t ~~ ~~ rE t ~' L ~ 1 ~ ~ : }YS t1 ~ `:, i r~. "~5.~.:. i ~~ ~ (( "'~ c { ~ I ~ ~t n f r4 ly;j~~ ~~~ ~ , p j f~J f iAti ~' j': f% i ~:~. ~~~ ,t', t~ ~~~ t ~. ~~`'~ .; Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 19 of 55 Rohm: Okay. We will have to do some arm wrestling over that. Okay. Before we take public testimony, it's real important that you understand that testimony that is provided -- once aparticular point has been made, it doesn't enhance that point by making it over again. And so the thing I'd like to start by is see if there is a spokesman for a larger number of people that would like to be the first to speak and, if not, then, we will just take the names as -- as they showed up on the sign-up sheet. So, is there anyone that is a spokesman for a larger unit -- number of people? Fulcher: Mr. Chairman -- Rohm: Please come forward. Fulcher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a resident that owns adjacent property. I also represent the area in the state senate in the legislature and Ihave -- I have some information that was recently given to me from an interim legislative committee that affects this topic and the reason I mention that is I need more than three minutes to share it. If -- I can certainly beat ten, but I need just a little more time and I would so request your indulgence on that. `_,~~ ~ Rohm: And I think the way I'm going to approach that is we gave the applicant more - time than what, typically, is allowed and so we will go the same route with your ~~~' ' testimony as well. }; ~ Fulcher: I will be brief and concise. ,<t Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He needs to state his name. ~,~ y~' `j Rohm: All right. Well, he's -- I'm going to go right down the list and if there is no individual that's speaking for a larger group, then, I'll just go one by one. Greg Sabala. =~~=~~ And, please, state your name and address for the record. ~.. :. a, Sabala: Greg Sabala. 1735 East Mary Lane. I'm on the ridge right overlooking this ~'~'#` and, no, I wasn't notified as well. Basically, I think I'm going to be echoing what a lot of people are going to be echoing. I just think the density is a little too high. Some of the 'r~' density statistics that he's utilizing is including Black Rock. I'd like that to be eliminated. ``~ It's a preexisting neighborhood. They are bigger homes, light years away from what is being promoted here today. The biggest issue -- I do some development, my most '`=~' recent one is up on the Boise bench. The biggest issue I have with this is there is little to no diversity. When you're touting your biggest lot at 4,200 square feet, can we not all agree that that is a big issue? This promotes, to me, non-owner occupied properties. ''` know you guys have the daunting task of not only looking today, but also looking into the future, what is this neighborhood going to look like ten years, 20 years from now. I ~f ~ ~ s '-i? ~ e+r ~Y ~ ~ ~..5.,; i '': '^ , ~~~ d {t, ~ (~ ~ A t~ h ~ r~,. ~ ~.. J "t' 7 t~7 ,:~ - .F,~ ~x( fti ~ +~.,ca n 4.,., ~ y-. f ~ }~ xr ~ }~ ~ ? s*~ it 7 ~,3 s ~ s . ~~~ `r~ ' X . 4A` 11 µ A/ ~•.:i ~ 3 ~Y45 f»~ t? 1 ;~~ r ~ - -~ '~c 6i .~ a; ~ ~ -~y~ '-~tT 3s ~ k'4«~ c +" e a~ ~ ~3;i Pr~° ~ ~ ti; xxj~T!~,+_gR t d~ ~~ ~.Y E 7 ~ ~~ .iti ._~~ ~~ dam, ~ ~5 ~ a7,}.~ - _ *~ ." ;:~ ~-~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page ZO of 55 don't think it takes the Dion Warwick Hotline to figure out this is probably going to be, for :; ~~ lack of a better term, a slum or going to be one of the black eyes on Meridian and that is just because of the pure size of the places -- when you get non-owner occupied and it's ~ti` not against rentals per se, it's just -- if you did a diversity of larger lots, some smaller, .;'; maybe even some apartments, you still get the high density, but you obtain by a more mixed use. When 4,200 square feet is your largest lot, you're going have smaller homes, which generates more non-owner occupied. So, my views of that are just basically he spoke a lot of statistics, non-owner occupied properties of which I own . ~~~, ~ plenty of those as well, you just get a little bit more diverse type of group and, obviously, -y , I think you're going to have more problems with the neighborhood. Owner occupied brings typically more ownership, more pride to the neighborhood, and I just don't see '~~~~ that happening or persisting in these type of neighborhoods that are promoting such small homes and if we did want to do such a high density with the smaller homes, I would want to put more of a mandate on what the structures have. In other words, %~~_ -i more stucco, more stone, make them more upper line. This is, basically, the same argument that we have heard all in the Statesman and every other time, they are row };::~ : ~ homes. That's what this is. Do the math, do the size of lot. If you're talking a 25 foot `r~ square lot, you can do a 20 foot structure for the five foot setbacks. I know they want to ''~ do zero lot line, but, once again, you're promoting tight knit places, which are, obviously, ~:..,. ''~" going to promote non-owner occupied. That's all I have. - ~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your testimony. Tony Sabala. W' ~~ Sabala: Mr. Commissioner, my name is Tony Sabala. Address is 5600 Locust Grove .-~, ~~~ ~ and I did not get notification of any of these. Once, again, heard about it through other neighbors calling me, asking me if I had concerns about it. The only thing that I'd like to add to what he was saying -- when he's talking about cooing the streets, so that you have a different setback on each one of them, when you have such a small lot line there is no way you can have a different setback from the front up to the street line, you have ossible. In sa in that such a small lot the house has to sit as close to the street asp y g , ' ~~ ~ the only reason that I say that that is true is because he's asking you to give him a "3 variance on allowing his structures to be closer to the main streets. Other than that, '~ that's all I have to add to what Greg had just said. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we take any additional testimony, one of the things I want to point out is the notification, I believe, is a function of the city providing the developer with the requirements of notification and I don't think that this developer or ~.~~ any other development that comes through has the intent of keeping their project out of an informed position. So, even though some of you that are here tonight may not have received that notification, obviously, by some other means you have been notified and '-~ so it's certainly duly noted that some of you weren't notified, but that list, I believe, is _ always provided by the city. So, if anybody's to blame for that, I guess it's our own system of notification. F .~ .." ~ ~w#~ 3 - ~ t`f. j~~,~ Y 4 Y ~ i ,~, ,~K,i r r {. ai'- tc~r a r: :z ' ~r~ w~ ,nib d~ r y' g't ~1 ~ ai e ~_ r ~, d i,;rs~i~~ ~ r; i - y~ S ~,,,, j~~ `~ t i. _ . ~~ ~ 'i: ~~sr ti i e! ~ ' ~~i~ ~, if r 4~T~ { _ ',~ r ~ ~ t ~' r~ ~~ ~~.~~'t4;~ ~ ~ra8s..~ {~ a '' r,: r ~' I i 'n w~ 3t M1~ ~ fi ~ ~ ~~ .1 F - Ex~~., r ~ ~ rti ~,~,:s~~' a 3~;x{ Yp. i( - 7 ~F~'.jij. ~-. 1 ~- ~ .3 ~ i~ :`; ',~ ','III <;~ e ,::g! '~, ~,: `I ;x ~1~ ~! J_:;, ~,, ..~ :''~~ t;~ ~. ,ti ~,~ , ,:: }_'' I ~:,_ I~ ~:o~' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 21 of 55 Nary: Mr. Chairman -- you have to come up here first. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you are correct, the city does provide the 300 area foot -- or 300 foot area notice to the developers. Certainly if the Commission feels that more neighborhood input is necessary, you have the ability under our ordinance to order another neighborhood meeting and expand that boundary. They are always able to expand the boundary on their own, but statutorily and by ordinance the 300 foot is what is required by law. So, it really is up to the Commission if you feel there is some necessity based on tonight's testimony, you could certainly do that if you wish. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Sabala: Tony Sabala. When I went down to the city to get the plat from them and I asked who could I complain to, they said since you were not in the city, you have no ear that you can go to and bend about this. So, if I do not have a say because I'm not annexed by the city, then, once again, then, it falls back on the developer and this was told to me by the receptionist at the Planning and Zoning office. a Rohm: Wow. Sabala: Once again, about had a little fit when standing right there in front of her and told that. Rohm: I can imagine. Would staff like to weigh in at this point? Hood: Sure. Mr. Chair, I can. And I don't know what information was provided to people at the front desk. I'm not the receptionist. But, of course, people have a voice and they can come and testify. I'm not quite sure the context of that discussion, what, was discussed. It doesn't -- doesn't sound good, doesn't sound accurate. Also, back to the -- the list that went out, we were just looking through the list to see who was notified. That same receptionist, actually, is the one that prints off the labels to be sent out for Public Hearing notice. I do see the Sabala family on the list, although it's not -- it's a preamble address, so that's where that notice got sent. I don't see O'Brien on the list, so I don't know when the list was printed. Some of those lots may have sold since that list was printed and now we have new owners that weren't notified, because of change in ownership or someone buying a lot in Black Rock. But I do see a couple of those folks on the list. Again, it was at -- this one is a Boise address, not a Locust Grove address, for Richard. So, we were kind of checking as people come up and testify if they say that they didn't get one, we can see if it's on the list of people that were sent notice -- notices to. And we have got two pages. So, there weren't a ton of them that went out. But right now there is not a lot of people out in the area either. So, we can double check those things and I'm kind of doing that just as this goes on. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. And I want to say this, that it is never this Commission's intent to circumvent any of that. We are here as your servants. That's why we are , Y r^,'^,v '5., R,.~.,..~,. a r ~3 t t' '~'P .. '=SKr yr":'~ :tij±~~t' :' .~ ,~, e .,, v ~4 ~~ '~ ` a ~~ ;~~ ~ ~ ~ + ~~ yi w >~ , nY ~r ~~ .+~+.. s,f"r ~ G P F t,._ ~ ," F, ~. f 'p ~ ~4 t ~ ~ vt C ..,. '~. .tb T l ~ 1~i ' ~y 3 ~ y ji lI r ~f5i?5 -j A~ ... ff y ~ ~1 ~.: y G„a N Y 1~~Y` ii ' { . tF ,f, ` ~` i r {:. ; r !: ~ ~Y~~~r f . E ~ ~a ( ~ t a. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ' December 6, 2007 `~ Page 22 of 55 >~~ sitting up here is to represent each and every one of you, whether it's the developer or the balance of the people in the audience. So, I can assure you that if you were f'''it inadvertently left off, it was not by design. And so I just wanted to clear that air a little bit before we proceeded, because it's -- I think that I can speak to the balance of the Commission that we always want to hear each and every view point and go that route prior to making any kind of a decision. So, with that being said, we will go to the next "a! name on the list and that's Charmaine Anderson. Anderson: I'm Charmaine Anderson. I own property at 5875 South Eagle, which is the ~~~~~ little white box at the edge, so we are right on edge of the highest density in the :`~ ~ proposed development and because of that high density it lowers my property value a great deal. We have no buffer there. We have lots right up against our property line. So, I think that there will be a great deal of reduced property value of all of Black Rock ~~`' ~ and anyone else that's surrounded by this high density. `~ Rohm: Thank you. Debbie Wickham. =" 'I Wickham: I'm Debbie Wickham and I'm going to apologize, because I signed up myself '°' ,i and my husband, Jeny and Elaine Smith, and we didn't know we were speaking. We were just signing up to voice our opposition and we did already submit our comments in writing and I think you have those and we were very detailed as to why we opposed the ~; '~ project and we feel like there is a very gross discrepancy of homes in Black Rock :~,, -I versus Castle Rock and so we also are very opposed to the density. And I would like to =~ . ask one question, if that will be decided tonight, is if these homes are going to be allowed to be vinyl sided and if that will be something addressed. Rohm: That will be discussed. ,_ ~I Wickham: All right. Thank you. ~. ~~! ', Rohm: Larry Wickham. Okay. All right. Tim Foster. `"` I, Foster: Hi. I'm Tim Foster. I own property at 5805 Graphite Way in the Black Rock Subdivision. A couple things that I noticed that weren't mentioned that, to me, is a real . big deal is there is 800 homes, how many kids? What is this going to do to our _ schools? Especially, you know, Lake Hazel, Mountain View, they are already packed. I '_' ;~;, haven't heard any -- or seen any future school buildings, but it's -- we are already ~, 4~ getting, you know, hammered with schools and stuff like that. Why bring a larger ~ community into this to -- they keep tabs on this before. I mean they don't even give us ~; ~' any room to put a school in that area. Granted, my child, by the time this even gets started, will probably being graduated. So, it's not going to affect me with my child, but it's going to affect other people as they come into this. The other issue is the housing market itself is -- I mean I know this is a future thing, but if we don't slow down people building houses, the market's going to continue the way it's going and, you know, it's £~! ~. - c_ bi~ t .t!§- t 3 r .- bat 2r ~ ~ i ~1 r tP n 1~4"F ~~ df r -~ i ~~~ _ ~ ~', ~i 'S` Y'+ S~~ .t~,,v t 1WWMF ~• p j,: ~ } .:. W~ r s' t to ~ I ~ f ~'i~ sLt ' '~ ~ ~ {~~ ;~ z tag ~g~~{. x'4 ~ li~~ SjL ^~INk ~~ ~r 4:~~ ~ #tzl~~ ~, a„.~ . _.. ,t; { f~ ; r>' ~i' ~ "~ ~ z 3 ~ .y 1 y ~' ~{ ~~``~~~`jj•' y r ~~ 1 t~°t a ter, a I "i ~~~ i `~Frl ~~3S~~~. ''~ ' ,a ,a 3r t~ ~~~~ ~- ~ ` "'' ' ~ ^~~Y ; ~, ~r~~~, r ~, `~_, +~:~;' ., :;~, i :. '~ I ;; Tf~' F;.. :a ~,~~ , .. ~ y , c r~ ~: ,1 "~ ,;:i '` } Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 23 of 55 going to take some of the smaller guys that build a nice home, you know, a starter home, it would take these guys out of the market completely and leave it to just the corporate giants in that aspect. The park that they are -- that they are donating, which is great, you know, I love to see anybody donate stuff like that to the city, but I guess the other issue I'd have is what's going to be the expense for the city -- I mean to keep the upkeep on this park, there is -- it's out of you guys way, it's -- I mean it's not like a -- you know, any of the ones that are right around here where your vehicles can get to it quickly and all that maintenancewise. They did bring up the increased traffic on Eagle and Amity Roads, mentioning that it -- it's not going to change -- or they feel that it's not going to change it as much, but these roads still -- it's a country road. I mean I have grown up out here and I remember flying down it and, you know, 15, 20 years ago it's still not any wider than it was back then and now we are blringing 800 home into that area, which, you know, granted, it's -- the cooing is supposed to help with the recreational opportunities to keep people from driving in and out, but -- I mean you still have -- with the limited park available, PAL soccer, PAL football, PAL baseball, are going to -- those guys are still going to have to go out. They are still going to have to go to other subdivisions and other areas to do all the practicing, because the -- the park isn't big enough to house, you know, 848 homes with however many kids are going to be in there. That's a lot of soccer teams. And I mean if anybody's been out there and played soccer, which I'm sure a lot of us have with our kids, it takes that whole thing to take care of PAL soccer now, I mean just this subdivision would be able to have, you know, seven, eight, nine teams easy in each different age group. So, that's kind of my point on that. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Foster: I'm sorry. By the way, my wife who is signed up next doesn't -- she was just signing because we were confused. Rohm: Okay. That's Jim Foster and I -- you're not going to speak, Jenny. Okay. Clayne Smith. Maybe it's not Clayne. Oh. Okay. Russ Fulcher. And you may have additional time. Fulcher: I will be brief and concise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Russ Fulcher. I live at 4035 South Linder Road and my family and I own the adjacent property, what you see in the upper right comer, the white, basically, along the side of Ten Mile Creek. As I mentioned earlier, I also represent this area in the state senate. I'm going to take a quick second and say thank you for your service. I have a feel for what you go through, perhaps uniquely more than others here and thank you for what you do. It's a difficult job. Growth in this area and in Treasure Valley and other areas of high growth areas in the state has been a tremendous amount of focus for those of us in the legislature. As a result of that, not just Treasure Valley, but Post Falls, Coeur d'Alene, other areas, the leadership of the senate and the house asked and commissioned an interim group to meet over these last few months from last session to 4... t2 ., '~ f :,; ;~ 'c= ~, ~T~'.'T. 5 X. s 3, ti x~ 3~1~~ , t ~ ~ ~Y~"; ,. i "` ' s *~~~:. »s~, ~ ~ I + : ,7 ~~~.x ~ 1 .~, .; .- ~ E Iii ' ^,viv _. I ~1~»~~~~~~'~~~. t'§ F' 9 ~ j~F~` ~~~ ~ ~ : ~, k ~ ~S„ 5 b F _3 ~ ~ .• ~ 3 G'S"t 7: {. ,~ L~a~~q~~ ~ :' ~ ;. r ~ , ~;,.- ,~ ~¢~~~e~~ i ,, k'.. - ~•:;~, s e3W;;s ,~~t~,i. j 'ti~ e •1~'gf y ~~~ +7 t_ 4.~ t 1 {~ z J ~~ ~ t ; '' :t~? q?~' cr;- '; t it ;,~;. "i ^l~Y 3": 2 „~. ~~ ~.;;.~ ,; ;:: T ,: C~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 24 of 55 this session, called a joint land use study group and I was named the co-chair of this group and our task was -- is really two fold. Number one, to attempt to promote state law that improves fairness to areas who -- people that are in high growth areas. And, secondly, to provide local govemment -- or to attempt to provide local govemment with better tools in which they can plan for that -- for that growth. So I am chairing that commission. I'm very pleased to say that the City of Meridian is regarded extremely high in how you have handled the growth that is going on in this area and being from Meridian I take pride in that, as a result of that, and I also as chairman named a Meridian official to that group as an ad hoc member, because I thought, hopefully, that will -- some of that influence will carry over to some of the surrounding municipalities who, quite frankly, are in conflict a lot for us. Throughout this study group I have teamed some very significant lessons. I have been cast into what you deal with every day and that's another reason why I say thank you and I appreciate what you do. But one of the lessons that I have teamed out of -- out of this process is that annexations that occur outside planned areas of impact across our state and in this area almost inevitably have caused issues. They have caused problems. And that's what we are talking about here. This does -- it does qualify under Code 50-222, because it's contiguous. But just historically and within our area, those types of developments have caused issues that -- that we deal with on the state level and that -- that you have to deal with on a local level, but have to do with things like infrastructure -- in this case the roads is probably the biggest concem. The urban sprawl and the congestion that comes with that. And, then, just in general the conflicts -- to be brief, the conflicts that are generated by the consistent land use practice, basically the 848 homes in a country mile in a very rural area. Eagle Road, as the gentleman before mentioned, is a two lane country road still out there. If you have not traveled that recently, I encourage you to do that and just a couple miles from the north be equipped with plenty of gas and time, because it will take that. And I will be sharing some of these concerns with ACHD, because I realize that there is a -- a situation there where they are responsible for a portion of that decision making process. But practically and realistic, regardless of what ACHD's code says, it's at issue. And I just want to share that on a personal level. Also, those tenants and the concem about the annexation outside the area of impact, is also shared, if you have been part of the Compass or the Blueprint For Good Growth, those studies, the concept of that in trying to avoid that and bringing the infrastructure along with the growth and growing from the inside out, all of those were key tenants to the planning. I think that it plays a role here in this decision. Another lesson that I teamed - - and Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the primary reason why I needed just a little bit more time is Idaho Code is, indeed, conflicted on this issue and how this came back was one of the Ada County commissioners came to my committee and suggested that we consider legislation that would bar any kind of annexation outside the area of impact and, of course, under Code 50-222 that is allowed if it's contiguous. Well, another committee member, Representative Killan from Boise, is an attorney -- or was an attorney, retired, started looking into this and was concerned about conflict between 50- 222 and 67-6526. So, he requested an Attorney General opinion on that issue. I have a copy of that opinion that I -- if, with your permission, would like to hand out to the ~~ e I~ >~ ,,~~~. i ~~f~,5,v ~f ~Ar ,~;. f a ~,: is=j~~~j 1. pn ~c } ~ `~ , ~ ~ ...w I l $.; } . M[ s ' ~{ 3 f Fr i ~, ., x .i ~ w ~ ~ z :-t 3W u'~Yt?'~ r v ~ ~ sp~{.:~. i { ~' -~ - I Y': y 'a ~• ~I f ~ f _ f 7"~G.i ~ , r N!~ ny ~~ :f i • r r ' 'f ~'s i f h~ 7 t ~ ud -i~i~L~k`~~•'. k a ~. l,F ~ Sr ~]~.~~.-~ r x ~_3 3rg,4j 7 !!I ~ R~ dpi R 4 d ~ I ~; ~.~~ b U ~,=. s ~:i~ ~, ^~' i ~~~~ ;, y :" ~.• ^f i., ~'.?-:: I ~~ ,,, .; f; l =,~, >~ „~ ~:,. ~~~ ,~~ ~ ~_Si a: . `~~ ~- >; Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 25 of 55 commissioners, but, basically, the opinion said, yes, there is, in fact, a conflict in the code. If someone were to file suit, it would be up to a court as to whether or not an annexation is, in fact, illegal -- or legal. So, the recommendation to us and my committee is to either, A, consider clarifying code one way or the other, which, frankly, we will probably attempt to do. I don't know that and our next meeting is the 20th of December. Or wait for a lawsuit and let the court decide if, in fact, 50-222 would prevail over 67-6526, because they are in conflict. We have two -- or we got copies of two independent private law firms on this issue, one came back with one response, the other came back with the other. I also have copies of those letters and I would be happy to share that with you if you would permit. I'll try to wrap things up. Annexations outside the areas of impact are controversial and I would submit to you for good reason. It's because -- Rohm: Before you go further, I believe that this development is within the area of impact of the City of Meridian. It's not within the city limits. Is this not in the -- any of it IS -- Wafters: No. This area is not within the area of city impact, but it is within our planning area and area of referral. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Fulcher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And what I was referring to is specifically the area of city impact. Rohm: Okay. All right. Fulcher: They are controversial for a reason and we struggle with them on a statewide basis and locally for a reason. And that's because it's questionable planning and such approvals encourage more or the same. So, I will close up here. I understand the applicant's motivation and, frankly, I don't fault that. It's -- it's -- it's lucrative to do that and there is nothing wrong with that. But I encourage, for the reasons that I mentioned, a no vote. This type of expansion creates a flurry of problems that we all have to deal with later. Encourage a similar action, similar developments in the future and, truly, the legality is in question as to whether or not this type of expansion is legal. I know it's difficult to say no on some of these things, but in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, no is the correct answer and I would be happy to stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. That was interesting. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. << ,~ , , t ti _ ~,~ I a ,t, ~.~~ ~ 4 K 2ttt ~ x s F Gk M ~~ ~~~. ~ K lit 2 ~ S ~~ 1 Cii 1i i~ ~~~ ~,. A yikk z 4 ~'If ~ fi ~~aP~~~ !w s a.it 1 1~ ~~', r - ~ ~' y~- F t 1 y r* ~TljM1 41WR~~. ~ - ~_ „a3 ~6inaYr,' t 1 ~.' 1y S i ~`` `,~ -: ;t ~~ ~ t; ~~ ~~~~ ~ `= '~ "i ~5~~ a f ".3 < Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 26 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: I just want to ask a clarifying question, Mr. Fulcher. When -- are you saying you recommend a no vote on the entire development or the density of the development or their right to develop or -- I'm not exactly clear on what you're -- are you saying we don't have the legal right to allow them to develop? I'm unclear exactly on what it is you're -- ~` ~I Fulcher: Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Newton-Huckabay, my -- my request is a no vote on this application. -.y; Newton-Huckabay: On this application. Based on your -- Fulcher: Based on -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, based on my ` testimony, the fact that I personally believe it's poor planning, I also believe that ~~ according to the Attorney General it's questionable whether or not it's legal. ,I Newton-Huckabay: To annex. Fulcher: Outside of area of impact, yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: So, then, your property would not be eligible for annexation into the _.:. city? ~. u Fulcher: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. ~} Rohm: Thank you. Is this not part of the south area -- . `; 1 ;~? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like Mr. Nary to clear all the legalese, if you wouldn't "~ mine, sir. .~ ~a ;i Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Newton-Huckabay, I mean Senator Fulcher is right, I mean there certainly is a -- there has always been a discrepancy in the law, but at least at this particular point in time Idaho Code 52-222 allows non-city impact area that is consentual property to be annexed. Does that mean it's not challengeable? No, the senator is correct, that certainly is subject to challenge. All annexations are subject to challenge for a variety of reason. That is a reason that people certainly could bring that and the -- some of the cities in this county do not have any restrictions on annexing property outside their area of impact and some do. I don't recall -- I'm sure Mr. Hood can tell us on where this particular property is in the Comprehensive Planning process. Or Mr. Friedman. But the senator is correct, there is a -- there is a discrepancy in Idaho law, but the existence of the consentual annexation provisions in 50-222 have existed in the Idaho Code for more than 50 years and they have not been amended, because the legislature has chosen not to do that for :;t44~s? ~ x ;~ c ,,,~~;..:. is ,~~,~ 3~ '; ~,~; '~ ~ ; 3,.. "~ r rr,4~', ~F` ~ xy ;, ~t ~ ~o-`~3~~' v~ d}b' t I { ~ ~?~ (~ 17.x', Y~¢+ 6. a!~ ~ ~1~~~= ~~ - ~!. , .. :',j' r ._. .., f c z a ~ `'„ ~~~ x r ~,~ = a? a~~~~~~ ~. r~ ~ ~ ~~ z pis ~ i ~~ ~,~~~~° i nc ~ t -FA aj4~}I ~._~.Y ~y`~~Q. ±a .l 1 ~ E a ~ ~: r. ~ ~ t h~1 ;8 .jy a^ ~ ~ ~{~} "r, ~~~ Y:~ ~j3~~ k, 7 ., t v91 ~il~ u: ~P 2+V<:~... ~.rr? - - -~ r1~~~4~" S~ + y,'` n w `- _ '1 ~ ~~~~ r,, i ~ '-` .~ ~ ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 27 of 55 '`~~ a variety of reason over the years. The provisions of the area of impact have been amended from time to time over the last 50 years for -- again, for a variety of reasons. :; So, he is correct that there certainly is a school of thought out there that it is at best inappropriate to be annexing outside your area of impact. The court to this point has not determined that to be unlawful to do that. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. ~~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moving forward, Shannon Colver. From the audience she said her comments have been stated. Nate Colver. Same with him. Jeff Park. Okay. Jeff is not coming forward. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Please come forward? ,~~ .~^~ ~:`~ '~ Taylor: My name is Tim Taylor. I live at 1488 East Blue Tick, Meridian. I also own a lot within the Black Rock Development and I have done development within the City of Meridian. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners, for this time. First of all, I'd like to address the lineal and pocket parks. I don't know if you have had any feedback from police department on these, but I have lived in subdivisions with lineal parks and pocket parks where they are completely surrounded by building lots and set back away from the streets. They provide a safe haven for vandals and perverts to operate. My second -- my second point is that the example of the cooing streets that we saw were represented by 14,000 square foot lots in his exhibit. These lots are much smaller and I would -- I would suppose that the majority of the frontage is going to be covered by the driveway and so I don't think it will create this -- a visual view that is as appealing that they tried to present. Next I would like to -- well, going back to the parks, they said they were going to donate the larger park to the city. How about all the lineal parks and the pocket parks, are those being donated to the city and the maintenance is going to be fairly extreme for that type of park and so is it going to be a burden upon the homeowners or a burden upon the city. That's something that needs to be clarified, if it's -- if it's paid out of the homeowners association dues or if it's paid from the city taxes. This developer brought this same piece forward -- I don't know, within the last year with a subdivision that had 200 fewer lots and at the time the -- it was denied. Traffic was a concem, as well as the -- the visual architecture of the houses, which was also a concem. I think that the development -- it sounds like there has been a requirement put forth from staff that you have at least three architectural materials on the outside. I would say that would be a minimum. I would also recommend that you require the front yard landscaping to be in place before occupancy. Otherwise, it quickly deteriorates the entire neighborhood. And I know that there is a requirement from the developer and other developments that the homeowner can put landscaping in place within a certain period of time, but that is difficult to enforce and, frankly, is frequently not enforced and if you look at subdivisions side by side that require front yard landscaping with those that do not required front yard landscaping at time of occupancy, there is a vast difference in the appearance within -- within the first phase, let alone as additional phases go along. Lastly, they talked about the requirement for a second access, but '` A !FF ~I.Yt ~..._ QJ KS ~ n y e~ 'N, ~,~ yW *S~" F ~ ~s'~r'. •. ~~ ~ '~ ~ 1 ' ~ i, ~}~r~ ~ ' iv3 - I . J rr t 1~~ , ~:, , rxa~t Tj; ' 5 ~~~ ~ . ~~ 9. ~ ay ii ~~ ~~ _ 1 iFY~~ DS JJFiI~.i ~k~1ff ~~ 7N~, ~ ~~ ,y y. ~Y j..1 ~,. d ~: +~~ h ~ j F . y~ RE , Y 4p Rr~ f i ~f .v{ JJ,yy((e .Y ~ t ~~ L~i~~i{{.. ~~, ...,~ yn I~. i t; f0 4 ~ „~7 1 1 .N 11'b,(~j~~~~~r.. I ~~ ~ i..y ., ~sf~~!t'~. ~ r i~ ti. H f 4 f - tG ~ y t t i E~- ;f f~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 S J A 11 at C 6 ~ ~ ~Y 9k 3 '. r ~ ~9 ~~~ V ~ ~. / ~ ~~)!~ ~ ` 3~Y (;, _. :'' ,~,' s ~ !~ i. ~?i I ~~~~~. " n ~~F 2 ~ c ~ isY~.~ s m tau Meridian Planning & Zoning k3,~, I December 6, 2007 Page 28 of 55 they didn't point out how that second access is going to be obtained I suppose it's up ~~ ~`~I . throu h -- to Ami Roa w ' it ili i r min g ty d, hick is the same direction that the ut t es a e co g, but I think that needs to be clarified. So, just to summarize, pocket and lineal parks are ~r~ -~;~ expensive and they are a safe haven for a bad element and I would not recommend ~''~ them. Coving I think may work in some situations, but to have extremely narrower front ~; '' -- frontages, lot frontages, I don't think it would work in this situation. We have 200 3,`4~ ~ more lots than we had the last time around, yes, they are going to put in two traffic signals, but I still think it's going to be a severe impact upon this -- this part of the area. i Thanks for your time. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? Please ~1 cam, ,, some forward. State your name and address for the record. ~~ `~~ a ~; B. Fulcher: I'm sorry, I did not sign up. But my name is Barbara Fulcher and we live in . that little triangle up there in the comer. There are just a couple of things that I'd like to -- ~' '; Rohm: Could you give your address for the record, too. '_~ .~ B. Fulcher: 5215 South Eagle Road. ,: ~1s ,` Rohm: Thank you. B. Fulcher: The one thing I'd like to bring up that hasn't been mentioned is water and ~~ r':~; we get -- we are getting new items now about the lack of water in this valley. Does the water go to the farmer, does the water go to the fish, what happens in our situation with water? If we don't have snow we don't have water. We are living in a desert and I can ~` ~ tell you for living out there for 58 years, that our water level out there has gone down tremendously and so with the building and continuous building, this demands more and more water. So, I'd just like to bring that issue up. Secondly, if this goes through, I can't imagine 1,200 -- or what did he say, 12 trips a day of how many -- 800 houses onto I~ i Taconic Drive. It's a little narrow road and I just can't imagine what that would be, say ~.~`~ :' nothing about us trying to get out onto the road. That's all I have to say. Thank you. ~~ ,~ Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? :x ~.,~ Sylvester: Tom Sylvester, 1910 South Marshwood. I just -- I was here for the last time '='~~ that we went through this and it looks to me from looking at plans it's gone from a bad plan to a worse plan. They have come to us with another 200 home, told us how much traffic the park's going to take off of that, but we have over 9,000 trips a day out of that ~'~- ~ subdivision. As I look at what Meridian has done from the freeway south, we have got such nice developments, they have Meridian Greens, Sportsmans, Observation Pointe, ~'~ ~ `~' Tuscany. This Black Rock Subdivision is such a nice development out there. This -- don't see this as something that Meridian is going to be proud of. When it gets done I r 61. ink ~l:r ky2f ~~di; ~~ ~ ,: i y. r~ ;,. ;~ t; i„ ~ M1,~ ~~ d ;s x",.~~` ~ k ~~~ti~i i ~ sS~Y i K' 4 I f.~ •1 1 _ Eb~f ~{i. ~. -~ati~4 ~ t ;« E. -~w f~ 4a ~ ,,:33. iS-~~ L~~ '~~~ti2 ~. ~ s r ~. . ,3:y ~`~: ti-. n ~' 9 .u dk a"": ~~ F ~r". Y: ~, ~ i x ~s ~~ 3 ;. ~,~~~a~fr ~L ~- fi~T.l'.r r~ r t ~' fb' .,1 i ~ a tl , r~l~ `X ~-'sy~v~~ '~~u $n~qw~' y x .. s s r ~ Yn~ i~1~ a Ott; K°MI - ;Zr.yy. o'. ~5, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 29 of 55 don't see it's going to be something that Meridian's going to be proud of down the road "" 10, 15, 20 years. I just don't think that it's -- that it's something that's in our best ,t,; interest. I think it's going to be in Hubble Development's best interest, but for the people that live around there or even live in there and I would sure hope that you deny this ;; ~~~ request. ~' ~;~. ~,~ ~; ,;. .. ~ "~ ~ 1 h ~: }. r' ,u^ Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Please come forward. Tracy: My name is Shawn Tracy. I'm an associate broker with ReMax and my address is 4710 Flores Court. I think you have a unique opportunity here to approve a development that is within a very close distance of many many jobs that exist now and will exist in the future. Just a mile or so away the first item on the agenda this even talked about changing a zoning to include an area that would have commercial and residential and, you know, that seems to be a very common theme that we see in the newspaper all the time and, frankly, even though there are many many homes proposed here and many trips potentially proposed here that are going to come in and out of this community, only a mile and ahalf -- within, essentially, a three mile radius you have literally thousands of jobs that are going to be available and, you know, do I -- would it be nice if we could all live on an acre or a half acre and, you know, look at our sprawling lawn and all have four or five, six, seven hundred thousand dollar homes? Sure. But is that reality? No. The reality is that we need to provide homes sometimes on smaller lots. Over the years -- I have been selling real estate for 14 years and in that course of time I have sold approximately 110 Hubble homes. I don't work for Hubble. You know, I don't have necessarily a -- more of an affinity for Hubble over another developer. I do like to see private homes out to market that I can sell and that appeal to the consumers that I try to find homes for. This is an appealing project. If I can go out in the marketplace right now and take my pick of any home to list for sale, am I going to pick one right now that's five or six hundred thousand? No, because they probably are not going to sell. If I can have one that's 200 or at the median price or under, give me 20 of them, because I can sell that. I can -- and the people that buy those homes, they are not any better, different, worse than any of the people I have ever sold homes to that were buying four or five, six, seven hundred thousand dollar homes. It's a different demographic. They are not worse people. And people that have an opportunity again to recreate next to their home, I guarantee you that the comment about it's a haven for perverts -- perverts are going to go where ever perverts are going to go, but if you have a community full of kids, there is more likelihood of neighborhood watch and somebody looking out their window every five seconds to see what's going on in the neighborhood. So, I don't really agree with that comment. Anyway, I just want to speak in favor of this and thank you for the time. Happy holidays. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Appreciate your comments. You may. You may. You may not. <:~~a, i; ff~~MJ Pr . _~, S.,.r~al C b9ti, q.*~ f14 f ~~t I. ~iR ~%~r ! S ~ - i {.. v,~ ~ _ ~ ~~~~ i= ~ ~", _ a~" '-: :. ~, ,~ ~~ ~ ~:.~ '~t, ~ ~;.~: F F •. 3 ~"y~ ~ r G T ~~ ,,~~~ f ..: t ~. ~4 CCOQ'. ~ I C .. SR ~,~'SFR ., ~~. `.. ;~. _ 43ik,~r~;~ ~ t i,~t t+4$1~.. ~ •- to A o ~.. k 1r ~j st .~h~a .: ~x f+ C~~1I ~~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~- E ,y~ S 2 ,.~~ *~. . ~~~-~~F~~t ` 'r .~ 1iq~19.',~Je~ 3~kt ~ ' S ~ is i~~~~A~~„ tom,,, o- `. ~.;+ {tt ~ ~;. ~ i~ ~ ;~ ~:. ~ ~ ~? ~; ~, st ;N ~r ~ ~..F ri ~~ •~'f.. s ,3 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~i ,,~ fir,:.,.... »~~!c;v,~~ 1.. (~::: . Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 6, 2007 ~~~ Page 30 of 55 ~3 r'= "~ :' ~ Foster: Jenny Foster. And I don't know what our exact address is on Graphite Way, ~+ because it's a lot at the moment. We are in Bridgetower right now. What is our address? 5805 Graphite Way. Mr. Tracy said that he does not work for Hubble. He - was the selling realtor on our lot in Black Rock. For every one of them. So, that's kind - of a question that we have there. Yes. Thank you. One other point. The point that he ~' made about people needing places to live, Hubble has three or four other subdivisions `~i within that area that there are available homes. So, we are not trying to diminish ~~ people's places to live, we are just thinking that maybe right now, the way that our housing market is, maybe we need to limit those. Thank you. ',.~ Rohm: Thank you. You've already testified. Anybody new want to testify that hasn't spoken already? Okay. Sir, please come forward. McKay: My name is Darwin McKay. I have a business at 6100 South Eagle Road. The ~~~ point I want to make is is that my father sold part of that land that's now being considered to a different buyer, which was, then, resold to the development company ~~~ that is putting this together for Hubble Homes and it was represented to all of us and we were very concerned about what might be developing in the Meridian area. Our concern was is what it would turn into. We were promised that it would be a high quality ~y~~ subdivision, similar to what you see in Tuscany and some of the other subdivisions that surround the Meridian area. We do not want to see this. I urge you to vote no. Thank z ~' You. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else like to testify? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, Commission, I will try to address each person and their comments and address the issues that were brought up. First I wanted to clarify that our lots -- we do have lots in there at 800 square feet, I think. Greg Sabala indicated f~~ that the largest one was 4,000 square feet. It's twice that size. He also made the comments about selling to non-owner occupied residents. We have in our sales contract -- we do not -- and Hubble Homes has never sold any houses to any investors. ~'3' We don't allow it. We have a sales contract that points that out, that we not sell to outside investors, they cannot use them for rentals, they have to be owner occupied. So, I wanted to clarify that. The other thing that I want to address -- he talked about r~~E smaller lots and I can share with you in our current market conditions that we have other housing units in other parts of the country -- in Charter Point our largest selling units right now are all the smaller lots. We don't have enough out there. As a matter of fact, we are going back to the city of Boise and Ada County and replatting a lot of those lots into smaller lots, because that's what's selling. People don't want the responsibility of these large lots to -- to maintain. The other issue that I would like to say is the trend is not only towards smaller lots, but it's also being closer to jobs and you have created a huge job machine just a mile and a half from this area. EI Dorado, Silverstone, St. , I . . ~ . ~ ~J ' ' ., I ; ,,. . . ~~. y ~ ' 1 ` I ~ F 1<` q }}''fir 4~ , I I I i.:: .,~'r: ~. s 0. i o ~ F ff Y, ` -~ IF ff I' zKY F' M1 ~ ' .K:" w'k~ A. _~fI ys ',F . •. ;S , y F i y i: ~! ], .~ " , : a 3i. M ~ r, s ;3 Z `~ Y, N f '~ ~ _ .. , _ C iC' .z t ,-5 Ie , e ~^ ~r. : f Y ~ ~ ~ ~ 4e ~s . ~:. ..Y .. .1 i .. a ... .a.,.., 1q„34...'q„ t., •n. .,q,,..a•a ;;1F rT.L.. .qXi... .: . ,.3 .~ ~-I ; : E~:,t,~ ~. 3 : , r~~:z.. .ty.F;~ .i:. ~~' E C ~" .}-R; .~; q . . xl,. ..I:. ti: ,.,5':H. I ..:~,e`. {.4... _ ,vyt c<,m.v..., a ! i; ,I. .?" 3 .;j<..•~ 3 i~A r : i~ :~ x 43 p '6~ °' 1 I ' ~ r ~ ~f r~i~ .. ~' .: f'~M1il J ~ M~ q.1 ~ . , . Y is ':} .• it gy ` x. ,~;. ', y~~ 'y4 .;:Ki+ U M SvY$.S 1 `~1..' f' ~..r I4 G-~ .. ; } .~'~5~ -~ + 7 ~ i '~yF ~I. .L IN°.' ~. .: ~ .., .. Ri "7~F1 ,d ~ M+r r .:^ r J I ' { ~ . s I ,.s~~'x :c .. .A~vvf' .'•S;. 'Ir :S~` is. I { y11 ~ r, r,.?+.:,. :ti'i' ~~r ~ Yr {: '. S;+•4 I i, , I , ' ~ I 7 •:~": , ~' ~ . l w l. I I ¢ ~i I ~ ~~. I~ ' x p .z i i y1. t :.y`. :Y.('~'r5 op,f f{': , y, ', • t . Ai i•t':?L;~'ui ~';y , ¢'$S':e }: ' t ~T.' ~i'` k '~~YG r t s.:!:: x ; . , ~•'."~.~~'~. ~ ~~ ,~ lkp~, .;Ytft :`li S.: w'.(.(t' rS'),~56. `^u~i• • I ; ~ }~' f ~a ' ~ , 4 • F ~ t ~ :i,~.t~ ~:' FF!! ' % : ~ l' ` ~ . .. I '~ ~' F ',; ,, :r " F• .1 ' `r . . i, xxa. ., . 1 t i ::4~1; ~^t ..q:-:: :•/:.f ;.I •i 1: .,s, {.: ; ~i, ~. rs ~ A} ... L~r ,"~ ..+ Y . F; "~k l~ ,,. `{:.~ Y{i rk1~",.f•` ..l'. 'vJ. ~ f t I~. ] •Y,'. .j: ~*~`:: .:~{~i ~~ EM 11 . .i " <'} ' 4 I I ` i I ., 1 ~w u ~ ~ ~. .r ;~ ar I .i 1w '3~• i `: 'A;'tln•fri 'f''s34~ ~ F ~ F ' ty~r"~'Swb'" ~. ._: I L r .a, '~ 5 i I i . ,. i : j II.: ~ i ` ' ~'• Ir 4~ , ~i f ~: ,,. 4 ` 3 t ~ I I 1H . 7 1 I • • r at ~ i r Y i r I ~ 1 .. .. i.. t 1... L .. i..:... ..:'.;. ~ ' . y;,.., . Q•4: ,;i; i L .:.:. +:Y` ,: . w : txi s ~ ,6 ` ~ . ' ~ I i P• 1 ~.°~ zra~ .4 r.: ,. ~ ~S•~'•;»,~, r ,. . ~ `'i= fa< k ,. :9:.. .`}. ' .. •. i',•...'^~ •' a :' ' . ' : # ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~1 ~~ . i ' S+ t~ . .. D : • : n : . : ...i ^i...~ .4 .Y 1,. ... :. F .'.~ .. .. ,). H ..... .a~....:.,. Y.,...F, . .3Ri : .: ..... ,. t •• .. .... r ..,. 3. .... . q /:... .... ... ~ .: .' :>:v ,:.,, ... .... ,... .. m ::,:.:. t . _... ~. ,.. ., .......... ,.... ,,, . w; _. ,. .. , ~ s & ~ ~ , . . . . . t: q il : . - F,V. v::: , • .r ., ~;; ~ L,. i "~ • ~ .~.. " : xis . / + .k . ..r~ ~ : ~ =t.. ' }. ; 1 'E F rl F i <~ :),+. ~ i:~ ;S; ;+F 1 Y h..•.'.~ ~ ( '~~' ~ .T ~ 'A; ~ 1 ' 'I ~ h ~~ +a:i ,' J x r , '~ y •~ M1T' l.:•. LY'Ir b~s` " `F ; I ..~' i~' k: . k,I ~' v f: ` : ' `x~', +.n ~- 1 f . t ~ . . -0h,y,,+~p, s'r 3,..., ~,~~aN y::7~ ~, i i.~ ~` u eY...~~eJ ' ;H:i t'+' I ~ i.:i ~" f•. ' I' l ~ i + .s gyp . 2 i 1 ~I!i ~ 'I •F • l +1. ~."..4: "~~.{. . ,~ ~1 J ~:'' I b', ' h+ 1 ' x K I : ` ~ ~~ ' n ~ : • . ~, fig. ICIi. .t;. ~ I.l, . :;.y. M1:a "rF ,i~;,ayw ~, F i , . :~ : . r ts~: . ~ ~ 7 'r- I ,~ t t .~. ~s . ~ ~ ' ;. ` bl s `~ '! u~ ^lS .,, r Kr x `f ;r I l v~. , .' pv ~' Pi ,. h5ue i f' ,i.'. I { k H ~ •4'P"c !'( h! rl , 3;~•'; QJ ]~ ~ ~ I S~4r ~ R Y .•N„• y^4;~' :l'. •.M.~~i"j ~; "t-p tom' qj~~ f, i.{r~ -: ~~...~ ~ Jv" ~E :~k~ 4 ~~ . ,.l: ..I '' " • ~ "~ ~ ~ .F 'v" ~ "~~ a F,..; .~ Y ~'~.:3~ t I "• ' ~ ~,',- r ~ ~ ~• ,5- ,.t ':1 'K. '3 .i 4, .'~°d :s . F I s . _ S 1 d yl {a~ i i'4 °r ~~ ~ ~~ ~ F v •. .. ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ •• ~ ,„ ~ r" {.~'"'~. . , :li :'. N~.`:'y" .. . • .I 1 ,. I 1 ~::. n v ?". f,.. -. E i l~ : ~x ~ i. ~ -S.'ti,._. ~+ ' ~ k~,=, ry ~ ~~~~ ~.r - ~r ti ~-~ . , ~~ . r ~; -; • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 31 of 55 Luke's. There is new office buildings going in there, five and six stories. These people can be closer and they can bike and walk and be shuttled to their jobs. They don't have to use their automobiles. So, this is an ideal location for those homeowners to live. I want to ask the -- Tony Sabala talked about the -- the cooing and the lot lines. That line that you see in that light green, that's a build to line, which means that it's no different than a lot line. The lot line just happens to go out -- out to the street, because you have to do-that to get utilities, but that line that you see depicted on there and -- is drawn on the preliminary plat is, actually, a build to line. At that line it meets the width of the lot, so I wanted to get rid of that. Also, he made the comment about the -- the list and the city provided us with the list for the mailing. So, we complied with that law. The other comment that was made was by Charmaine Anderson, I believe, about lowering property values and I can tell you that the higher density, the higher the property values go. I can tell you that land in downtown Boise is currently selling at 35 dollars a square foot and out in this area, you know, we are about two dollars a square foot. So, the higher density that you have, the higher your property values go and that's typical of anywhere. Downtown New York, Chicago, anyplace. The higher the density, the higher the property value. So, as -- as new jobs are created out in this area, the property value will nothing but go up. Debbie Wickham talked about Black Rock and she was concerned about her home and her property and in her letter that was furnished to you that she did not read, I have read. Their lots are right in here. Rohm: You need to speak into the microphone. There is one right here if you want -- Nary: It's not working. Rohm: Oh. Armstrong: Can I use your red -- I think it's this -- this lot right here. And her concern was -- and she mentioned in her letter that she faced four or five lots. Well, you can see that she only faces two lots there and they are down the hill. She's about 35 feet in elevation above those two lots. So, I just wanted to point that out. The other question she asked was is there going to be vinyl siding on the houses. Yes, there will be some vinyl siding on the houses. And I want to talk about that, because how we have designed these new model homes -- and I think it's pointed out in our design guidelines that small areas within the housing elevation will be of the vinyl siding and I can tell you that in looking at projects from the past, that vinyl siding is well maintained, it always looks good, and you can Zook at projects that were built ten or 15 years ago and they look like brand new. Tim Foster asked the question about schools and where they are going to be. I can tell you that just north of this site, just about right in here, the school district currently owns a site. My understanding is that the bonds were appropriated for that school and there will be plans developed we understand within the next year or so to construct a school within this one mile section, which in meeting with Meridian School District, they like to have one school within each mile section and so there is that road right through here, this White Bark Subdivision, that will connect up with that new ~'Y' ~ti ~e r l~ ~ ~_s ~~a~d' s ~ ~ ~ 4~~K jT` r. i 'S r~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ; ' ' ~ ~ 1.