The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 12-20o E 1DIAN*;;p-- (:�A�l R L MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 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." 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe _ X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Continue Public Hearing to February 21, 2008 5. Public Hearing: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for StarbucWs Drive-thru by Pamela Hall — Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: Continue Public Hearing to January 3, 2008 6. Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: Continue Public Hearing to January 3, 2008 7. Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: Continue Public Hearing to January 3, 2008 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 0 Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC — west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 13. Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 14. Public Hearing: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirement$) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council 15. Election of Officers for 2008: Chairman - David Moe Vice Chair — Wendy Newton-Huckabay Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • E IDIAN-- I�AH MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 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." 1. Roll -call Attendance: --- Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David MoeSteve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: b�110 1�earin_ -1-o- Feb1-retry Z'C � 5. Public Hearing: CUP 07-020 Request for Condition6f Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall — Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: This _item has been Re -No tice fCr Javi 1nu 3L� &J2 �� c �4 eeLn n -" °Jiul i lam" �'�b6' 6. Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rocklin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: C, Ini'l r✓�� ,' ec,r n� Q- 7. Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 200 AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, In — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Decembe`rl, 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. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pol Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. 13lacK C: t Koaa: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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 Sea 9le Three, LLC — 870 W. Ustick Road: Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC — west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Regtaest for Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Pinning, Inc. — 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street: Public Hearing: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning Department: l ection of Officers for 2008: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C All Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 1. 2. 3. ilen_�e 1pos (:� E IDIAN,- IDAHO r T�i 1* c N64� u MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 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." Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: 5. Public Hearing: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall — Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: (This item has been Re -Noticed for January 3, 2008) 6. Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rocklin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: 7. Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 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. 9. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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. Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: 12. Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC — west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: 13. Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street: 14. Public Hearing: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning Department: 15. Election of Officers for 2008: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Broadcast Report W Date/Time 12-17-2007 06:07:57 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Une 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5 "x11 " t+fa�Ae�-MSM-jvr �U+�Gc Nt�� ce C%W IDI, { MERIDUW PLANNING AND ZONING 6I DA 140 REGULAR MEE7INO AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. %tidwugh the City of Meridian no Jonger requires sworn testimony, aff presentations before the Mayor and Cky Coundl are expected to be truthAd and honest to hest of the ability of the presenter' t. Roil -call Attendance: Tom OBden Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 06.063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RIFT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Wattman Lane: 5. Public Hearing: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall - Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner- Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: {'phis, item_ hie_ teen Rezdlb8ci�d tot' J G. Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rocklin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 E. Lanark.- T. anark: 7. Public Hearing: CUP 07.019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rocklin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 E. Lanark: 0. Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.64 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Moddien Piarwft end Zeft Commftsdon Msaft Agenda — Decefter 2D. 2007 Page 102 A9 matedstsi presm%led at pubOc meatinga shed become property of the City of Merldlan. Anyone desdne accormrrodedon for disabritles related to dneumerb and/or heaft, Please cordatd the Clay Clerk's Moe at 8884433 at least 48 hours prksr to the publlo nesting. Total Paaes Scanned: 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 34 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 537 8989405 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:02 0/2 1 G3 HS FA12000 002 537 3810160 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:02:17 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 003 537 8989551 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 004 537 2088848723 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:43 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 005 537 8886854 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:27 2/2 1 JEC HS CP31200 006 537 2088985501 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 537 8467366 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 f F Q ' r V, 3 a, A. No. Job Remote Station StartTlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 537 8950390 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 009 537 208 888 2682 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 010 537 208 387 6393 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:54 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 011 537 2877909 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 012 537 2088885052 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 013 537 8881983 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 014 537 2083776449 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:55 2/2 1 EC HS C1314400 015 537 4679562 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 016 537 8886700 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 017 537 8884022 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 018 537 3886924 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:55 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 019 537 8841159 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 020 537 8840744 05:41:50 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 JEC IHS CP26400 Kj i @ � i y r v { Oki q t qui , }' d h i t1L' t iG t 5j IW Broadcast Report Date/Time 12-17-2007 05:47:44 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5 "x11 n MayorTammy de fterd E IDIAN,�-- `ky `" Ken Bird Joe Sorton Charles Rountree 1 D A W 0 David Zaremba CITY OF MERIDIAN PUSUC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT / NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hail, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2007, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application ZOA 07-002 of City of Meridian Planning Department for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions In Chapter 3. Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found In Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment. More particular descriptions of the above Information ars on Ole In the Planning Department, 680 East Watsrtower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Copies of the above applications are available upon request Any and all Interested persons shall be heard at sold public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be fimfted to three (3) minutes per parson. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all Interested parties may mmmins them prior to the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 72 flours prior to the public meeting. DATED this 17"' day of December, 2007. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Pass t d i Total Pages Scanned: 1 Total Pages Confirmed: 24 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 535 3810160 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:01:06 1/1 1 EC HS CP9600 002 535 8989551 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:18 1/1 1 EC HS CP19200 003 535 2088848723 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:16 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 004 535 8886854 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:16 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 005 535 2088985501 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 006 535 8467366 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS ICP28800 007 535 8950390 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:16 1/1 1 EC HS ICP33600 'w Broadcast Report '® Date/Time 12-17-2007 05:47:53 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 535 208 888 2682 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 009 535 208 387 6393 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:30 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 010 535 2877909 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 ill 1 EC HS CP28800 011 535 2088885052 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 012 535 8881983 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:16 1/1 1 EC HS CP24000 013 1535 2083776449 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:29 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 014 535 4679562 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 015 535 8886700 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 O/1 1 -- HS FA 016 535 8884022 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 -- HS FA 017 535 3886924 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:30 1/1 1 EC IHS CP14400 018 535 8841159 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 019 1535 18840744 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC HS CP26400 020 535 208 336 3736 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP33600 021 535 208-947-9736 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:39 1/1 1 G3 HS CP14400 022 535 3759248 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 -- HS FA 023 535 3344080 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 G3 IHS FA 024 535 2084722211 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP26400 025 535 2083737245 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 026 535 3816681 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 -- HS FA 027 535 208 3757770 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:51 1/1 1 G3 HS CP14400 028 535 2084676958 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC HS CP26400 029 1535 15773319 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:00 O/1 1 -- HS FA 030 1535 3448677 05:02:46 p.m. 12-17-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 JEC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct I 14W Broadcast Report 141111111F I Date/Time 11-21-2007 06:29:57 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088684218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " MalwTammydeWeerd City Council Membem ERI! CKeith Bird Joe Baton �W, Charles Rountree ! D �► HV*r-, David Zaremba CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT f NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Marddion City Halt, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2007, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application ZOA 07.002 of City of Meridian Planning Department for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found In Chapter 1, Article A. More particular descriptions of the above Information are on file in the Planning Department, 080 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Marldlen, Idaho and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of the above applications are available upon request. Any and all Interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public Is welcome and Invited to submit testimony. Orel testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all Interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for dlsabiUtias related to documents and(or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public meeting. DATED this 21" day of November, 2007. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERIC Pegs 5 ar t Total Pages Scanned: 1 Total Pages Confirmed: 26 No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 456 3810160 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:01:04 1/1 1 EC HS CP9600 002 456 8989551 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:00:17 1/1 1 EC HS CP19200 003 456 2088848723 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 004 456 8886854 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 005 456 2088985501 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 006 456 8467366 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 007 456 18950390 05:35:15 p.m. 11 —21-2007 00:00:12 1/1 1 EC IHS CP33600 Broadcast Report Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 456 208 888 2682 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 009 456 208 387 6393 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:29 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 010 456 2877909 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 011 456 2088885052 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 012 456 8881983 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC IHS CP24000 013 456 2083776449 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:29 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 014 456 4679562 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP20800 015 456 8886700 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 -- HS FA 016 456 8884022 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:53 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 017 456 3886924 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:15 111 1 EC HS CP28800 018 456 8841159 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 019 456 8840744 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:13 1/1 1 EC IHS CP28800 020 456 208 336 3736 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:13 1 / 1 1 EC IHS CP33600 021 456 208-947-9736 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:39 111 1 G3 HS CP74400 022 456 3759248 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 -- HS FA 023 456 3344080 05:35: 15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:00 0/1 1 G3 HS FA 024 456 2084722211 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:20 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 025 1456 12083737245 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:14 1/1 1 EC HS CP28800 026 456 208 381 6681 05:35:15 p.m. 11-21-2007 00:00:19 1/1 1 Et IHS CP28800 027 456 2083757770 05: 35: 15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:50 1/1 1 G3 IHS ICP14400 028 456 2084676958 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:15 1/1 1 EC HS ICP26400 029 456 5773319 05:35:15 p.m. 11 -21-2007 00:00:18 1/1 1 EC IHS ICP21600 MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed FA: Fail TU: Terminated by user TS: Terminated by system RP: Report • E December 17, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Meridian City Planning Department ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Election of Officers for 2008: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 20, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 20, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Steve Siddoway and Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckling and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with roll call of attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The adoption of the agenda is the first item on the agenda and we have got a number of changes this evening and there is several projects that won't be heard tonight. What I will do is I will read them off as they will be continued and, then, we will move forward from there. The first one, the Waltman Property project, AZ 06-063, will be opened only to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 21st, 2008. Item No. 5, the Starbucks Drive-thru, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 3rd, 2008. Items 6 and 7, Rockin KB Saloon will both be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting on January 3rd. And Item No. 12, the Selway Apartments, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Eight. The balance of the agenda will be as posted. So, with those changes could I get a motion to accept the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the adjusted agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 43 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-063 for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the February 21 st, 2008, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-063 to the February 21 st, 2008, meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall — Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner -Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: (This Item has been Re -Noticed for January 3, 2008) Rohm: At this time I'd like to open CUP 07-020 for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 3rd, 2008. Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 07-020 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 3rd, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 3 of 43 Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan — 3163 E. Lanark: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019 for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 3rd, 2008. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 3rd, 2008. O'Brien: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded on RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Got through that formality. Now, at this -- before we open this next Public Hearing, basically, the process that we go through, once we open a Public Hearing, is we will take the staff report first. What they do is they will present the project as it adheres to the UDC, Unified Development Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. Once the staff has presented the project, then, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been made, then, we will open it up to the audience to present their position. The applicant, then, has an opportunity to respond to any questions brought up by opposing individuals from the audience. It's not open to debate after that. They respond to any questions and once it's -- that's taken place, then, we will close the Public Hearing and if we have got enough information we will move the project forward to the City Council with their recommendation for acceptance or denial. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 4 of 43 Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low -Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, both items related to the Belhaven Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On October 4, 2007, the Belhaven annexation and preliminary plat was presented to Commission for review. At that hearing Paul Poorman testified the applicant would be connecting their property to city services without the out parcel annexing into the city and it came to the Commission's attention that the existing leach field was located within the proposed development. The Commission elected to continue these items to allow the applicant time to resolve the issue. Since that time the applicant has submitted a revised plat and landscaping plan for tonight's review. Staff has updated the staff report regarding the revised plat, landscape plan, and Public Works comments for future service connections to the Poorman property. Just for a quick overview. The subject property is located at 55230 North Black Cat Road on the east side of North Black Cat and approximately a quarter mile north of McMillan Road and south of the approved Volterra Subdivision. Here is the approved Volterra Subdivision. If you remember, too, the front portion of the development was also an existing tree farm and the Commission had some concerns with mitigation for those trees, so we worked with the applicant to try to work those issues out as well. Now, onto the plat. The applicant, again, is requesting annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval for 16 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 6.84 acres of land. This has not changed from the previous Commission hearing. New changes to the plat include shortening of the cul-de- sac with the addition of a lot, a small increase in lot sizes and the expansion of a common lot more centrally located within the proposed development. So, the top map is the old plat that we reviewed on October 4th. If you remember at that time we have asked -- we had -- we suggested that the applicant shorten this cul- de-sac, which they have on the new plat, which has allowed them to create an additional lot. Now, they haven't increased the total number of lots, they have 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 5 of 43 just created a lot here and by moving this cul-de-sac here, instead of having more open space here, they moved their open space more centrally located to the development and that gave them an opportunity to put a lot here and also add this connection to the multi -use pathway within the development. New changes to the landscape plan include a 95 foot pathway extension between lots four and five of Block 3 and expansion of a common lot to accommodate some of the mature trees on the site, with a loop pathway that connects to the proposed pathway adjacent to Settler's canal. The applicant is also proposing to plant a minimum two trees along the northern boundary of the buildable lots to remedy the requirements of the trees along the pathway running adjacent to Settler's canal easement. Staff is also requiring additional trees be placed along the pathway between Lots 4 and 5 of Block 3 and within common Lot 5 east of Lot 4 and north of Lot 6, Block 1. In addition, staff would like to see the retention of some mature trees on those lots in the location of the tree farm. Staff has made these requirements conditions of approval in the staff report. So, to kind of refresh you, here is the added connection of a pathway, the 95 foot pathway. On the submitted landscaping plan they do not show any trees along there and UDC requires that there should be a minimum of five foot with buffers with trees along -- planted along pathways. If you also recall at the time when we -- on the 4th -- the hearing of the 4th, there were some areas up here that the applicant could plant trees outside of that easement, but not located on the lot. Well, with the new plat the applicant has extended these lot boundaries to be right along the Settler's canal easement, so what the applicant's proposing to do is to plant two trees along that northern boundary to try to mitigate for that code requirement and staff is in approval of that. And here is a common open space. They are proposing to retain some of the mature trees. Staff would also like to see some of those mature trees remain in this location as well. Staffs aware that the applicant doesn't own the trees, but possibly he could work out something with the Poormans that would allow those trees -- some of those mature trees to remain on those parcels when he comes in and develops the site. And, then, also there is some vacant spots, open spaces here that would allow for additional trees to be planted and staffs conditioned that as well. And that's all staff has and that concludes my presentation. If you -- be happy to answer any questions Commission may have of me. Rohm: Thanks, Bill. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Bill, just kind of going through things, the owners of the property to the south, I assume they will be hooking up to the city services, then? ® 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 6 of 43 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, we have conditioned the applicant to stub to that property and, then, whenever they go to final plat, those lots, where ever the leach field is located, then, they will have to severe the ties with that -- the Poormans will have to relocate the leach field. Moe: I can ask the applicant, but as far as fencing along that -- along that northern border, has that been decided what they are going to put in there? Parsons: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, yeah, they will address that tonight. Moe: Good enough. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Bill did you -- in the area near the entrance where you said staff is wanting the applicant to maintain some of the existing mature trees, but they don't -- they don't own the trees, I'm just wondering how is that condition worded? Is it possible -- is there a -- is there an issue there if the owner of the trees doesn't let them maintain those? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, one thing that the applicant -- he will stand up and kind of give an option B with that. If the Poormans don't allow that to happen, then, the applicant is going to propose some additional plantings. Siddoway: I will wait for the presentation, then. Parsons: Thank you. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street, Suite 101, Eagle, Idaho. Thanks for the opportunity to come back and present this. I believe we have everything worked out. We have had several meetings with staff and my client has had several meetings with Poormans to try to work out the issues with the septic system and the bottom line is the -- per the city requirement and the condition the septic system will be shut off at final platting. The Poormans have an option of working with Central District Health and relocating that drain field or they would have to request annexation or remedied through the city as far as hooking up to the sewer if they cannot get a new drain field. We are required, per the contract with my client and the Poormans, to hook them up to the sewer once it -- once it's time. And so that was one of the clarifications I wanted to have and, hopefully, you have received my e-mail that I sent to the clerk yesterday, just clarifying that we were not 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 7 of 43 necessarily going to hook them up to sewer at final platting, but, rather, when -- when the time is right, when it's necessary. And that's per the contract with the client and -- with my client and the Poormans. Does make sense or -- I can clarify that if you need to. Siddoway: I don't know if I can jump in with a question, but I wasn't here at the October 4th meeting, so I -- is the Poorman property the one that's just to the south there? Nickel: That's correct. Siddoway: And the issue is that their drain field sits on your property? Nickel: Their drain field sits right about here -- Siddoway: Okay. Nickel: -- over onto our property and we later found out that we cannot have that. We tried some options on putting common area around there and what ultimately came up with with your staff is that we are going to have to remove that drain field -- Siddoway: The drain field. Nickel: -- when we plat. At least that's what our intentions are. Now, as far as how the Poormans get their -- you know, whether they can get another drain field, that's up to them to work with Central District Health. We are required by contract to hook them up to sewer if that is the option that they -- that they go once the city sewer is available. Siddoway: So, they will have the option of building their own drain field or have you connect them to city sewer, which would require them to annex also? Nickel: That is correct. Siddoway: Thank you. Nickel: And, then, the only other issue was with regards -- and, Commissioner Siddoway, you hit it right on the head with the issue of the trees. My client does not own the trees, they are owned by the Poormans, who own both properties and they had a tree farm. So, the contract that my client has with the Poormans is that the Poormans retain ownership of those trees. Now, the Poormans are going to do what they can with as many of the trees as they can and they may or may not leave trees where they are at or -- we don't know what their intentions ® 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 8 of 43 are right now. We'd love to keep as many of the trees on the property as we can and that's something that's going to be worked out. However, I do not want to have a condition of approval stating that we have to retain those trees, because we have no control over the trees. Again, it's our intention, we'd love to keep as many as we can, I think we probably will, but I just don't want to condition specifically requiring us to. So, if you look at that condition that's proposed, condition 1-2-2 of Exhibit B, where staff is requiring us to retain four mature trees on Lots 1 through 3 and Lots 1 through 4, again, if we can do that, we would love to, but I don't want that as a condition and, then, at the bottom of my letter I have stated a suggested condition for mitigation or replacement in the event that we don't keep those mature trees and so -- and that's open to, I guess, discussion tonight. What I have suggested is replacement could be six two inch caliper trees per each of the four mature trees removed if they are removed. Siddoway: Say that again. It's what? Nickel: It's a suggestion of six two inch caliper trees would be required for us to mitigate for every mature tree that is removed of those four trees that staff is wanting to keep. Siddoway: Okay. Nickel: So, if that makes sense. Siddoway: So, either you maintain the four trees staff asked for or if you're not able to meet that condition -- Nickel: We can mitigate. Siddoway: -- you would do six two inch caliper trees per tree that's removed. Nickel: Per those four trees. Siddoway: Up to 24 two inch caliper trees. Okay. And those would be placed on the lots? Nickel: I don't know what -- if staffs intention was to have those on those -- I guess it is, according to the condition, he's saying retain those four mature trees on lots 1 through 3, Block 2 and Lot 1 through 4, Block 1. So, I would imagine we would spread those out on those -- on those lots. Siddoway: Okay. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 9 of 43 Nickel: Everything else we are in agreement with, including adding those -- modifying that pathway, making it wide enough and adding those trees along the pathway as discussed and those additional trees that staff had indicated that they wanted around that pathway and I believe we are in -- we are in support of Public Works requirements that they have indicated. So, with that I'll stand for questions. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Shawn, fencing. Nickel: Fencing. The proposal is to have open wrought iron fencing along the north area -- that area. Okay. And a privacy solid six foot cedar fence around the Poormans boundary. And we are still -- we are still unclear on -- we are still unclear on the fence along the south boundary along the road. Keep in mind that that is a -- that is a half plus road, so the right of way goes right to the property line. Our intentions are to get a license agreement from ACHD to place a fence along that. I don't see a problem with that and I believe that is a condition of approval. Moe: Yeah. And what will that fencing be if that happens? Nickel: That will be a six foot solid cedar as well. And the intent -- the intent there is when those properties to the south develop that will be the way the road will be improved and -- Moe: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. There is some -- I don't know if it's some additional concerns, if you have anything to add to the encroachment that the easements will induce along the north and east sides that might affect the lots or the homeowners there. Is there still an issue outstanding? Nickel: No, Commissioner, and that's one reason we wanted to -- can you put up the landscape plan again, Bill, please. That's one reason we wanted to have those trees outside of that, so the lot -- the lot lines on the north are still -- still short of the -- of our north property line. We are still recognizing the easement and it is on its own separate lot along the north boundary. Lot lines fall short. But all of our trees are going to be within the buildable lots in a landscape easement for consistency, so they will all be in line and those will be placed in -- 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 10 of 43 so they will be outside of the irrigation easement within the buildable lots spaced appropriately. O'Brien: One further question, please. On the -- the Black Cat trunk -- sewer trunk lift station, how is that going to enter into the subdivision here and what affect may it have on tree positioning when that goes in? It's not scheduled to go in until 2008, but I also understand it's not being funded yet, so it seems like there is some things that are up in the air, according to what I have read. Nickel: I'll let Public Works address that, because I believe it is funded by the developers. Steckling: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, can I get a little more clarification on what your question as far placement and the trees? The routing of the North Black Cat is Black Cat Road. O'Brien: Well, let me see where I am here. Steckling: And as far as capacity for the stationwise, there -- with the Jaykers folks and with Tree Farm we have conditioned until all the upgrades and plant upgrades are in, we are not receiving anything and the applicant's also aware of that. O'Brien: So, it says it's planned to be constructed in April 2008, the trunk to be installed in Black Cat would flow to the lift station is not funded at this time and it's being planned by the development and to be development driven. So, I guess when your development starts to go, then, it would be funded; is that what I understand this to read? Steckling: Is that a Public Works condition or is that a condition that's also in -- that Bill typed up? O'Brien: Let's see. It's under land used. It was on page three of the documentation that I saw -- let's see. I don't know what page -- yeah. Page three on Public Works number one. I'll read it if you can't find -- the issues or concerns, according to staff was that this property is currently not sewerable. This property is in the north Black Cat shed. A regional lift station is being designed to sewer the area. It is planned to be constructed by 2008. The trunk to be installed in Black Cat would flow to this lift station. It is not funded at this time, but it's certainly being planned to be developed -- development driven. So, I assume with that that when you start development after the April 2008 it will be funded, then, and installed, but will that have any effect on the trees, I guess, is my question, where that comes into the development area what effect will that have on -- on this plan? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 11 of 43 Nickel: I don't believe that the sewer extension is going to have an effect, other than when it comes into -- when it comes into our property from Black Cat and we will build that line, obviously, trees are going to be removed when we grade out that road and put in the services. O'Brien: And, then, you will connect up to the -- Nickel: And, then, we will connect up to the trunk line that's in Black Cat. O'Brien: And to the other property? Nickel: Yes. And the plan for the other property is to have a stub, I believe, from this area right here. O'Brien: Okay. Nickel: That's what we are proposing. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Nickel: Okay. Steckling: Mr. Chair, also a little clarification. This report was actually written the Jaykers folks came in, so now that the Jaykers folks have came in and we have proposed and accepted that development to the north, the sewer and the water line have actually been precon'd and also under construction at this point in time. This is just kind of an after fact. I apologize for not being up on my own comments. O'Brien: Yeah. It was confusing. I just wondered where we were with that. Thank you very much. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have one more. Shawn, I just -- a point of classification for me in regards to the six trees for every one of the four that if, in fact, they can't be retained. You're speaking of 24 trees, then, right, if all four were gone. Nickel: Correct. Moe: Thank you. Nickel: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Paul Poorman. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 12 of 43 Poorman: Paul Poorman, 5230 North Black Cat Road. And, Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, had a few comments on this subdivision. First of all, I'd like to say that it is a lot better than the first one. We like the changes that the Belhaven folks have done to -- to change this. I did want to clarify a couple of misconceptions. One is that we will -- our plan is to not connect up to the sewer and when we sold the land that had our septic system on it, we didn't realize that we would also have to hook up to the water and we didn't realize that it would mean that we would be annexed. So, just to let everybody know, our house is heated with a ground water heat pump, that means it pulls water from the ground and discharges into an injection well and if we use city water for that, the use would be prohibitive, both in the winter and the summer. I thought that we actually had an easement on the -- for our septic system for the one parcel to the other parcel, but, unfortunately, the -- when I refinanced it the easement hadn't been recorded, so at this point we have applied for a drain field relocation permit and we are planning to soon dig a new drain field that will be completely contained within our property. It will probably be in this area right here. Regarding the trees, Don Roberts and I have talked a little bit about this and we have offered to relinquish ownership of any and all the trees that stay on the property, whether they are moved or whether they stay on the property. Our original contract was not to retain ownership of all the mature trees that couldn't be moved, it was only to discuss the trees that could be moved and we wanted to be able sell those if they were going to be moved off the property and so I guess I'd like to ask that this be made a condition. And Don and I can sign a contract or I can relieve him of the ownership responsibility, if that's what he would like to see. But we would like to consider that the retention of the trees be a condition of the approval. So, that's pretty much all I had to say and if there is any questions I can stay here. Rohm: I just have a comment, sir. I don't think annexation of your property into the city has anything to do with your injection well and your heating system. I understand how a ground source heat pump works and whether you're part of the city or not, your heat pump system -- I think you will be able to operate it regardless of whether you're annexed or not. And I'm not suggesting that you go that route, that you apply for annexation, but your heat pump system is going to work the same with your injection well just as it does now. Poorman: Thank you, sir. I understand that the system would work the same. The problem is the amount of the water that's used and the requirement that we would have to hook up to the city water. Rohm: Your heating system wouldn't have to use that city water. You can use your existing well just as you are currently for your heat system and your potable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 13 of 43 water, if you will, would be the only part that would be hooked up to the city. Your -- your HVAC system, you can leave it just as it is now. Poorman: So, the only problem with that is it would mean that we would have to tear up the basement walls and break into T'ing the system that's buried down inside the house. Baird: Mr. Chair, I might suggest that these are matters outside the current application and they can be worked out -- Rohm: And I apologize, I just wanted to let you know that your heating system is going to work fine, but your application's outside of this application will take it's -- on it's life. Poorman: Okay. Siddoway: Question, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify that you are -- you are supportive of the staff condition to retain the mature trees; is that what I -- Poorman: Yes. I think that staff had asked that some of the mature -- that the mature trees be retained as a condition of approval and I'm in favor of that, yes. Siddoway: Okay. Poorman: And so any tree -- what I have said is that any tree that stays on the property, whether it says in the current place that it's at or gets moved, I will -- even though I officially own them, I'll let the applicants have those trees free of charge. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. That is all that have signed up to testify tonight. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and offer testimony at this time? Thank you. Yes, Shawn, would you like to come back up. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. So, if I -- and that's good news from Mr. Poorman that it sounds like they are going to -- they are going to work something out with the trees. Again, if we are going to make it a condition of approval, it needs to be as flexible as possible, because we don't know until we get in there which trees are going to have to be removed. So, I don't know how we want to word it. You know, the applicant's required to retain as many trees as possible. I just don't want to get down to every last little detail and especially since we don't have -- we still don't have control over those trees per their -- their contract with each other. You understand what I'm asking? But Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 14 of 43 it does sound like they are going to work it out and we will be able to keep a lot of those trees. So, I'll kind of leave it to you guys to kind of work out, but it sounds like that's going to work. Rohm: Thank you. Nickel: Thanks. Rohm: Any further discussion amongst the Commission before we close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Just a question for Scott, if I may. The -- I just wanted to make sure that Public Works satisfaction is the issue of the drain field and the sewer. The reason why this was continued last time, is that resolved to staffs satisfaction? Steckling: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, I think at this time it is. I think what it is is it's a course of events that's going to have to play out. There are definitely a couple of decisioning factors that need to be made. Once that seepage bed or drain field is discontinued, he's correct, Mr. Poorman, to contact Central District Health -- it is my understanding that once they contact Central District Health that they will contact us and since there is services readily available, that that would require them to connect to city services. I also believe that the applicant has fulfilled his end of the purchase agreement for stubbing sewer and water to their property and, then, also the chairman's correct, they could -- Mr. Poorman could continue to use the injection well for heating, but like Mr. Baird said, that isn't part of this application. But as far as Public Works concerns are addressed for this application I think we are satisfied. Hopefully I didn't confuse you any further. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 15 of 43 Rohm: Discussion. Commissioner Moe, do you have any last comments on this application? Moe: Oh, I think the applicant's come back, you know, with the issues taken care of and I do appreciate that. They were a little bit undone the last time, so the time was well spent to take care of it. I guess I'm kind of confused still in regards to this tree issue. Basically, what I just as soon see happen is as the applicant had already discussed, the -- if, in fact, they weren't able to take the trees that staff was looking for, that they plant six two inch caliper trees per each one of those four trees that they weren't able to keep, I'd just as soon see that be part of a motion and call it good and if, in fact, they are able to work it out and they safe more, that's even that much better. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. I think that the verbiage offered up by the applicant is appropriate. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I agree. I'm fine with adding the applicant's language to the condition. We have already heard the person who owns the trees testify that he's going to allow those to stay, so I'd just state for the record that it's my preference that that get worked out, that the mature trees stay, but if that's not able to happen, I'm fine with the proposed alternative. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I have nothing to add. Rohm: Thank you. I think all of you have done a good good job addressing the issues that this was continued for and I see no reason to keep from moving it forward. At this time could I get a motion to move this item forward to City Council? Newton-Huckabay: I'll do it. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2007, continued from October 4th, 2007, with the following modifications to the condition of approval. Condition of approval 1.2.2, it will be added that the e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 16 of 43 applicant agrees that if the four mature trees are not retained, he will mitigate those four trees with a reasonable replacement of six two inch caliper trees per each of the four mature trees removed. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of files number AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: 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: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing AZ 07-018 and PP 07- 024 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of 10.18 acres from RUT, Ada County, to community business C -C, but community business district and preliminary plat approval of 14 lots consisting of 12 commercial lots and two other lots for the Setter's Square project. The site is located on the northwest comer of Ustick and Venable Lane. The property is bordered on the north by Woodburn Subdivision, zoned R-8. To south is the Crossfield North No. 4 Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the west is a single family residence zoned RUT Ada County. And to the east are the Cedar Springs commercial development, zoned C -N. A single family home and two outbuildings exist on the site and will be removed to make way for the proposed commercial development. The applicant is requesting approval of 14 lots, consisting of 12 commercial lots and two other lots. On the submitted plat the applicant has depicted two public streets that will provide access and interconnectivity for the proposed development. So, here is north and south, east and west. The public streets are to provide north -south access to Ustick Road and the residents to the north and east -west access to Venable Lane through the development and to the currently underdeveloped property to the west. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has also submitted a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 17 of 43 conceptual site plan of how this site may be developed with a mix of retail, boutiques, personal service shops, office uses, financial institutions, restaurants and a day care center. The total -- the square footages of the buildings are expected to range in between 3,720 square feet and 15,140 square feet. Total square footage at the build out is estimated at 90,000 square feet. The concept plan also illustrates the pedestrian feel of the development by providing outdoor seating areas for future patrons and the proposed buildings are tied together with decorative concrete pathways providing excellent pedestrian connectivity. Similar required parking is also located adjacent to the wide pedestrian corridors lined with trees that add to the pedestrian ambience of the development. So, here is where they are proposing on -street parking spots. These are wider pathways or areas for patrons to sit and relax on a warm summers night. Here is kind of some plaza areas that they are proposing to do as well and you can see the decorative features of the stamped concrete and how it's interrelated throughout the development up and down the public streets and connect to here. Connects each building together. The total landscape area for the site is 21 percent, which is considerably more than the ten percent open space the UDC requires for residential subdivisions of equal size. If the subject annexation and zoning application is approved, the applicant shall be responsible for constructing a 25 foot landscape buffer along Ustick Road and an 20 foot landscape buffer along Venable Lane. Where the commercial property is contiguous with the residential zoned property, the applicant shall provide a minimum of 25 foot landscape buffer. The applicant has been conditioned as such to meet these landscape requirements. So, again, 20, 25 along Ustick, 20 along Venable, residential properties to the north and this is a single family residence, so that's going to require an additional 25 feet. As shown on the concept plan, there is a potential for 11 buildings to be constructed on the site. The applicant has submitted a conceptual streetscape for the proposed development. The conceptual streetscape reflects three different buildings with similar architectural elements and accents. Each of the facades of the buildings shall have substantial glazing with brick accent and pilasters and metal canopies to provide shade and sitting areas for future patrons. Another elevation details some of the architectural elements, some of the incorporated flat and pitched roofs into the design with building materials varying from wood lap siding and stucco with brick veneer pilasters adding articulation to the facade of the building. The largest of the three buildings, which is in the back here and also shown on here -- excuse me -- uses the same building materials, but features a substantial portico scale of the size of the building and constructed with the same materials as the building. Staff believes that the massing and scale of the proposed buildings is appropriate to the development of this site. Staff is supportive of these building elevations and building materials and future building shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and preliminary plat with • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 18 of 43 conditions stated in the staff report. This concludes my presentation. I stand for any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Moe: I have none. Siddoway: Just one for clarification. And I believe you just said this, but just so that I'm clear, you did -- the requirement for the architectural articulation that you just described is part of the conditions for this application; is that correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, that's correct. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come foreword, please. Christy: Good evening. For the record, my name is Allen Christy. I'm a planner with Treasure Valley Engineers. My work address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. I'm working as a representative for the applicant and tonight we are just asking for recommendation of approval of the annexation, rezone, preliminary plat and alternative compliance. I agree with the staff report and the conditions provided in there and I will stand for any questions right now. Rohm: Boy, that's pretty simple. Moe: You're making it way too easy. Christy: I hope so. Rohm: Any questions for the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just have one or it's probably more of a comment than anything. I realize that's somewhat conceptual right there. Any concerns on the -- your northeastern building there with a drive-thru facing to where you'd be shining into the residents over there on the east side? Newton-Huckabay: That's commercial. Moe: On the east side it? Rohm: That's a Chevron station. Moe: Well, forget that question, then. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 19 of 43 Rudeen: I'm David Rudeen with Rudeen and Associates. That back building that is depicting a child center, so that's a drop off. It's not really a drive-thru. Moe: Works for me. Rudeen: Simple answer. Rohm: Very good. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Although I think that the proposed design and architecture is very very nice, it's substantially different than the architecture and look of the commercial development immediately to the east, which uses more of the stone -- what's the word? The stone and wood and more of a rustic look than a -- this type of look and I was wondering if something might be done to make it look a little more of a cohesive development potentially, because there is a -- to me there is a very stark difference and -- although it's very very nice. Does anyone -- other Commissioners have concern there? Rohm: I hadn't even noticed. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the other question I have is the public street that stubs to -- that comes out on Ustick to the south, that doesn't actually line up with the Crossfield road. Does it line up to the entrance to Crossfield? Christy: If my memory serves me correct, it does not line up. The road I believe you're talking about is further to the west. Newton-Huckabay: West. Christy: And that would have required -- we just don't own the property far enough to the west for us to get a road in there to line up with that. We have done some extensive work with ACHD to get the road location for the entrance where it's at now. Newton-Huckabay: I don't like where the road entrance is and you have got Venable, the entrance into the other one, and that one and, then, you're going to have another access to the south, but I guess I can't change that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 20 of 43 Christy: There is a condition placed on ACHD with the understanding that in the future that our access off of Ustick could be a right -in and right -out. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I missed that. I just have -- the only concern was just I think there was substantially different in look and architecture and I would kind of like to see them a little -- I wouldn't necessarily recommend the whole rustic look, but maybe some stone or -- Moe: Just to kind of go with that, if you look at their site compared to the site you're speaking of right there, I think what you're going to see is that's -- this site is going to take over the look of that whole area right there. I don't think you're going to see it. It isn't going to be a noticeable. Newton-Huckabay: You don't think so? Moe: I don't think so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: I love this development. Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, I love the look. Like I said, I don't think -- I think it's a very attractive development and I would be interested to see it come together, so -- if I have no support I won't push it. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? O'Brien: None from me. Siddoway: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. At this time could I get a -- there is nobody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-018 and PP 07-024. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. 11 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 21 of 43 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-018 and PP 07- 024 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2007. No modifications. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-018 and PP 07-024, to include all staff comments, with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC — west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open RZ 07-020 for the Selway apartment project for the sole purpose of continuing this to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item RZ 07-020 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in 0 S Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 22 of 43 the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PFP 07-004 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting a combined preliminary/final plat for three residential lots with a shared common driveway on 0.59 acres. The proposed project is a re- subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1, within the Blackstone Subdivision, formerly known as the English Gardens Subdivision. The subject site is located at 47 West Aspen Creek Street on the southeast comer of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The property is bordered on the north by Mill Iron Place Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the west are single family residences, zoned RUT, Ada County. And to the east is the Blackstone Subdivision, zoned R-4. The site is currently a vacant single family residential lot being used as a storage lot within the existing residential subdivision. So, right now it's just a vacant lot with a bunch of trailers and debris in there being stored. The proposed plats illustrate three building lots ranging in size from 8,546 square feet to 8,604 square feet. All lots meet the dimensional requirements of the R-4 zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan density range of three to eight dwelling units to the acre. Access to the site will be provided from a public street to and from West Aspen Creek Street, which was along here, by a shared driveway. So, here you have your three -- here is your shared driveway into the development off of Aspen Creek. Lots 1, 2, and 3. Again, they are all meeting the dimensional requirements of the UDC. The UDC does not require additional open space and site amenities for a development of this size. However, the applicant will be responsible for providing a minimum of five foot perimeter landscape buffer along the interior lot lines adjacent to the common driveway with trees and groundcover. So, on the submitted landscaping plan, the applicant has not shown that -- the five foot landscape buffers along this common driveway. Here is kind of the site plan. You can see the houses on the lots and how they are situated, how they are oriented on there. The applicant will be required to have 20 by 20 foot pads and two additional parking -- garage car parks and a drainage swale for the common driveways proposed here. The applicant has provided staff with elevations for this project. Staff likes the appearance of the conceptual elevations shown in Exhibit A. The features that staff approves of are the gable roof lines facing the street, vertical siding, the covered porches and the brick veneer accents on the front facades. The applicant should construct homes on the site that contain the above- mentioned design features. One thing to note is this picture here shows vinyl siding. Staff has conditioned that no vinyl siding be used within the proposed development. While preparing this report staff realized that the gross density of the project does not conform to the maximum allowed density in the R-4 zone. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 23 of 43 The subject project contains a gross density of 5.1 dwelling units to the acre and the maximum density allowed in the R-4 zone is four dwelling units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential only serves as a guide for future residential development. The zoning district dictates the density, uses, and dimensional standards for individual sites. Except for the gross density, the proposed project does comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. Therefore, staff is not recommending denial of the project, but is recommending the applicant modify the proposed preliminary plat to reflect two residential lot, instead of three. If a lot is removed, the gross density for the project would decrease from 5.1 dwelling units to the acre to 3.4 dwelling units to the acre. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat provided that only two residential lots are allowed. Further, staff recommends denial of the final plat associated with Blackstone No. 2. This concludes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Bill, I need you to walk me through the density thing for just a minute. The proposed three lots meet the -- they all meet the minimum lot size of the proposed R-4 zone? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct, they do meet the minimum 8,000 square foot standard. Siddoway: Okay. And they are within the three to eight dwelling units per acre per the Comp Plan. So, the standard that they are not meeting is -- is the density dictated by the zone? Parsons: By the R-4 zoning, yes. R-4 -- the code requires a maximum of four dwelling units to the acre and their proposed development is at 5.1. Siddoway: What has me perplexed is that they meet the minimum lot size of the zone and yet they exceed the density. I'll mull that over while the applicant makes his presentation. Rohm: That's probably a pretty good place to leave that. So, at this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Richio: Okay. Before I begin, if I may hand out some late exhibits to the Commissioners. Rohm: Please state your name and address for the record. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 24 of 43 Richio: Absolutely. Lenny Richio with Landmark Engineering, 332 North Broadmore Way and I haven't been sworn in. Baird: Just tell the truth. Rohm: Yeah. But it says right here at the top, it says we expect you to tell the truth. Richio: All right. Baird: To the best of your ability. Richio: Okay. Well, as I mentioned, my name is Lenny Richio, I'm with Landmark Engineering and Planning and I'm out here on behalf of Projects West, Incorporation. And they are the original developers of Blackstone, the original Blackstone, and right in front of you tonight is just a replat of a lot that was left out based upon future -- for future development. Right now what's in front of you is a subdivision that's a little more than only a half an acre We are requesting three residential lots and the reason why we are doing that is because three residential lots makes this project work. It's very feasible with three residential lots as proposed. In addition to that, as staff has stated, we are in compliance with the zoning, minimum lot sizes, setbacks, frontage, depth, common drive. And in front of you tonight, just like to reiterate that this is the same developer that developed blackstone number one and if I may I'd like to tell you a little bit of the lot history of this project. Originally, when Blackstone No. 1 was platted, the developer of the project, Wes, incorporation, saw this site as a future development for a commercial site and that's the reason that we are in front of you tonight, is because originally this site was meant for commercial use. That was the best use of the lot, in the developer's opinion and after this subdivision was platted, he was in negotiations with the abutting parcel owner, which still at this time is not annexed into the city. Those negotiations fell through. The future land use map was changed a couple of times, about two times, and the city never envisioned the area as being a commercial site. So, as a result of those two reasons, I'm in front of you tonight proposing a residential subdivision for three lots. I appreciate the time that staff took in reviewing this. Appreciate the time that they took in meeting with us last Friday. I understand where they are coming from regarding their -- regarding the density, but I'd also like to state that we believe that the density of this subdivision is in accordance with what's out there right now. The conceptual elevations that were -- that are in front of you, those pictures are of existing homes that are in Blackstone No. 1. Those homes are going to be able to be placed on this site. We are trying -- we are making this site to be consistent with the existing site, the existing project of Blackstone No. 1. In addition to that, all living space and everything else for the zoning will be met. In front of you I have an exhibit, it's 11 by 17, showing what's going -- what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 25 of 43 exactly is going on in the area and, originally, if this was not a platted lot, there would be dedications required. Landscape dedications. Right of way dedications. The density requirement that the staff has found is, essentially, the net density, because this slot is already incorporated within Blackstone No. 1. This is the net density. If this were not platted already, the gross density of the area -- of this area with -- including the landscape buffers, because that was only dedicated, be 3.93, 1 believe, that's what's listed on there. Underneath the cap of four dwelling units to the acre. And, in addition to that, I'd also like to reiterate that the open space in our pre -application meeting was waived and the reason was, as staff stated, developments of this size it isn't required. But also the planner looking and reviewing the pre -application meeting stated don't worry about the open space, because the open space can be utilized from Blackstone, the original Blackstone. We believe that this same reasoning should be taken into consideration as well for the density. If taken in consideration the landscape buffers isn't enough, we would also like for the Commissioners to take into consideration the whole subdivision, as this is a re -plat of an existing subdivision. Take in the whole density of the area -- of the existing subdivision, take in the whole density of the subdivision as on the eight and a half by 11, you will see that the density is 3.2 dwelling units to the acre. This is the same reasoning that was utilized for the open space and we believe that's the same reason that should be applied to the density and also through meeting with the staff, they were concerned with creating precedence for the city. I believe that there isn't going to be anything that's going to be precedent setting. This is a unique situation that's in front of you this evening. It's unique for a number of reasons. One, because it's a re -plat. There is not many re -plats of an existing subdivision in the city. Two, this lot has been owned by the same developer of the original Blackstone. And, three, it meets all the zoning minimum lot sizes, minimum setbacks it will meet. It's going to accommodate for 1,400 square foot homes as accordingly to the code. In addition to that, the lots -- the homes will be designed to be consistent and harmonious with the rest of the subdivision. And we feel that this is a quality project in front of the Commissioners tonight and we request your approval to City Council. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of -- O'Brien: I have just one, Mr. Chairman, and it might involve staff as well. Is there any concerns about the fire department getting in there through that driveway to access those homes to the back? Richio: I held a number of meetings with the Assistant Fire Chief Joe Silva. The concept plan that's in front of you and also the preliminary plat has been approved for driveway compliance. So, yes, sir, that has been addressed. O'Brien: Thank you. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 26 of 43 Siddoway: I have a question. Could you address the issue of the five foot landscape buffer required along the edge of the driveway whether that requires any modifications to what's proposed? Richio: Any modifications to what's proposed in our -- the five foot landscape buffers we would have -- we would have to address that with the City Council if there is any necessary revisions and we would be more than happy to sit down with staff. When we presented the concept plan in front of the -- the pre - application meeting, that was something that they noted and I think it was something that failed to make its way on the preliminary plat, but, nonetheless, was something that was noted. So, we would work through any staff considerations on that. Any significant changes would more than likely occur with the common driveway and we will address any changes with the assistant fire chief on that. Siddoway: Let me follow up on that with staff, if I could. Bill, you had mentioned the five foot buffer requirement along the driveway. Now -- because when I look at this I see five foot dimensions adjacent to the driveway here. Is that requirement addressed by what we are looking at or is that something that needs to be modified? Parsons: If you look at -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Siddoway, if you look at the submitted landscape plan, you don't see any plantings along that common driveway. So, that's why I addressed it in the staff report. Siddoway: So, the space is there, but the landscaping is not; is that correct? Parsons: That is correct. There is five feet on each side. Siddoway: Thank you. Richio: That's easier. I'll just refer to Bill. Rohm: Any other questions? Thank you. Richio: Thank you. Rohm: I'm not sure, but I think the balance -- Chris Todd? Are you part of the development team? Todd: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead and just leave the timer as it's -- oh. Leave it off. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 27 of 43 Todd: Members of the Commission, Chris Todd with Landmark Engineering and Planning, 332 Broadmore Way, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. Thank you for your time this evening. Just wanted to state that I agree with the comments made by my colleague Lenny Richio. Tonight just want to expand on a couple of items. We held a pre -application meeting with staff and the Director of Planning Services Anna Canning. This layout was presented in it's initial layout and we left the meeting with a vote of confidence that the plans were acceptable and fell within the guidelines of Meridian city. Construction drawings and engineering work followed, which is why you have in front of you tonight a short plat with a preliminary plat, a final plat, and construction drawings. Lenny and I, then, held a neighborhood meeting, we had a few neighbors out, some couples with their children coming by asking questions. We didn't have any opposition from the neighbors, they were just more concerned about when construction was to take place, about the different safety precautions that we could go in setting up cones and things like that for construction vehicles coming in and out. I feel in my professional opinion that this site has many hardships that warrant the Commission to acknowledge the landscaping and the area surrounding the site and its relation to the overall subdivision Blackstone One. All lot specifications, dimensions and setbacks have been met. The subdivision complies to Meridian's Comp Plan and is the best use of the land. I believe by analyzing the entire area that Blackstone No. 2 stands alone as a well designed subdivision and almost like a phase of the original Blackstone. As Commissioner Siddoway indicated with his questions, this plat complies with the majority of Meridian's criteria and we ask for your approval this evening. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Todd: I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Any questions? O'Brien: Just one quick question, Mr. Chairman. What kind of fencing goes around the arch? Is there going to be fencing around the outside perimeter of that -- Todd: There is already fencing present. I believe it's a six foot cedar that's around the perimeter presently. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. John Carpenter. Did you want to speak? I have four names down here and you're welcome to come forward if you -- 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 28 of 43 Carpenter: I appreciate my colleague signing me up. John Carpenter. I don't know if I have much further to say, other than just to reiterate if these lots were part of the original subdivision it would have complied with the density. It meshes well with the subdivision. If we had the open space adjacent to those three lots and the road right of way adjacent to it, and we did the calculation based on that, it would be under the four units per acre. So, I, again, ask for your approval on it. Stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Paul Edminster, did you want to -- you don't have to come up. You might as well. Absolutely. Edminster: I'm Paul Edminster, the president of Project West, so I own the property. So, I am asking for this to be passed, basically, because we have owned the thing for about six or seven years thinking that we were going to tum it into commercial and that was our intentions and feeling like that end of Meridian would definitely be served for some type of commercial building. The neighbors to the side of us just -- we haven't been able to work with them and since, then, he's passed away and so it's gone to the family and, then, it's a bigger issue than that, so it's just something that we could see isn't going to work, as well as all the zoning, so we felt like the best interest for the neighbors -- and they probably would prefer to have some residential houses there than some commercial there as well, so that's why we thought, well, let's just tum it into lots and go from there. If we -- if we only have two lots out of it, then, my -- what I will do is just keep it until there is time that maybe we can get this rezoned for commercial, because it doesn't benefit -- it isn't cost effective to get two lots out of it, so -- thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. That concludes everyone that's in the audience, so I'm pretty sure there is not going to be any other testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple of questions regarding that pesky out -parcel that is a result of -- left on here. It appears that that isn't a stub that's -- on that shared driveway, it's just a driveway that ends prior to stubbing to that piece of property. Do you understand what -- I'm talking about this piece of property right there that's an out -parcel. We are stubbing to it, so we are only leaving to access onto -- the only way to access that property in the future is to access it on Black Cat and I'm wondering if there is enough frontage between Thom Creek Street and Cherry Lane to realistically do that or if we should be getting a stub there, so that we don't have to have access onto Black Cat if there isn't -- I don't know if there is enough frontage, but it seems to me like it would be awful close. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 29 of 43 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, you're right, we aren't requiring that street frontage -- or that to stub to that property. I don't have an answer for you at this time, but I would have to talk with ACHD, they would be in that jurisdiction, but, you're right, we could -- if this was just to be one lot, it was -- again, it was platted as a lot within that subdivision and it wasn't -- didn't have that requirement to stub to that at that time either, so we can make that argument as well, but I think ACHD would have that -- I think the applicant would have preferred that that develop with that site, too, and, then, they would have had that -- that wrapped up, but, unfortunately, they didn't. And I think staff would have been more supportive of that, too, if that would have come in with that other parcel as well, but I struggle with an answer for you on that question, unless Caleb can elaborate on it more. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The -- now, to the south of -- can you go back to the - - the other slide with the -- excuse me, can you go back to the other slide. Parsons: Which one is that? Newton-Huckabay: That one. Thank you. This right here is -- if I remember correctly is -- is like -- is common lot in this other subdivision -- in Blackstone One. I mean is there a possibility I suppose to stub through into there? Well, I wanted to -- okay. You're right, it's outside this application, but I don't want to vote in favor of this application if the only option is to create a stub here that's too close to one of the intersections. We already have that at Ustick and Meridian Road and I think it's awkward and dangerous, so -- Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, it looks like on the aerial anyways, as was mentioned through the audience, that there is some type of a drainage facility that runs for a couple hundred feet roughly along the north side of -- is that Thom Creek Street. Your first point -- certainly the common driveway could be stubbed to that property and, then, an additional dwelling unit if there were only two in this project or two if there are only two in this project, could all utilize that. Now, I don't know what the radiuses are -- would be if that were stubbed. The fire department access and things like that, if they would need a full blown turnaround and how that would kind of all work out, but I agree, I think that that makes some sense to have access be provided to that lot and maybe there isn't an outlet, maybe it's just -- it comes in and dead ends and all three or four of those lots all come in and out of that same driveway, rather than an outlet, either to Black Cat or down to Thom Creek Street. So, that certainly is something that -- that could happen, I mean could be conditioned as such and could make some sense. Again, it's kind of hard -- don't have all the dimensions for that lot, so it's kind of hard to tell you what could go on there, but it's -- it's almost as deep as this one, not quite, with their -- the flag portion of this and some of that, but they -- you know, that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 30 of 43 probably still in the neighborhood of a hundred feet or after dedication of right of way and landscape buffers and whatnot, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I would like to see us do what we can to avoid making that very difficult to access in the future. So, if that's stubbing the driveway -- I think if that's the best we can do out of this development, I certainly think we should do it. I certainly -- I would just hate to not -- well, you know, it's kind of lame, but we are just going to move on, because we can't think of a solution. I think that we would be remiss doing that. Can we stub the driveway? Moe: Can you put the slide with the houses shown on there? Right there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was a question there, I don't know if it was necessarily directed to staff. You can sure condition the plat however you'd like. Again, I see -- some of this is pertinent to this application, some of it will have to be discussed at a later date when that property to the south does redevelop. Does that driveway, then, go out to Black Cat or down or nowhere, just with a turnaround. But certainly what's in this applicant's court and what you need to decide is do you want to see that -- an easement provided to that parcel to the south to also use the driveway they are proposing with this development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair? Oh. Hood: I'm sorry. And I was just going to say, if you don't do that, then, I see the scenario you're talking about, their access is going to be to Black Cat. There are no more options after that. So, you either do it now or you don't do one. So, that's -- that's up to you at this point anyways. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I guess I would like to say that -- I'd like to know what the rest of the Commission thinks, but I'd like to see the potential for an easement and a stub than give that applicant the opportunity to speak on that. I -- and I'd like to hear what the rest of the Commission thinks. Rohm: I'll weigh in on that. I would say if this project was rotated 90 degrees and the access was Cherry Lane that we are dealing with for the adjacent property, then, we should definitely make provisions for that to take access off of an internal roadway, but I don't think Black Cat is in a -- I don't think the traffic on Black Cat is as heavy as it is on Chert' Lane and that parcel that you're concerned about I think will be able to take access off of Black Cat and if it ends up with a right -in, right -out in order to accommodate development, so be it, but I don't -- I don't personally think that to encumber a residential development with access to what potentially will be something other, is the right thing either. That's just -- that's where I'm coming from. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 31 of 43 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Question for Caleb if I could. Caleb, I know you can't speak for ACRD. I'm wondering if, based on your experience with them is it conceivable that they would not allow access to Black Cat if they had a stub that's a private