~ w .:. q F' x''a . 4 l ~~ ~ I ~ x W ~` 'rf# ed+ L ~0. 5 ~ P 1{k~ ,`f~ ~ e~' ~~ ~5 r~ ~_ ~ a ? ~.-.k~i~, , ~ 1 ~ ,.~~~~~~~~i ~, i ~,' ,! i' ~k y ~~. r 5 ~~.'.. ... . ~ sS*~F1"r?~ ~Y s ~? ~ ~ , iw ~ 1 ' y r #~# %„ (p~ ?lP ,J' - - ~srr-fiFi 3.. ~. r~ ~ ~a.~~a~#~~'1 ~~ y ~ t y. .~~. {$.~7i.s m ~ {ssY~YT'' . b + .~ ~f -4^ ~~~~Y~ v Lt. .~ '..-_ . .. _ ...; _ ~,~r„ i`•. ';ill f '~ 4~ ,,~. ;~. '~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 32 of 55 r ~J school. There was also the question about he had -- a question about the -- Tim did about how we pay for the park or questioning the size of the park. Just know that this is not a regional park, it is a neighborhood park, so it doesn't have 20 or 30 fields in it, it's -- it's a neighborhood park and neighborhood parks start at seven acres. We provided one that's 7.19 acres. Also, who pays the maintenance on that? The city has impact fees specifically to pay for the other improvements on that park, such as the restroom and picnic shelters on that site that -- we are providing the green, the trees, and the parking lot as improvements. Russ Fulcher, who lives across the Ten Mile Creek -- or owns property across there, talked about this growth study group. I can tell you that having served as Ada County's development director for the last three years and having served as a -- as a person on the Blueprint For Good Growth committee, two things. One is what we are proposing here and the annexation, as long as it's contiguous, it meets the current state law. So, if the legislature wants to change it, they need to get on the ball and change the law. But currently we are allowed to annex a contiguous piece. I want to talk a little bit about area of impact. The purpose of an area of impact is a planning area. It's a planning area for future expansion for the cities. Your city has already designated this as a planning area. That's all the purpose of an area of impact. So, don't get confused with that. You have already done it, you've already planned it, as a matter of fact, you were reviewing the updated Comprehensive Plan tonight. So, you're the planning agency. That was the whole issue with this Urban Land Institute panel that just came into town to talk about what -- what the concern is is making sure that the future expansion of cities are planned and you guys are doing that. And it's also included in your current Comprehensive Plan. Yes, people can challenge that. There is no doubt about it. He's correct in that statement. Okay. Addressing Tim Taylor. He made the comment about the police department and that we were going to be providing a safe haven for perverts. I can tell you we have met with the City of Meridian police department, that was one of the issues in the -- it's in the staff report. When we met with them, we provided visual -- large visual openings on all sides of those pocket parks, so they have visuals, so they can shine their -- what they do is they drive by in their patrol cars and they can shine their lights in there. One of the conditions that we have asked for and we have agreed to and is in our letter -- the response letter that you have before you tonight, was the issue -- what they would like to see is to provide lighting -- low level lighting in those pocket parks, so that -- so that there aren't gatherings and those don't become safe havens. The other thing I can tell you from research is that at all the schools that I have designed over the last 35 years, the school districts like to have housing around the perimeter of their open space, the reason being the more eyes you have and all those other people do not hang out in those areas and especially since we are going to be -- agree to providing lighting in those areas. The other comment that he made was he was concerned about those driveways coming in on the -- on the cove streets here and those long driveways in current development that you see all around Meridian, the typical driveways, anywhere from 20 to 24 feet wide that goes clear out to the -- that goes across the sidewalk, when you do covng, you have put a narrow driveway of only ten feet of asphalt or, excuse me, concrete at the sidewalk, so instead of 20 feet wide, you only have ten feet, so you i , kyy ~a w 5 s -}~12~ ~~~ „~! i + ~ iw t1.4. °~9F"`°~ c `'s:Y v3~ ~i'~`3~ n~, ? r, ~, ti ~ y ~`~j 4i~~j':'1; Pitt ~ ii ~ .t ~ ~~+~qr~ i 4~fyt-. ~~ P ~Fyy ~'is P S r ~ , 41~±~~~ 4i ffytY~,: a~ k w. H r'3~A7! T '}."k e * vt 0, S 1" ~ ~; ° ~ :~ ~~. 5~~ Y"~ ' ~ ~' '~t~_ ~, ~r , k ~ ~~>~ v r W 1 } ?x~ Y ~~~~ +~ r.~~ ~~ '~ is . ti. .N r z .- ~ z ~., i ~~ {~~ fh 1 f~us,F2=~ v Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 33 of 55 >: ~ >~I -; i ;~i ~;=':; ,.' r ='~ I ~~;`1 ~~3, ~;-~ have less conflict and you have more green open space. The other thing he asked about was the maintenance of the lineal park. I can tell you that the homeowners association will be paying for the maintenance and care of that through there association dues that will not become a burden on the city. The other thing was the pocket parks, who is going to maintain those. The same issue is the homeowners who live in here and value that and want that kind of amenity are going to be paying for the maintenance and the care of those pocket parks. He also made the comment about the previous denial of the 600 units, because of the visual of the architecture. I can tell you that one of the reasons why the density is higher is because the more lots we can sell, the more houses we have in there, the higher the amenities. We can do better architecture, we can add that money back into the facades of those houses. I didn't show you -- show you all the architecture, but it's included in your report, so we were doing all upgraded architecture with front porch on all the alley-loaded product, we have upgraded architecture on all the facades of all the houses and the reason we can do that is because higher density -- you can provide more amenities in and nicer looking higher quality product. Also, I want to talk about -- he was concerned about the -- the front yard landscaping. We are working on that through the homeowners association to insure that that landscaping goes in early on as those owners buy those units. The other question was the second access. The second access is through this road right here that goes right up through White Bark Subdivision that goes all the way to -- to Amity. That's also the way we are bringing the sewer, the current connection, it comes right down there, so we are building that road and, then, the sewer line comes right into here into our first phase. So, that access will be built at the very front end of the -- the project. Barbara Fulcher testified as to her concern about the lack of water. One is that this well site here belongs to the City of Meridian and they want to use that for -- for their additional water requirements for other developments that are off site. The other issue is we chose not to -- to put the Beasley Lateral in a concrete conduit, so that that water would maintain the water level out in that -- that area out there and all these areas collect all the natural rain water coming off these roofs and instead of going to asphalt, we have these green areas that regenerate the water in that particular area out there, so -- and the other thing we are doing is the landscaping within those areas is going to be more of a natural drought tolerant kind of landscape and lawn area. So, we are using different materials there. Let's see. I believe the next person that testified was Tom Sylvester. He was talking about that we were going from a bad plan to a worse plan. I think, indeed, in here what we are providing is a true community, a true sense of place, a place where people will want to live, that want to recreate, they are going to congregate. I think this is what we should be building, instead of just subdivisions, I think we ought to be building neighborhoods. And I think we are providing that. We are providing opportunity for them to get to know one another and become a true neighborhood. Shawn Tracy made some good positive comments, but I do want to talk that there is a market trend towards the smaller houses and houses that are a lot closer to jobs. You guys are providing a great job base just a mile, mile and a half away and those businesses need the people who are living in these houses to work at those jobs, especially the hospital needs -- needs affordable housing opportunities or workforce ~ tt~'y a P' ~~ ^ ~. i i. ±r ' 1 ; 'S"'\'~ f { BYO ~ ~ 7 i~~ r'i~~~.s ~~ ~ii f , ' 1 ~~~ i c _ ~~SR ,t `i ~' ~.. •,4 ~ .j 1'_. `~ y ~r,f. `- ~. i;~,: . { -t; ~ y '~~ ~ : ~ r~3e~z ,~' , ~ u 7 .i;-~ k • b ~` J ~ i ~~ r y' 3r ifi w.5: k ~ ~ ~ ii ~. :.~4~~~r :, ~ s n11~ .~ + 2 ~~.. }~ 72 , ~ ~ '-:. (. t" i " ~,6 ~~ ~.: ~)~ +, ri . L ~ ~~ ~ f t`'~i ~ 1 ~y~r ~~ .,r ~'- "'i° ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ ,A ~ Sg~ f ~ Y t r 'd 1` y ! F~ -.t, 2 x aP~" t, R~, S~Y?~~, . ~ . ,~t~:; j4..' z~ ~{ fi a; '~ ~x;;+` ='` : i s :~ ~,s, fFI k '. f4' 14/: ~~4 >: ~: • Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 34 of 55 C housing for their staffs there at the hospital. Right now it's a lot better scenario to have them drive a mile and a half, rather than clog up I-84 to Caldwell. Jenny Foster I think spoke about Shawn working for Hubble Homes. He does not work for Hubble Homes. He's -- he is an independent broker with ReMax, a realtor. Also, Darwin McKay talked about high quality of subdivision that he thought was -- was promoted for this area. I can tell you by getting this kind of density and this kind of efficiency of land use through fewer roads, we can tum that money into the housing units themselves and they will be higher quality of architecture within this development than any Hubble Homes project you see anywhere, whether it's Canyon county or Ada County. So, I can rest assure you that. We even provided design guidelines, which were not required to do and to show you our seriousness in doing that. He also talked about making sure that we had the three different types of materials on the architectural walls. I again refer you to the third page on our response letter as to a compromise of that particular item that, indeed, it's not about three different materials. I mean we don't want to tum away somebody who wants to build an all brick home or an all rock home and have them add vinyl siding, we just don't want that. We would much rather do it through the architecture by adding architectural columns, porches, balustrades, pop outs, those kind of architectural elements that really make a difference in creating a sound neighborhood. I can tell you that one of the largest residents in the United States, which happens to be the White House only contains one material, but it's a very handsome structure and they do it through columns and pop outs and balustrades and other unique features to the architecture. You don't have to change materials to create great architecture. With that I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will you be reimbursed for the parks by the city over time somehow or another or are you just donating this here without -- I don't know what kind of arrangements you have with it, but do you get reimbursed with us? Armstrong: No. We are -- it's actually -- we worked out the value. We had a worksheet '" that I showed the parks commission. I believe it's worked out to 1.6 million dollars that's ``~ a donation by Hubble Homes to the City of Meridian. It's a gift of the ground and the lawn sprinkling and the trees and the parking lot, which we have agreed to pay for in total and I think the current value on that is roughly 1.65 million dollars. The city's ;',~~ portion of that -- of developing the tot lots and the restroom and the picnic shelter, which a; they chose to develop themselves, will come out of impact fees and I can't recall, it was ~,¢~ around three or four hundred thousand dollars for -- that would come out of impact fees. ~_~ O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further. Rohm: Anyone else have a question for the applicant? ~; . ~ Moe: No, I do not. ~~ ~~~ . F ~3 y s1 a ~ cy a' ~ J:i r~xj~~" f : j - 'a4 [ L rt ~@~+ ~Fr~~~ "~ ff 7 I.. Y, J= :4 a e '~ .. 'arc, ,,. f 1 b { ~ 1 K ~ lS f~ n ~ _+ 'l ~~4i ,'~ , ~i. ~ ' 4d y ~ 1, 2 ,x ~y . ,,,~ i `^'V..E T ~~ ~ ^~.l~'~'~~ ,r ' FFF ~ ~~ L x. ~~ ~~ G ~~ q ,~. ~ 1 nn} s f`. .. t~p~7~~t 33 ~~~~~ v4Yj5 1 E'F Y.\ ~ ~ {~y J.~ y~ i} ~. .1 ~: - _ f.7 Y , ~ ;~ a r .~ i ,. t , ;~ .,~ ~k F ,' y i ii ~ t '~ ~I a ~ ~ ~, i~~ ~y ~3 ',i ~ a,~`1~~ GG ~.~ ~r,~ 1Sy ~ ;~1'~i ~ ~ 1 ~ K S f ' ii ~ ,Tn . 'ts r~ ... tr ' y~ %:a :~Y ~~'~ i ~,~I ~~ ~~: ~~ ~ i ~., >r ; Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 35 of 55 Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Just let me look back over my notes real quick. I was kind -- a bit confused -- Mr. Chair. Mr. Armstrong on -- the reduced front setbacks were requested in all sections of the development and I just wasn't clear where you're doing this coving and that kind of thing, why you needed reduced setbacks. Or if I'm misunderstanding the request. Armstrong: Are you talking about at the -- at the coving area? Newton-Huckabay: Well, no, there was -- when Sonya -- you were looking for reduced setbacks -- was it all three areas, Sonya? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, they were asking for reductions in lot size, street frontage, and setbacks. The dimensional standards, if they are requesting reductions on, are found on page 11 of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Justin Lucas, representing Hubble Homes, 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. I think I can help answer that question a little bit regarding setbacks and the dimensional standards we are looking for. No, those setbacks really wouldn't apply on the cove lots. As Mr. Armstrong mentioned earlier, we have a build at line for cove lots. Those lots are much deeper, over -- over a hundred feet deep. So, at that -- in a cove lot, the setback ranges from, you know, probably 30 to 60 feet for the house on a cove lot, as the diagram would show. We are asking for reductions in the other setbacks. For some of the standard lots we have in the subdivision and that setback reduction doesn't apply to the garage, because you have to maintain that 20 feet to provide for parking. What we are really using those setbacks for is to provide -- provide the porch and other living area to extend more towards the sidewalk. So, it really provides the living area to kind of stretch forward towards the sidewalk and the garage to be set back. So, you get more modulation on the street and don't just see the garage --aline of garages, rather, you see kind of windows and living areas and bedrooms that would be more towards the -- towardsthe street. And that really -- when we do that, we are able to move the house a little bit farther up, instead of pushing all the living area behind the garage, you can bring it forward and that way you end up getting more open space and a larger back yard and all the things we have discussed when it comes to how we are setting up those standards. Does that help answer the question? Newton-Huckabay: It does, Justin. I wasn't clear on -- so the garages will be on 20 foot setback and the rest of the homes would be on the ten? ~P~l~~` ~: ;~ _ ~ ~: F° ~ ~~ } i ail >, S ~(_ .` ~~ ` .~ f i :l~ ~~ ~~T ~~rH f]'~~ 'x A , ~ .,r 8~y~k,t ~ ~ '..f f 3d'#i h 3{~ -7~. 6-0 •'. i ~~, {~. i F k+{ 7 l4 .r:a~yr~ ' i ~ ~ ~i. 'iY+y ft~t~~~:: ~ t~ ~ i4 Y~.i ! - y s i ~p {~ ~5#3~~, v i~~ y r: _ Aya' )tir: i a `~ _ ~ <4 e .4. ~: 7~7 ~~ ' ya ~: , ~~i~4a y ~~ ~ ! Shp ~ 1 // ~/ Fn i1. 1~Y~; ~3k I '43 ~ ' , # Y~ A ~ u ~ ~ y~ - x,~ p~:~ !'l~ b P 3 4~j~i i~~~~~ ~~ ' t ~ X7(7 tl,~' ~ . ~ ~~ t~ l1 ,yyCJ_~F'+i1 ~ - .R . ~;. i ». n n i 7 .~ ~.~ .s' -~y f„ -~ ~~ `~l~ ~; L~ y r,: ~: F:: >:~:'~~~ P-. ~.. ~~~ { ,;~ }-,'; ~~,. :,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 36 of 55 Armstrong: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Lucas: Correct. Armstrong: I think, too, that question came up from the previous application, that we had garage dominated street scenes and the issue was how do you mitigate that and you mitigate that by bringing the living unit and the porches out in front of those garages. Newton-Huckabay: I had no other questions of the applicant. Rohm: Okay. Kind of -- let's go back to this architectural design here. You presented three different floor plans, if you will, and I'm trying to kind of read between the lines of the testimony received from the public, it seems to me that concern is if you have got just three different floor plans it's going to look like row houses and if, in fact, the staffs recommendation that you have a minimum of three different products on the -- on the front of the buildings, I think the reason for that was an attempt to have the differentiation from one residence to the next. Could you just go with me on that? Armstrong: Could we pull up the slide like on the -- that would explain those three different series. Okay. Yeah. Go back to the Legends. Within the Legend series -- this is one of the three. There is 12 distinct floor plans. There is elevations for each one of those. So, there is 36 different type of elevations just within the Legend series. In addition to that, there were the upgraded comer lot elevations and the elevations facing the open space. So, in all, just within that one series you have a lot more variety just within that one type. Now, if we can go to the next series, the Cottage series. The Cottage is entirely new. We have, basically, 12 different models of that. There is four to six different elevations for each one, whether it's different -- just different materials, the different use of the space, and, again, we are going from 900 to 2,400 square feet. The patios and the living space actually extend towards the street and so you get an extensive facade modulation. Go to the next one, which is the Village series. These are the same way. You have -- we have 12 different floor plans on this one. We also have four different elevations. All of the Village series we have committed to have covered porches at the street elevation and that's why that would be one of the three, but what it stated in the staff report is is three materials of the front elevations, so you can't count the porch, you can't count the balustrades, you can't count all the other elements that make up the great architecture and they are also -- the living space is all oriented on the side yard. If we can just go to floor plan real quickly and I can kind of explain how that works, because this is really a unique product. Here is the alley. Here is your garage -- the driveway. You have two car parks behind each garage. This is a 40 foot wide lot. What ends up happening is you got 24 -- or 20 foot wide garage, so you have a 20 foot side yard. So, the living is all oriented towards the side yard. The JJ ~ ' ri-'f( ~ ~ t t w( p Jk {W J : f14~i ~ ~ j y. 5 ti y ,~,:. t.. T ,~ ;;. F 1 ~ ~ { ~ ~~~ r ~ ~ y Y.l~'V 1'i~i jJ ~~~~C~! v ''' ~ '.. i i~ ~ t ^ = 7 J ~ ~ ~ .G y y '{w. I ti L l~i k~?.~ Z p .F ~ i ~ ' r ~w ~~i.~~i~.r. . l ~ , ~{~ s . ~nt. ..^~ '5,, s i~~~~~~iP~~ 3 iC p ~ +Rr T~ S ~ld'~ ~. w Y A ,R3?iF~ t ~~ Yl , ~y ..~y,, 4 y SF ~ t _'_ 'r 1 ;yY~ ' ~ ~' ~ j t fi ~ r . r: rt r~ ~~'' ~ ' i It ;~ ' , ~" }~§ f ~ S Z. 5~~ l T~ } ~ f I+ - -t ~K Tc SY T~ ~' ~s~ I.:, ~ r + f T . ~ }„ p . N E * i ~ ~ ~ii ~ ~i1 ~ ~ h N ~ ~ S Y5~ ~ ~ fSa n ~ ~ ~ _~ ~~ S .i. ] .T tt ~ '?'~'. °~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 37 of 55 ~- ~~ k •; next unit is right along this property line here and a zero lot line configuration. So, ~,+ I ~ instead of having a huge back yard, what you have is a more street friendly presence. -,.~ i You got the sidewalk, then, you have the smaller setback, but your living area and your ''Y' covered patio are all out at the front of the house. So, all's you see from the street as ~~~ you're walking down is glass and the front facade and on all units we have a covered porch, because all your living is done at the side of the house and you see no garages from -- from the street. And that's why, you know, we are providing the modulation out `~£-~ here. Here is another one of those units where it's oriented to the side where this covered porch actually comes all the way around the side of the house and we believe that should count as one of those architectural elements. In addition, we have a 9 covered patio that s punched out here. But you can see how these are all organized `~~~` and it's quite different from any housing you see. This is a true patio home that are '~ currently not in the marketplace. These are huge -- hugely successful homes and we `}~ believe that this is what the people want, they want these large living spaces along the -~ side. That's 80 foot -- 85 feet deep lot, all green, 20 feet wide. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Armstrong: Does that point out a little bit -- ~~~`~ Rohm: Well, yeah, I think it alleviates some of my concerns, but I think staff specifically .a; put in their report that they wanted the different materials to almost mirror some of the ~~`` developments that are in adjacent subdivisions, so that it looks like there is a transition from one subdivision into yours that is more similar. ,;'~~ Armstrong: And, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. But if you look at those subdivisions, we are trying to do the same thing. But what they are not counting is where we put a -.~ rock base and, then, there is a column, which all the adjacent ones do have that. It's ~,~; '_~ ~ not on the wall. The way it's stated in the staff report is she's talking about the wall _ elevation, but all the adjacent ones you have allowed rock columns with a column on top and balustrades out in front. There is only one material on the whole house -- on the elevation. So, the issue is we will provide the three separate materials, we will do color changes, we will do all that. We don't want to be treated any differently than any of the other developers. That's -- but we will provide that quality level and we can write n~; it up so that it's written that way. But we have committed to add porches on this, which the other developers haven't. ,sa: Rohm: Okay. Let me ask staff -- for them to provide input here. Sonya, could you provide some feedback on this. Are there -- does it appear as if they are meeting the intent of the staff report via their description of how they are going to be constructed? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I don't necessarily have a problem with the stone, you know, or brick on the columns. However, I don't think we should allow the ~~'' different material types to count towards the shutters or the balustrades or things like -7 s ~~£~ ' , .~e~ ~~_ $ }~~ r. z~ ~ ~ q{,.... ~3 t i # t ~';~~~ ~c ~< r'~ ,~ dr i `i~ ~ .g~ ~~.~ r ~~ ,~'. ~`~.. ~~ ~ ;~y ~ ~~3S13~~! .~ 5. Spit . ~~ ~: X C Cf {''f{` S l;.nf~ ~i ~. * 4 '., t ~~ ~ ~. t e ~WX t, aT S ; 2~; ,<t ~~ i6 ;~ ,s it~i ~ ~~ SSaI~ ~- - 's [ V Y ~.: tL f t d. : y: ~l r ~ E ~ „'~:'„~b ,.ts y, ., a ar4 . E Y .4~ f~~~ ,_, ss . ..,,~1 1.1fi 1:~SFiD } ~;: Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning _ December 6, 2007 Page 38 of 55 '~ ~ that. You know, the Commission can make a determine on that, what they would like to ~,~.f see. r'~ Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anymore questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you, sir. Armstrong: Thank you. ;__ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. a _:: ' .., i Newton-Huckabay: I was wondering if we could see the -- the larger aerial view of the area, Sonya, and another picture of the ridge area, so I can get -- I'm, actually, looking ~:; z;' for an aerial view that would have the surrounding properties. There we go. Okay. Then, I was also was wondering -- there was a picture of the ridge there that goes from r'~~?'i~ Black Rock there. Do you have -- was that your picture or was that in the -- we are -xs standing in what would be Castle Rock looking up on Black Rock? '_~ i Moe: Yes. _ O'Brien: That's a southeast view. Looking southeast. Newton-Huckabay: Southeast? Okay. Thanks. I got it. What was the name of the '`~~~ development at Overland and Ten Mile? The big one? :~ a: j Rohm: Oh, with Jewett? Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: South Ridge? ~~ Rohm: Yeah. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: From the audience we have amap -- the city clerk. Thank you. . Rohm: Caleb, do you have an idea of when the City Council is going to act on the south ~~~ ;_~ area map adjustment, the CPA on south area of Meridian? Hood: I do, Mr. Chair. That application is being held up just because we weren't quite ~' sure what was going to happen with the text, so it is scheduled for February the first P~ }1~ .- tFx r ~. ~,: Wk~~ C ~ ~ ~ r g i~~ 4`~ ?y~~ ~ e > ~{~ti ~y ~~~ ~ > T'^l~ f ri + E ~n ` ~F;i Ijf r~-r ~ CVO i Y ~ i i ~ 4S / +t{ y rix[ ~, ~~ F~ ia;n :~. {`. _ t i# ~_~ t ' ,';}'_ ~ t1S -~j S , j§ ~ ~ +3 ~ r r i§ r J ~ i ~ ~~~ t ~ 2 ~` ~t r`2 N:. (R 'i_ Y ~' - }~yL '~l. ~~Y~G ,, x ~ t' ~w 951 ~~ ~M~~'~R i ~~~~ ,.~ ~X ~ ~ .xr~?~'t~ i ~Gtd# i 1t.i .: t;° i~ k ~:,~. ,.'~ ,I °{: ~~, u Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 39 of 55 week -- the first week, I believe, in -- first Tuesday in February, I believe, is when it's scheduled for as of right now. Rohm: So -- Hood: It's the 3rd. Rohm: -- if, in fact, they concur with the recommendation of this body, along with the text amendment that will catch up with it, then, this area would, then, be part of the area of impact once that's completed; is that correct? Hood: No, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We actually have to negotiate our area of impact with Ada County to change that line. And we have an application that's been to Ada County for I think a couple of years now and it still hasn't gotten on an agenda over there. So, we are kind of waiting to see what happens with that one, if we can work that out with staff. That one we have an overlap with Eagle, too, so that one's got a little bit of a different story behind it. But we actually -- the only way to change our area of impact is to sit down with Ada County and negotiate that with them and other cities that may also want to change their areas of impact. So, it may be some time. That is the goal that after we change -- you know, the City Council acts on south Meridian, we also have some properties up north along the rim, the Phyllis Canal project, Jayker -- we have some other clean-ups like that that I think we may also submit to the county for the area of impact amendment. But that's quite the process and will take some time to do. Rohm: So, because it's not part of the area of impact, but it can still be part of the Comprehensive Plan. Hood: Sure. Yeah. We can designate -- Mr. Chair. We can designate any -- any properties for future land uses that we feel fit. Kuna could come up and annex ~; something that we have got a future land use designation on. That's some of what the phi; problem is, is that there really aren't any rules. The only one is if you're contiguous, then, you're eligible for annexation to a city. So, you have multiple jurisdictions that f`; have their own vision for property and it's whoever can grab them first or whoever applies to another agency first or municipality first. That's some of the problem. A lot of that isn't really relevant here. But, no, the area of impact won't change even if south Meridian moves through. We will have to apply for that separately through Ada County, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. That clears things up quite a bit for me. Okay. ,, Newton-Huckabay: Are you ready for comments? Rohm: I am. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ,r. ~: 4 ~ ~ ~ _ t" ~~l t ~ !~ ~T ~~ ~ ~~ ~.~ ~ ,~ ~~ r3,£ ;:~ . ~ '} ~ , ~~' ~~° ,,~~ ,~ t~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~gg a~~i~i z ~ t:.,ia~~. ~1l `. c~i;f ,~ ~¢L ~, ~ M 3n ..~ ~~ , } ~ ,4~ r ` ry-~~ s :;bf a '~ ,, ~ ~~~ ~ -.,. 3 ~~'~°t P' ~(i 1 Y M { ~i,._ T :~~~w ~ ~` , .~ ~~~a. ~. ~~. 'Y ~'~ ~ .w2 ~;~-~fili~X~t y .... 4p ~ fee'K~! i I j, .. ry9. r ~ .Y ~~ ~ 1 1 ~i~ 1 1'" g ~ I t i.'«t i$l 2 - L,.r l• ~, r.~. s:~:; ~.~_; >•-~ ,:,, .,, . .d '~~ `. '~ 1`~, nL3 <~ ~,: ~I -s{~ v Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 40 of 55 O'Brien: Close our Public Hearing first? n u Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I don't see any reason that I'm going to need to have it open again. I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 07-020 and PUD 07-001. O'Brien: How about AZ 016? Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And AZ 07-016. Sony. Started on the wrong -- Rohm: Okay. We have got a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-016, PP 07- 020 and PUD 07-001. Do I have a second? O'Brien: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-016, PP 07-020, and PUD 07-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to lead off in final comments? Newton-Huckabay: It's a big project. It's a little difficult. I want to -- there are a lot of things that I like about this development and I want to talk about those first. This is great. The city could get a park out of this. I think the pathway system is great. I like the mix of housing types in here and the different materials on the buildings. I do like the pocket parks and it's got some great landscaping planned for the development. I've not actually seen the cooing idea in person. I do like the idea of it, though. I think it's a neat idea and I think would add to a development. And, then, lastly, I do like moving the garages back behind the living space. I think that does make a nicer, more neighborhood feel of a development. That said, I -- I don't feel like this development has enough transition from -- as it heads northeast and I was thinking -- and I was asking Commissioner Moe -- the South Ridge project that's at Overland and Ten Mile has a similar situation. You have the houses up there on the ridge and, then, you transition down into the comer of Overland and Linder and that development put the -- they moved the density up to -- to the comer, so you have less density in the back and as you move towards Linder and Overland you got more dense. I think that's a more appropriate way to -- and I had hoped to move this -- this kind of development I would have preferred to have seen less density, the bigger lots, and even though there is a drop in the topography, I think it would have made abetter -- I think it would have made ,y :~ ~ ;;-i;,-, ~~;_~ :, ~~ .,~: ~,~ Y'.~:a w :;f ~'v s; ;': ~~i, , ,'r~ ~T~t-.7 #. ~: - ; ~vi ?'.~?.e --. ~~~:. 'y, .. a(?. J E t~~~~~fi`j~ - ' 3 .4 IR~ ~.. tb~ :~] ;~ a~~~L '~ 4, }, 1 '( x'c 1~ .. p _ 6y ~ ~Yn~ _ g ~:,c~i'Yi~B _- ! ~ a ~~ ' d ~ 2 X ' ?r a ` ' ,~ '"3 err F < i t V s* - ~~ , e l ~; ~d; ' z ' { ~~~ ~ * ~, ,.r 9 ~..J ~: ~,;_: -': Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 41 of 55 a better development and for that reason I -- I know a lot of work has gone into this and it has a lot of really great amenities to it and I'm not against the smaller lot sizes per se and I'm not necessarily -- I'm not really against the density, but I am -- I don't like the way it's -- I would have liked to have seen more of the density closer to the center or the front of the development, so that's where I stand on this. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, most of my comments are going to mirror Newton-Huckabay quite a bit. I was a little bit surprised when I -- Newton-Huckabay: Much more eloquently put. °; Moe: Very surprised when I was reviewing this project coming through here based upon the last time this project came to us and, quite frankly, we spent a lot of time reviewing that project when it was a, you know, 600 and some odd unit project and there was quite a bit of discussion at that time and there was a -- a Ilttle blt more ~'~ transition and whatnot and this Commission did approve that project to go forward to `~~~ : ~ Council where Council did deny that. So, as I'm reading this coming through, I started noticing in -- the testimony tonight's been that way, that, yes, indeed, there are now ~»~ I more units, the applicant has discussed with more units, gee, you're able to sell more ' ` II units and so now you have more open space and whatnot. Well, I'm not too concerned about the performer of this project, what I'm most concerned with is -- is the density is ~'~ ' ~ way too much in this area. The City Council brought up the fact the traffic also, along with the amenities and whatnot for this -- for the project the first time and I see more units more eo le and traffic is even worse as well. That's an ACHD problem more ~~' ~' than anything else in a lot of ways, but I, too -- this project -- the design and everything ~ else I think is great. I think, you know, the mix of the buildings and whatnot is great. L' The amenities are great. I don't know, like I said, earlier how their performer goes out, `~'~ but, quite frankly, I would like to see at the perimeter a minimum that there are larger lot sizes. There are some 6,000 square foot, some sevens, but most of them are fours, low "' fives. You know, I basically want to see some transition into an R-4 which now you're looking at 8,000 square feet minimums. I don't think that they -- they took that into ~~~' account as much as they should have. I think there is just way too many in there and so, again, I think it's a good looking project, but I do believe they just got way too many units in this thing and I would really like to see them make some changes and bring it !~ back, so -- that's it. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. ~` O'Brien: Where do I start with this thing? I lost a lot of sleep last night, believe me, `rxs honestly, about -- about this whole thing and I really was torn about what it's really going to do for this particular area, what kind of amenities are going to be presented here and -`; the pitfalls. Having lived in that area -- and I overlook that area, as many of the people ~~ ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~..~ F ~ ~t Y ' ~ ~ I 4 p ~1 ~ # ~ fc~i ~r ~ i ~ ' -~j f~~" ~F '•`i ~~ kSti~LlS'S~i ' } u ~ ~~,. ~ ~ ;. ~ 3 s^u~~Ti~~ ' _ k t , n s Yr~~if3~ ~ ' r i ~ 5 1 ,.'. ) d,; F1i r~ ? " ~ ~; i l~d~t ~ r ~~ • ~ ' 1 ; ~tr ~ ~r ~ +kj) y ~3 'q 1~'~YI+ 3. +e 3 , y tl~~~3 ~ ~ -, ~ 3 h¢ ~ g '+'r ? ~f~i S!~,.if~' ~~' t~.rR~'. t. (1 r` ~ ~ < ~`~~~~f4+`' k 'Y ~ , CY d 11 - ~ 3 !y ' 2r~6.-.y:~:i d i i,Y 4 i ;t;F ~~E~~~ " ~+ ~ ~~ B'aH i ~~ ~ f a1 f , ;o z i : ~., ~'~~; I lr, ,:.~i '- `;, J Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 42 of 55 here do as well. And I'm a youngster in that area. I have been there 30 years this month and people we have had here 45 years or more and my neighbors -- the few neighbors I have, have never moved. They are there for a reason and because of that - - it's a beautiful area. It's a beautiful area to live. Mr. McKay's father put my lawn in in 1977, '78. It's really special. And so in -- in discussing this area with the community and town meetings, the overall concern was making sure that we keep this low density and I'm totally against changing that to a medium density from what they want to do. And I agree with the other Commissioners about this area, it's -- you did a great job I think. It's laid out beautiful. It's just the wrong place for me -- for my own personal opinion. It just doesn't fit well with all the issues that we come up with. Traffic, compression of an area. I'm not for the row houses. If I was to look down on that -- I live on Locust Grove looking the other way -- that would, to me, be an eye sore. That's my personal opinion, okay, I'm not trying to put down the developer, but this is -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Did you vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendment or did you vote against it? O'Brien: I voted for this when it was R-4, when it was low density, and that's where it was. They want to change it to medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Right. O'Brien: So, that's -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. You know, to the --okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Anyway. So, I agree with so many of the people that provided testimony for all the right reasons and I think, again, the developer did a great job about this, but I just don't think it's the right fit and function for that particular area. The people wanted to have more open space, a transition differently than what the transition we have in north Meridian. They didn't want to see that happen out -- out in south Meridian area. When I saw in the -- in the report that I read that they want to push the urban area outwards south and have that, then, be in the transition from this particular project further south to be more rural, that caught my attention and I did not really agree with that. I would not like to see more urban coming out there. I don't want to see urban sprawl and our responsible -- and it was mentioned earlier -- is to -- to manage this area well, so we don't have the issues downstream in five, ten to 20 years from now. We need to manage it well now and I think we have that opportunity tonight to do that. That's all I have. ,, ,T~; .;~'~~ u ' s r .,~. ~~;: :. ~-. . w t~ 11J~'~i 1 °- t ~f s. ; , :: ,r>~ ~ '' Pil r:y.. C 3;~ ~ ~ f 7 ]~~ s r., ;, a {a ,~?~~. F* ~;~; F7 .u ~ t . ' ~ r ,~ 9~ t- ,~nx I tr~ f +tii ~ t . ~, ~ ~ ,'r!Is~'t,~' x~ i ~ a]< ~~; r, •t ~ l 1'~` 3 ~ ; .a ~ c 7~ r' ~ f Hates ; . .~ } a..:i a ~ '~.-dr'9ti: C ~~d'3 fk : ,ci f . y: n/ } µ` + , t ~•t j? I J., ^l' ~ • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 43 of 55 Rohm: Thank you. I like the development for many many aspects of it. The only thing ``"~`' that I would do a little bit differently is right below the rim ridge I would have some larger transition lots, just along that complete ridge all the way through the development and OAK' the balance of it I would leave it just the way it is and I think you have done an excellent job putting the project together, but that transition from -- what is it, Black Rock to your development is not quite what it needs to be, but the rest of it I would be in support of it in its entirety. So, end of my comments. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ', Newton-Huckabay: The question we have on the table, then, would be -- I'm going to -~ ' assume, at great risk of doing so, that the Commission is going to recommend denial ~ Historically we have offered the opportunity to continue for the applicant to redesign on occasion. Do we want to offer that same opportunity today or do we want to flat out p,; I' recommend denial. And we have closed the Public Hearing, so -- t Rohm: Well, we can still communicate with staff. I think the question is -- .:; A .j - Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to know the opinion of the Commission, if we would -- Rohm: My opinion is if you continued it and let them go back and work with staff to improve the transition, it may get more support of this Commission. Newton-Huckabay: If we do that, I'd like to also add the requirement of a new ~__' ~ neighborhood meeting -- :: ; Rohm: Okay. ~ f.. 5 : Newton-Huckabay: -- to include those folks who live in Black Rock or -- `" ~~ O'Brien: The surrounding area, that whole rim. Basically that square mile should be included, because it affects everybody, traffic, and other things. ~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Right. And I also would also -- and at least pardon the -- take offense, but recommend that potentially Commissioner O'Brien might need to recuse himself, since he does live in that area and could have an impact on his property value. O'Brien: I talked to the attorney about that and it's not necessary. Newton-Huckabay: He doesn't feel like it's necessary? a-I ,~~; 3 ~ .:, ~ ' ~~~~<~, t. ; ~ t :> r 1 ` ,j f~ S , ~ .EF r f ~ ~ s.4 azry„ii~~;~4~~ fti - i j°~~' a~ - t~~y,, . t ~ _ . _ F °~, ~ 1 Pit - .-'~ a r i h ~1`~r kp ~ ,n?;+~ - f ~ ~F I ~ 4E~ ., -~ v .: ti~fit~e t9,i - ~ I c ~ aY "~ fT ~~ Ft x ~ `k t S t~;}v !4 _ K ~ 7 a f ~~~~.~~ '~ ~ q ~ fi ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ '~E~e 'k~ IS~~ ~r .i :f ~~ E ~ ~ t k ~ r e~,j a $ t.y cY ~~ { . 'f 1~ .h 4~~ A ..~ j i' ~ C~~k `l~ - .' 40-5' 1+~~t'- - _ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 44 of 55 r~ ~~ ~_ Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the -- or Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner O'Brien doesn't have -- at least from what he told me when he asked me the question about whether he has a conflict, he doesn't appear to have a financial conflict. In the state code that's the only -- when there is a direct conflict is when you have a fiscal impact to your participation. He ;~, doesn't have that. So, my next question to him is does he believe that he can be fair. Does he believe he can give this particular project the same consideration as any other project that comes before this Commission and that really is his decision. If the ~K`=' Commission doesn't believe that he can be fair, you have the ability to make that motion to request that he recuse himself if that's what you contend. That's certainly within your discretion as a commission. But in his mind he doesn't have any pecuniary gain that could be gained one way or disadvantaged the other and he doesn't have any other . , personal conflicts with this particular project in his mind, so -- ,, ~, Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I don't know that that needs to be decided at t is momen , °'~~ but I perceive of -- I perceive there to be somewhat of a conflict in your statements and ~~=` ~I~n h~ccrl nn tha vn+A nn thA C'.mm~rahanSivP Plan amendment and et cetera of -- ~, anyway, that said -- ~~<;' ~ ,., Rohm: I think you hit the nail squarely on the head in continuing it to give the applicant an opportunity to work with staff to make changes based upon the discussion of this tai' Commission and -- and bring it back probably -- we can't do it the next meeting, but in a ..: ~,li month, is there enough time if -- ~~, ~``, Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, the applicant just voiced their input on this subject. They do not wish to be continued to redesign their project, they would like to >_ ~ move forward to the Council with a recommendation from the Commission. :-~ .:' .~~ ~ Rohm: Okay. ~~~~ ~~ Newton-Huckabay: That makes it easy. ~~'<';? ~ ~~ ~ iN Rohm: That makes it a lot easier. -'' . Newton-Huckabay: I'll make this motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and '~f'''~~ public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file numbers AZ 07- 016, PP 07-020 and PUB 07-001 as presented during the hearing on December 6, '' ;, 2007, for the following reasons: The majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission ~' ~ feels like the density of this project doesn't meet the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan ~`'~~ and that an R-8 step up for the project is probably too high. We would like to see more larger lots along the Black Rock ridge area there and I guess the perimeter of the entire ., project -- and possibly the perimeter of the entire project. I really think that was the only ~~~; ; k -- are we asking for a reduction in overall total units or -- I guess that would -- } , i yr <: r ~ yr; a ~'~:~ ~~ k 1 1~ ~ X ~ n ~~ !f ~ ~ !3 ~ ~,7r~: ~ rr .~~i ~~{~3~i1'7.: ~~ ~ ` i ~ ~~ ti?~ ' f ~, ' ,~~ _ y ~ hh ~ aA ~ ,k. ~W ' ~! r ~ ~ ~ ' ~.; ~ ~ k~ ~ N~a± ~ ~ :sr ..Vt .: „r,i9~ R,. ,,.,~,.. ~,w~ s r „k ~ ~ ~; ~.~`ii~`~'. ~~ ~ ;','. t{~ ~~ ~ 4 ~{ 1 y .~ 1 ~. ~r ~ 1 h '~'il'. ~~.~ ~It 4~5-~ k~~~fir~. ~ ~bsk! : ~ ~~~ ~~~ 4 T ~~~' p~kM ~y~~i Fv7 ~ +, sto ~~. ,c d~ a '~ IY .1 yA ~'; i i 1 ~ {~ f { ~ "{ `{ ~ u ~ .. ' t~ ' k ~~ ~~= z ~ ~~~ ~ "1 S 71,x; f -. ... ~ i ;: <.. fY~. ~~§.: ~~ :, ~} ~~ ~; F,.. ~~ `~NJ ~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 45 of 55 e Moe: It would when you start -- Rohm: If you increase the size of the lots -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, you're going to increase the house sizes there. Yeah. Logic is going to rule every time. Okay. That would be my end of motion. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to recommend to City Council denial of project AZ 07-016, PP 07-020 and PUD 07-001. All those in favor of the motion of denial signify by saying aye. And all those in favor same sign. It passed three and one abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you folks for coming in. That was -- that was a tough one. Newton-Huckabay: Could we take a break, please? Rohm: At this time we are going to take a short break and we will reconvene at about five minutes until 10:00. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening up the next project, RZ 07-017 and PP 07-022, both of these items related to Verona Commercial and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a rezone 5.29 acres from R-8, medium density residential, to C- G, general commercial, and L-O, limited office, and a preliminary plat approval of 14 lots, consisting of 12 commercial lots and two other lots for the Verona commercial ti ,~~ fi, r-~~~~~~ y~~~ ~N t 1 CCC ~ ~~ ~ P ~ ~ r5 1 S.~ t ~ ~ E± " I S ~;Y; ~ '~ r Q ~ ~'~~ ~ r ~ i .,, :~ ;"F»+~S~~~r~rr -~ ~ !tr S F rya y { .~ +~3t1~:~1 ~,.~ ', x aj ~, ~'I NSA. - ' ~ ~ _ ; ~ • I t s irz~ 4' f~~ M1.~ ~ $~~~~1v1i 4 I .~~nrAl~i,~ t; K ± ',.r 3 l ,,3 A~~ ~t'$' ~ r L ~' t ~ 5k ~~~*7~ yc ~.~ ` }4 i ? j ~` 1~.~~,~ t ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 , ~ m r., ,~ c ~}ii+~t ~' ,A , . f t y a?~ ~. ~ ! . Y ~~~ ' Y ~ 1 nL d.9I9Fi . ~~ ~, ;~: ~~_ : ~~ =' .y.,, ~. ~~~ F, .:u~j ~: b~, by ,._~, k..f ~• f; M Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 46 of 55 ~' ~ project. This site is located on the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. The property is bordered on the north by Verona No. 3, office lots, zoned L-O. South is Bridgetower Crossing Marketplace, zoned C-G. To the west is the Volterra subdivision, zoned C-G. And, then, to the east is Verona Subdivision No. 2, residential R-8. And this is part of Lochsa Falls, zoned R-4. The office area was granted as a use exception for the Verona Subdivision, but is currently zone R-8. A rezone is being requested to have the office portion of the development be consistent with the city's future land use map for this property by rezoning 3.67 acres to limited office. As part of this rezone the applicant has also requested that 1.62 acres of the approved office area be rezoned to C-G and integrate that acreage with the existing C-G zoned property to the west, so all of the area south of Milano Drive and west of Cortona Way is zoned C-G. So, here -- these were the lots that were approved with Verona Subdivision planned development as a use exception. The applicant is proposing this get rezoned to C-G to be incorporated into this portion of the development and, then, these offices would be -- or, excuse me, these lots would be rezoned to L-O, to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan map. Again, here is an aerial kind of depicting the lots there. And this is -- up here is Milano Drive and running north and south is Cortona Way. This is the preliminary plat. Again, there is 12 commercial lots, two other lots. The two other lots have already been constructed. This would be ten commercial -- commercially zoned lots, C-G. Here are the two office lots that the applicant's requesting a limited office zoning. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating how this site may develop with a mix of retail and office uses. The submitted site plan depicts a total of ten building pads varying in uses from convenience store, gas station, drive-thru businesses, professional offices, and neighborhood retail. On the submitted site -- concept plan, the applicant is proposing eight full access driveways, one right-in and right-out driveway, and two full access to public streets for the proposed development. The public streets are already constructed and accepted by ACHD. The proposed driveways are expected to align with existing and future driveways or public streets adjacent to the proposed development. Here is where your convenience stores will be. Access points would line up with the platted office lots to the north and to the public street to the north. This is a public street here that they are proposing to line up with. This is a shared access driveway that -- this is one access that has already been constructed. Again, this is the road network that's already been constructed with Verona No. 2. And here is where they are proposing the right-in, right-out onto Ten Mile. The entire perimeter landscaping along West Milano Drive and North Cortona Way has been installed with the approval of Verona Subdivision. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the 25 foot landscape buffers along west McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road. So, for the purposes of this map, all of this landscaping is existing. A site visit has confirmed that. All they are proposing with the landscaping for this subdivision is along the arterial roadways. As shown on the concept plan, there is a potential for ten buildings to be constructed on the site. The applicant has provided staff with a sample of photos illustrating what types of buildings ~t :~: p~ ' x ;~ ~i,~~~ ~~ '~ ~` ~~ y,. ,z1; ~r ~Mr.. ~ ; a Ai ix ~~~~ n, ~ if+7Y` ~` ~ ~~~~~ ,;.~ ,.: ate" ., r ~i~~~~j.l :; ~, { ,~ _ z f;~i Ylx s ~ z~,~~r i .~ ~ _ i; t ~', ~,~~ •rY t ;. ~~~ ~gf f;~ x . r ~ 3,i4 41~ ' ;, . ~~ :~. ,; ~,k~`~t~"si`t's ~ y d (a Y.}. ,1 1 _~ ,A 9 H ~~~.,i 4 ~l ^q'^ ,ti~ vF'' .r. t-. ~`~:~ ~; :. '' !~ ;;1~ ~; j 1. • Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 47 of 55 are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected six photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes, with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accent -- accented colors and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good palate for the developer to work with and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the staff report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. The applicant submitted I would say at least 25 photos to staff and I kind of thumbed through them and found what I thought would potentially be something that the applicant -- the applicant would use with this development. So, I think this would be something feasible for the retail portion of it, the C-G zoned portion. You can see the stone pillars there that highlight the entrance way here. The varying roof parapet heights. The changes in color. And, then, for the office uses, the L-O zoned portion or office section of the development, they could do -- again, have some of those same features, some modulation of the building, stone columns, accented stone, substantial glazing. Unfortunately, this picture didn't show up, but I can bring that up for you to look at, if you want to look at a closer view of it. Staff is recommending approval of the Verona project and I'd stand for any questions Commission may have of me. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, one question. Bill, you said the -- the access point along Ten Mile is proposed as right-in, right-out. Are the two access points along McMillan full access or are they right-in, right-out? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct, they are full access onto McMillan. Siddoway: Both of them? Parsons: Both of them. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Christensen: Members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Christensen. I work for Quadrant Consulting, whose address is 1904 West Overland Road in Boise. I'm here representing Primeland Investment Group, the owner of the property. We have reviewed the staff report, mostly for us this is just kind of a clean-up effort. The property's are essentially designated correctly in the comprehensive land use plan and at this point we are just proceeding with the next step, so that we can develop the property as envisioned as part of the comprehensive land plan. We are in favor and ,q f mkt ia~~y~ _. 7. t R ~ 5 +, y' ~J i~./~{1 r~ / r -~ ` x~ ~'~~AI'• ~{ ~1 ~ .tij rte' plop, ~ F Ph ~ } ~ ~l ,~ F ~,„pi ~ z . ~~ ` E ~' - S ~ ,~r ;~ E _ Y ~. 3 ~ ~i ~f ~ ~[ f~ .~ Zl y , ,. ~i ~a~ ~ tG a ~: ~E ~~ ~^Y~1 ' ~~ .~~ +f+ ' ~ C ~ F C ,s4s .~ x f - ~ . i ;~;; a S ~;iA1 ~~ yy y q Y u~ Atli}TF~`~T~1S~1 f,~ t. ~~ yy> ~~-~,. . _' ~ i7 i',r~ , hk~8+~~'?1i: s, rrtl `n7 -~ „ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r r 7~~ ~gJ ~ . , 4-~.u~! _ t b l~yrr;1 .. (t .4 y ' ' 4 Lx .,. 3.y f'I'~;~fi7-'. ~- ~ .. 'S~~xxr. _ _ ~- s Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 8, 2007 I I Page 48 of 55 '~~ accept all the conditions outlined in the staff report. The only exception we would like to '~~ make is in the Public Works section Item number 215 -- 2.15 it says that it shall be the `~`~` responsibility of the applicant to insure that all development features comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. We would just like to '`' ~ ~~~ eliminate the Fair Housing Act portion of that requirement, Since we don't have any 'Y,'. ~ housing. So -- unless there are any questions I'm finished. ~~.~~ Rohm: No. Thank you. That's pretty straight forward. Gary Payne. Payne: Commissioners, I'm opposed to -- ~ Rohm: Could you state your name and address for the record? Payne: I'm Gary Payne, 2940 West Wapoot. I live approximately -- well, I can see it from my property. That one picture there almost looked like my house, if I could see it. t ' I So, I'm right on the comer of that property. Rohm: Okay. Payne: Right now we have a new park on the other end of the subdivision, Soldier ow. We ve had the ere n ht s th traffic roblem d we have ark. An Park I believe. Ci p 9 tY p police called several times last summer, because their streets are blocked coming in and out. And that was on the north side of the subdivision. What I'm getting to is this ,y~ "` `` area -- they have got all the off ramps or outlets from this business into our subdivision : and if you look at -- at the plat all the way around, there is only three accesses from F outside the subdivision going into this business. They are going to widen Ten Mile, I understand, to six lanes -- five lanes and they are going to widen McMillan and the only way into this area is, basically, going to be through our subdivision, because if there is a {~°: light on Ten Mile, they can't tum across traffic to go into that subdivision -- I mean into that shopping center. I'm sorry. And when we -- this area was zoned for residential. When we bought there we was told that and in August of '05, as far as I was told, it was ~~4' still residential, which I understand it is now. But it comes down to another point that I ~: was never notified of this -- and neither was anybody that I'm aware of in our area of this -- we seen the signs set in the field, halfway up through the streets, behind the trees, on the other side, it's sitting back in the comer on the far comer of this -- of the property. As far as I know, nobody else has received any information on this. And there is a couple other items there we need to address, is when they come in a traffic comes in off ~' McMillan, they go around Cortona and it's a straight access bight back onto Ten Mile ~`~` and we are going to have traffic cutting through there because of the lights. The access "~~ traffic going through there. They will also go through the subdivision, over into the park ~• where they have had trouble with traffic already on the other side. It looks like to me ~~ that sending all that into our subdivision, you're going to have a lot of traffic snarl there, because we can't get out of our subdivision, because people are coming into the business and they need to open -- you know, there is -- there is just a congestion of 5 ° ~: r A` ~* '~ r 5 ~ 4 `.~ ~~' ~ i5 td~,.!Rsi *N4 ~ t k~*1 VF-f$, ~y, ...-r=. .'H7 ~'1 ti. ~; s~ -_ ~~'~ 1, rF a ~ ~ a r ~ i #. -~ Yea ~~~ ~. ~w a ~. t~, , .~i., ~~ ~;. r ~ 1 ~ 1~ .o k ~, N, k E ~ S ~' ~y .~~4, !c r ~ Ii tt ~ /1 t x .b ~a, .-~ ast ~;_7 ~` ' -. ~ . ~: t ~ y, xt~ i t~, ,. ~Y~~ 'Ll': ~7 I ,~ ~~~; ~ .ia~;y ~~ ~?, ~ _~ ~s~.~s3~~ ~~ ,~~~, 1 .- _ ,~~~ .~, ' `;; ~> e~ ~; ~ ~` fi 1: ~; r~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 49 of 55 :; Ii °;~. '~; traffic, you're going to have a lot of accidents, because they are bringing it from Cortona straight into the -- into the back of the businesses there and that will be a truck route right through for all the trucks to come in there to deliver right through our neighborhood. They need to -- if they change the zoning, they at least need to curtain the trucks and the cars from coming into our subdivision. There is two other streets they can access without being into -- into our subdivision. We already have traffic coming in from down below on the roads down on the lower section on -- Rohm: Excuse me. Bill, could you put the preliminary plat back up there? Well, there is another one that showed the roadway better. There you go. Payne: The traffic here behind building B, that's going across, going to go up on -- come over this way a little bit on -- over to building B. Right there. Where the access goes straight up that road, that's Cortona and that coming out of there goes right straight into our subdivision and it goes -- there is a couple comers, but it goes right over and out through that park. Now, the people that -- as far as I know, just basically 50 feet or something like that -- I shouldn't say 50, about two or three hundred feet from the other side of that entrance that goes across. I have a comer lot and the traffic goes down and into Lochsa Falls and down below. It also comes up and goes around into the other part of the subdivision. So, we are going to have quite a traffic snarl there trying to get out of the subdivision, if they make that into businesses. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Payne, I'm a little bit confused on the -- I mean the people who would use those roads would be the people who live in that area. Newton-Huckabay: If I remember right, that's what -- how the Cortona that goes off into there, that was originally how it was designed that way because of that. Payne: Well, yes, but not the people from the businesses would be going through there, because they have the outlets from their business into our subdivision. Now, doesn't most of your businesses have an area where the subdivision -- where they control some of the houses -- traffic into the subdivisions from the businesses, like behind Albertson's? Payne: Well, yes, but the road was not open. You come down along the -- the barrier on the outside of the street that goes around where you got the shrubs and stuff -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Payne: -- that is a waterline that is built up for -- to an irrigation line. Right along there is a raised irrigation line for water for the imgation systems and it has abuffer -- or an elevation along there and where are they going to put that irrigation water that goes down through there? You have got this traffic coming in here, the main traffic going over there, and if you put a service station over here, this traffic has got to go ~~: r_ t~~ "~ ~ ti's s y ^~' ~ !1 "'# J K 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~... ~ - ~'.'~'~ ihfAy ~ i tt '~ ~~ ~" -. ~' ~~N~ ~., a~ .~..~~~ '`'t~ IR,i ~~' u . '. .a.1.. e t.~ y~ + i G S„~y~ }}}, r ~ ~ f t rM ~~~C~~~~~ ~F r Jr ,~i}~~r~ 3vdf~ k: a; i T } '' s`y ~ `, ,t ,t ra; ~ ~ ;~ y P~ .. rs~;s m h, ~ ~~~: ~ i ~' ~~{~~i.. 4 ~ !C L F.'.% F 3(U;QJ~. R [' r ~~ r~~~ ~ . ~. - ^:.Bw~7r;~;:. 6~ ` f .x'4 i~ 7qi ~i~~.~7~,1~`'. F . 6~ F3 ~ i'- ~~K~~~ ~J d53 y c_'n. ttiq ~ ~i ~~ , ~ ~y ~ t yr.'Na?~ ii ~ ~ €3 " ' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 50 of 55 somewhere to get out, because it can't get out and go across this way. It's going to have to go through here and either out the subdivision here or a different area. Like say, when they come in -- this is Ten Mile right here. Driving back up, they are going to go this way and right out onto Ten Mile, because there is -- it's an open shot. People r~3' coming from these other streets are going to have traffic problems, especially coming out of this building area here onto these streets here. If you're going to change the `' S ' : zoning, why open these up. Why not just leave this right here closed off like it is and r z -- make their traffic come in from over here where it won't impact the subdivision. i b r ng But this water line along here is an irrigation ditch. It is elevated, it's probably four to five feet high, with grass and trees planted along it. Are they going to cut this down? If F they cut this down, how are they going to get passed this imgation for the water? Which ~~ that's the water department, that's not me. Imgation department. But I see a lot of -- a _ m=~ lot of traffic problems with this the way it is. It was listed residential when we bought the property and I think it ought to stay residential, because of the traffic problem in that area. Over here -- let's see. On this other side of the street over here, on the south side of McMillan, they have already got about ten, fifteen buildings that have been "-i i vacant since June -- been completed in June. There is not a soul occupying any of it. ~ ~~ A;:, Why do they need more businesses over here when they have this over on the other =~' side of McMillan. And if they put ten -- or make traffic here, why -- how are they going ~:~;;~. to access into this? This ought to stay residential where it has access from public, you ,;.,, '`~" know, where they can get in and out of it. Thank you. :,:, '~`' Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but ,.3 ,. if anyone else would like to come forward and offer testimony, now is that time. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up and respond to the testimony? trt; Christensen: Members of the Commission, I just would like to reiterate that the property -- there is a small portion, about five of the 18 or so acres, that is zoned R-8. The bulk of it is zoned C-G and has been zoned C-G for quite some time. The transportation design has been laid out to encourage access into the site from Cortona Way and '; ~ Milano Drive. Mr. Payne is correct in that assessment. It is in the best interest of the operation of the arterial roads, McMillan and Ten Mile, to limit the amount of traffic going ~- ~~ onto those streets from -- near any intersection. So, we have proposed driveways lining `~~3 , ~ up with the existing roads in order to improve the interconnectivity of the neighborhoods and the commercial areas. We don't envision any traffic going into those residential `; ~ areas, except for the people who live out there. .;.~ Rohm: Can you speak to the elevated irrigation system that Mr. Payne -- ~., Christensen: Yes. Mr. Payne is correct. There is a -- there is a berm that runs along ~; Cortona Way and Milano Drive. The actual irrigation pipe is quite deep and -- deep °~} enough that we can get the driveways over the top of it without any problem. ~t. :.~ r f :5 Yu~ (dPa~.:. ~ f:. C~n' - {F{ j7Kd'~. T 7 S ~ ~~ [ Y ' r¢ ~P~~ Lr cs , ~ _ , ~ , 4 ~6 { g 9L ~f -. y.. k~hi ikSkf;'• _. ;.~; y !t ~ f ~ ~T~ a .~, 1 j j y <., am.. '~ Hz > ,3 h~1~F ~ ~~ ~„ r ;~ r. Asa, ~ ~ , *; Cg[ y.~~4 ~~" r '~.} F t~~3Y;Afi~; j r ! ~Y ~ - '~ x ~. l~F „1 vA :t s . :~ ' ~ Z P t; , dEy~ J/ il ' _ "u ~J ~!~ o- . ',: ..~.h r Y F I~ S wr ,,((,,__ ry .f' ~ zs~ ~~: i ~r4P~ ~p~fky. ~JJ N~ ,~. ~~ ~~ C . j [t, I~` f i y { •`~ S t 1 ~~' }t q ! ~4 12 ryV~,. ~ ~~S pppMsss -~ R yyy y-... i I r r ~ ~ s~~ ~ ~ , m ra ~~ G r ~ ~ ~. * '~' i ~ ~~ ~':~a, ,.-;: .~;,.. ,,z, ;: 4; -~ ,`'Y1 13 :. ~~~~ zy1 ~~ :; ~: ~~~;~ ~ l '_:~ . :,' {.: ., ti, _._;s , ~,> Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 51 of 55 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Christensen: So, unless there is anything else. Rohm: I don't have anything else. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. This project was originally annexed and approved as part of planned unit development; correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct. Siddoway: And the proposed uses lay out numbers of structures, things like that, or is it in harmony with the approved conditions of that planned unit development? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, after reviewing that -- you're correct, this is part of Bridgetower Crossing, the commercial portion was, so the line that was drawn here when this was cut -- when they came in with annexation and the PUD. It was conceptually approved for five commercial. lots and it was not part of the PUD, it just was -- if you look at the plat that they submitted at that time for Bridgetower Crossing and the residential -- let me get up to the -- you go to this portion when this came in, the PUD said -- was this part and, then, if you look on the plat associated with this, the preliminary plat I should say, associated with this portion, it said not part of the ~' PUD. Siddoway: Oh. Okay. Parsons: So, it was just conceptually approved for five commercial lots at that time and that's what why we are here tonight -- Siddoway: Platting it has ten. Parsons: And trying to get that, as Chuck mentioned, to get that part -- that clean up, to get Verona cleaned up and Bridgetower -- within a couple week's time you're going to see applications coming in for this portion, as well as the eastern portion of Bridgetower Crossing to also clean that section up as well. Siddoway: Okay. That's all. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-017 and PP 07-022. r :,, F ti t ~ ~ Ny ~e5 ~,~~ i,~ ~ ;~ w IFt~ ~~ _. t'~' ~ a~ 3~ .~, ~ ~ It ' `t , i ss~'' ~ ~ . :kr - ~ ~ ~. ~ 4 ~IYiiea%~:i ~~~~F~~~~~i ~ i ~ ~-t ~A'r ~'. ~ x, t t ~jEa~>i I ~ ~, ;,r es ~ „ ~ ~~ ~~ 7 ~ r i,~.~F ;c ~t . .~ :. zdi Y i ~ ' U ~; ki sF^ ' ~ F- ~ j x X ~ ~S ~ ~t~ ~ r °~i sa I13~~5: ~ ,; '` ~ t I~ t 1 ~; ; ?. n7 . ~~ _ ' ~ :~ :r „ t V jj33 ,{. r~'~ ~, r' n ~ ~', 1 i w~} r ~ ~'` ,.ors `~ ~~f~~,:~~: ,_ ~~*;d rk `_ ~:. :y~ ,, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 52 of 55 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-027 and PP 07-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Really nothing more to add to it. I think it's a nice development there in that location. Trafficwise and whatnot I concur, we do need to get some of that off of McMillan and Ten Mile at the shopping area, so I don't anticipate that you're going to see a lot of shoppers going any farther north than just the main street to head back out to Ten Mile. I, actually, think it's a pretty nice looking development. Plus, I live right down the street, so what the heck. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing substantial to add. I do want to comment to Mr. Payne, I appreciate your comments and -- but I respectfully disagree that it will cause an increase in traffic into Verona through this design, but I do appreciate your comments. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. ~~~~ Siddoway: I like the connectivity with the neighborhood. I believe there would be more ` " traffic problems by cutting it off and forcing the neighborhood out onto Ten Mile and McMillan to access those services. So, I also don't anticipate commercial traffic ~? entering the neighborhoods. I see it as a way for the neighborhoods to access the `~~`~ commercial and I am in favor. ~. '%`, ; Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I believe it's all been said. I can't add anything to it. Just a note, though, that ''`'`~ Ten Mile and McMillan roads aren't scheduled for improvements and widening for a long time, five, ten years out, something -- maybe 20. So, I'm in favor of -- Mr. Payne, I t., I, don't think it's going to help -- `~ I Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? '' ~ O'Brien: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- I do believe was that not part of the Bridgetower Crossing, they were going to improve that intersection. { y~ -~-,; ~. Y~1,y, ~1 'ti '~~F_~I r , b~ '~ S\~~~~`~;+ ,~ x 4µ ~ ~h6~3i q 4y i a ^a.. 4 a mn1,~ ~ '' d9 w - ;~ . f~s3~~n: s -~, x~ fit- '~{~Y3S~..~i. ~~Y C i~ ~. ~~ ~, k . ` 7~ r~ '~ ~ .: a .~]] i 11 1. ~~ S~ ... t!~' S~.Y .1. •~ ~ ~ ~~j{, t ~ ~ i414 ~~ Y L,t k ~ ~~i,:. ~_ ~ ~~ ,~ r ~' k~~b. ~ .. ~ c u ~"'i f ~ tt47s~.+~1' xl~ x ~t t~ .3:~~ J „.;:. i ~ v r ~ ,x~ S~c,, r #. ~„ ~ s ' t .i r i 8 • • Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 53 of 55 's' Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think it's scheduled for May. The road widening is not scheduled, but the intersection improvement is scheduled after the Linder-McMillan intersection, which I believe is next -- begins next month. And, then, it's programmed right after that. So, I think they plan on improving that Ten Mile intersection May, June to start. O'Brien: Okay. And I was looking at the widening to five lanes 2013, 2017. That's all I have. -~ Rohm: Okay. I guess my comments would really be back to this is really a clean up of actions already taken and the fact that we are rezoning it, it's just formality, more than anything else. This development could have taken place without a rezone, I believe, and so it's really getting the zoning to be in concert with the land use and that was the intent of this application. And so albeit that I, too, appreciate you taking the time to come down here, this appears to be just what the doctor ordered as far as from the ~~~. original application. So, that's the end of comment. Could I get a motion to move forward with this application, please? °,;ui1 VY; c`~ ~: '~' I F ..~ ~~; Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-017 and PP 07- 003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 6, 2007, with follow the following modification, changing Public Works condition 2.15 to delete reference to the Fair Housing Act, as there is no housing proposed in this application. End of motion. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-017 and PP 07-022, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 acres from RUT to C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 07-024 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 12 commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: ~# ~ ~.~ , ~ 1 3~~3~. !K ,~~ 1'e 6 -~ ~ i ~ '17 fifi ej sJ4 ~~~i1 ~4~~' ~Y~i F•'{~i, ~, N ' .. a t ~ r f~~ ~ J~-fa~:~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . it cyan - i r .:~ ~ ter- .,a: ;~ M p ~ i ~3 " ~ . ,~ ~ ~ ::~Fa~, >~c , rr~~~,~~~~~.' x a ~~~*~f'~-. . - _ _ ,, ' .~ a ~: 'K~._=~ t ~ ~b ?' ~l fsW; ~ - y, ~I ~ r' w' ~ .~* i ~~~, , .ra:,~~.~~.,s S~ '`~:' '.!- 4 ~ , A' ~ 1' ~ F' _ ~~" ~ S ~ yxlM ~. E + . ~ l y. ` .-. 7 ° q ~',i~ ~~~ ~ ~ t ~ .d ~~ ~ 4~ . ~. l.~~p#j~l:'`~ '. s ~F ~~~~~ 4 ~3~~w+~~s s ,. ~` ~ +~ 1 • '' '.~ `o 'e•: ,~ -`4_`~~ .~ -- .~ >~'` ~T; ':: ,~. ~'.~; ~. 4;: :. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 54 of 55 Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time I'd like to open AZ 07-018 and PP 07-024 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved -- O'Brien: Second. Rohm: -- and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-018 and PP 07-024 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. All those in favor -- , Siddoway: Quick discussion. Is there room on December 20th? Rohm: We already -- ~~~~ Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Yeah. Siddoway: Then that's all. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: One more motion. Moe: I move we adjoum. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. ~~~ ~a Lr 3yR~t``z°g3" LAN ' °d 91t~+7,.i:~j r ~ ~ :.. *~ pF`. xy ~ N +~ 1 <~: ! t ; ~ .~ ~ *~~, ~ li, ~~~ ~ s ~:, arm ,F z ~ ;~r~1`J; +3g ~ ..~ ~ ` ~i . { ~h ~ ~~ 2 ~ A +}~~~ a ~y } ~s l~ e'.F ~. 1 k+3:~k9s'~ii t ~ . .} qL'~' ~R' ~`d... ~~t }T w..; dnf ~i`~"'~2 '1 ~ +3"' 7~s~~ .. ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~.a ~ i {, ~~y~+~~ ~a ~ ~~ '~~~ - va w~M'„~ ~ ~ - ~~. :dq =~~K ~i~r~- Iy+}n~yk~ ~ w,.i~q,t,gli~9~.~ ~~ a '~~ ~t ,~, } i{} ~JF~, 5 I~ i ~t ~rX#i ~~3344 ~ > ~ : l .iP rr : k, ~p i ;i ~x: e a ~; jx~+ x ~'ai i,~ . , ~5#alr~a_,i' Meridian Planning & Zoning December 6, 2007 Page 55 of 55 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ,,: :-;~: :r a ';~ .,, . . ;,II Si ~ A':'• ~S~S ~1 .I i7 .. ~f ".: ~~~ -. t t ;~. f 1 :.i ,- "1 .~ ~'-'t APPROVED: G G~ `' MICHAEL E. ROH -CHAIRMAN l I ~ I~ DATE APPROVED ~~,,,,~,,,,,;,,; ATTESTED:,_ ~~~ dl('~~ 0.._~. ~ .~ ~' *~ '~~ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., QTY LEI~~ S --~-~~ ~~ ~~, f~~ ,, ', ~® ~"~' ~r ~-~ , ,.~ ~ a~ . .~a ~:. !' "' ~ 0 Y , ~~. WW ~ `rY , ,~ r K y(~ ~ E. - ~ ~ ~ q~ .jam 1 ~. 211 4~ ~4~, f ~ y {: ~ 1~ Y .~ S ~R~ G.}~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 `S r(i ~y .~ ~f A:~ - ...T .~ ~ i } ;tom - ~ ~~ "' .. ~_ } ~~ - ~~ ~~~ ~~' .. ~ 1C ~~i¢ ,~ o ~r `1~ r~' }. ~' F ~ ' i ~ ( ~ ' I~t~ ~ i _ obi ~~r'A ~ ~~'..~'!:~ i31~.~~ .j _ , ~ ~`1+r~ t~ -0' F ~'~ ' ~ ^ F q .-. S }. iip ? .. ~ " ~ ~1P 1 ,~!!' +t x i ~ f ~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~4 $~* ~~ ~ a j x~ ,4~ 2~~ '' ~ ~~ Ak'kkr~iii iF x„ ~; r!r i St"C'?' t >~ ~~ ~ y }, ' ~~`t ~ , ,, 7'~i a 4 ~ n S %c4 ~~:; ;;.Iw 3s s.?._ ':~ ~~! ~~~ ~: ~~; s, ~.' ~: C December 3, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 15 2007 Planning and 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: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~~' COMMENTS i ,~ :: , ~' , '~ '' -;1 .~~ ~~ , n LJ December 3, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 CPA 07-009 ~' APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2007 -Request for a Comp Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the future land use map 8~ include residential uses in neighborhood centers for Soufh AAeridian Area 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Minutes See attached Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials• Materials presented at publk meetings shcll become property of the City of Mertdtan. . t_ z~ ? - . t ~ w ~{ ~' .~{.{S2dt~~ - R '4 i t.c ~ ''~ t ' ^? _ ~r~~6ad' y ~ S ~ i _ K~ ~`i r 4 pia y el~,~ ~ '~' ~ ~ A ` ...~, ~ .,:di f: r r1 ~a ~~ ~ , ~~ f :+ cFi ~ ~ 1 h5 f £ht~ 'r t ' at~'kw "~C? _ 27 ~'w~; .r + t~ ~• , ' n ~ 1 i.~ t}~ ~ ~,. p~#`iY t : v ~ J 1 Y:f~ a i ~ ,- - ~ ja 1 ~ ~y ~~ . 1 j~c~ ~'~~ tl^W 3 4 ~~ i : 4 `r ~~6t~'i~ ~~ - ~ ~y;~ ~ ~ ~ December 3, 2007 AZ 07-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. Jr REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 224.29 acres from RR zone to R-2 zone (45.14 acres) and R-8 zone (179.16 acres} for Castle Rock - _., south of E. Amity and west of S. Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ;;:y e:,. `;, ~~ :•; CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: GITY 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 attached Staff Report .~, W :'-; No Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached Letter from Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeHn~s shall become property of the city of Meddtan. v December 3, 2007 PP 07-020 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEE?ING December 6, 2007 APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 848 residential building lots and 100 common /other lots on 181.11 acres in proposed R-2 and R-8 zones for Castle Rock -south of E. Amity and west of S. Eagle Road ;, .~~ h,;,~~ {~ ~? ;;, ~i:; i ,,1. . .~;~ . t << -: ~1: ~~ , AGENCY COMMENTS ® ~...-r' 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: SEE ATTACHED AZ PACKET See attached Comments See attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached Revised Plats Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • ~ a '~; i~~~' t~ ~ ~~ rc ~ .r~ /~~ sd:, ;x 3 ~~ ~( „} ~ ,,`~k" ~'~; a 4¢ VL~~,if ~i ~ a~ • ~~ .#1h,~iF ~,Z .~ ~ ~ 3 ~ r3tt4'e33A. zca3 `'?ti µL}.:~,~ V ', ;Y, ~ } ~ 7 ' n ~ ,/'.may 1:~~ 2 ~ r ~f ~~ tCF ~~~~ i f~~, aM ~, j ;f r , ~^~ Y I;~ r_ i`I • December 3, 2007 PUD 07-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONfNG MEETING December 6, 2007 ent rou LLC ITEM NO. APPLICANT Providence Developm G p, REQUEST Public Hearing -Approval of a Planned Unit Development for deviations ~~ from district requirements to provide an opportunity for exemplary site development for Castle Rock -south of E. Amity and west of S. Eagle Rodd AGENCY COMMENTS K, , li CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED AZ & PP PACKETS '1a`i~ CITY ENGINEER: q -' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: `~ CiTY ATTORNEY ~s`' CITY POLICE DEPT: ' CITY FIRE DEPT: '''~ ~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: j :: k ~:~~' ~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: `,~ - ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ,,.. , s~S ., I MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: `=*~ SANITARY SERVICES: z ai ' ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: .,~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~` SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: , , ~; ~' ~ IDAHO POWER: x~:~ ~',~ INTERMOUNTAfN GAS: OTHER: '' ~'~~ Contacted: Date: Phone: ~~~~ Emailed: Staff Initials: ;:,,I ._ ~„~H Mat®rials presented at pubec meetings shall become property of ifie CNy of Meridian. 5' ~ ~~ F r ~"-y ~.~~ ~ 4 ~ y `kt~ W ~.~ S ~+ ~ ~ u ~ ~~' ) Y ;{i ri ZZ ,.. i ~ t~~y}}~p,.z s ,. rI ~~`idS 3 ! ~ _ ~9~~. # r; ,~ r 3- ; D ~ ~~~~ ~ 7 w3 _ ~; ~~ ~~ ,~ ~F .- ~ ~~+i .'i~ T i ~~ 5•. . ~ ;fh~M~ .. - . Y~~ t;;f~ •+ t k. .~ . ~ 57C t~ ~ i r~~ r} 5 ' 3r r r . Y' g g E~ .iii ,.iy~~v .:). :~ ~ i,_ uY ~ ~ h J I t : idt~~ ~ (. ~ ~~ i i ~i r ~ ~~~ a N, . .:rl" as ~ ~ 5 _ . 1 y ~~ 4A ,F ' - ~ ~~ 1 i ~; ` December 3, 2007 RZ 07-017 ~, MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING December b, 2007 lt' APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. S ~~ '~ REQUEST Pubiic Hearing -Rezone ofi 5.29 acres from R-8 to C-G (1.62 acres) and L-O ~~•„~ zone (3.67 acres) for Verona #4 - NeC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road ~ ':3 i~ AGENCY COMMENTS °. CITY CLERK: ti~~'~ CITY ENGINEER: zY,l': CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report "``' ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~~" CITY POLICE DEPT: ~; ; I :: y: CITY FIRE DEPT: 7 i_s~{~ ` CITY BUILDING DEPT: _t s;:; ~. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comments CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~~`, • ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~~~ SANITARY SERVICES: '~ ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments 1^ ,, '~~'~; SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properry of the Ctiy of Meridian. ~ ~N' ~, i~ ;`~ ~ ~; ~ f,., s - 1 ~.~ rY? ' ~{ ~. , 1 ~ "A L „~ ~ ~ri ~ ~~pi~y ~ .. - i ? - '.t - .~. R ~~ L~ f A. ~ t L '~.~.,~ ~. n, ~ FS~. JK ~,~ ~ ~s ~ _~ i ~M~» u ~ r F TF" ~ f e ' E f"k t _. ~ I ~." ' l 5~ ~ s j Y I y ~ ~ ~S, ~ ~ a:~4 . ~ ~ y4 :i n ~Y~ {~ fP • 1 i!y ,~ i yy~ ~~ ;~ d ~ , ~ 7-`x4, • ~ j cif L b f~q,~Y ' .y,~! + ~~ ~• L ~~~ 2 • ~ L~ is ~i : .. , n ~ j '.~4 ~K~ 'i y ~ N 'a'~ f ~•~ „ ~d~~~ - - - ~. - '1~ .. .,ilR ~'>;~I~ .~;~ ^,~i ,. ~r,, :.,: r ~'~ III .. ~,~ !I~ .~' . .Y~, ~ ii • Cecember 3, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 PP 07-022 APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona #4 - NEC of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile 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 SERVIGES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE AZ PACKET COMMENTS See attached Comments See attached Gomments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CNy of Meridian. ~. ;. r ~~ YY _ ~5 ", "~ { 2 ~ ~1 ".: ~~d+ .~,. .j1"' ~ ~~ `•S~y~4f1~~ l~ ~ r5 TT ~ ~~~ ~' ~~ ~46 f> ~ - ..ti. M13' €1 t. ~;t~ tv ~€s ~ i~ ?~ ~ ; ~r~ ~y~r ,~ ..:°S o > >'~:' ,d~ t ~. :/s •v ~~, i 4 t t -$~ ~^ ~:} €` T' yGq y 1F L ~ ~5~ ''''~'-'q~ ~ - S•i _} y a~ 1 S, all N d ::` y r„• ,~•' ~~~ r ~ '.~ 4~3~ ~ ~' ~~ _~io. kyh" ,k! ~,.i~ t, t ~ ^~L~ __ nr ` _ 1 S~, v~pq~`~`y (.. }4 ~ <:; S ~. i 4~ 1~ ti" R `i ~~~~ >~ ~..7 dill '~ ~:.~ ~~. ~.~~ , ;`; .~3 December 3, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 AZ 07-018 APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. ~ ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 acres from RUT to a C-C I zone for Settler's Square Subdivision - 870 W. Ustick 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: SEA'LERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See attached Stcs~ Report No comments See attached See attached See attached OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. I~:;~ ~, . ~ }'off ~ ,.wi y ,~ a `~~ r ,~~ ' ~ r~ ~` 1 t ~S:y { i~ V' ~1~ 9 #+ak v+~ ~~„ -., a ~~SS° ~~ ~+~ n k , . c;° p <, r ,~~' .t ~.-- rc y4R~~ ',~±~: _t. . ~r i ~ ' ~ r r~+_ i 1~ ~~~ 4 ~ ~. a+s, ~.7 , ~ 1 ° a'a'~ .n -` ~, ~.~ r .a , ..; z .'y ~~ ~ 2~3 ?.°;j ~~ f ~~q t ~Y. .~^~;F ~A 1 1 ^1 ~t .~. - , E ~.,~ ' ~ '} j(M _ ~ ~i P.~ ""7'~;T ry~ :~ Y rzs <-- '`, :i (r `! ~` aa~ December 3, 2007 PP 07-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 6, 2007 APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 12 commercial building lots & 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision - 870 W. Ustick 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: SEE AZ PACKET COMMENTS MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Revised Plat Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at public meefings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. x ~ i~ ~_......_~ r ;~~n 1 ~ v~<~'K ~+ ~ `~ ..~-t$ ` 4 i f~ ~ ` `3 S ~ F,} i ~•' ~r 4t } _ s_)' _ ~: ~ ` ~~~ ~~ h .~ M}~.~ x~.~ r ~ _ ~ 4F t h ~ x ad ~ . ~ H+ .' ~ti „~~ ~ ~ ~`r . ~na~ °} <Fc ,a~~ ~ y ,~~ ~~. ~~~ e ~ _ i a4 ~ 4~ r ~~.: s ~S. :~ ~n ~ ~ . s+ t i , ~~ pry ~'3 [ F ~ C~~ - _ ~T ~~' _ _ ~,,i . te; ... .~;;_ -. r 4777..'...,. .. ._.r - _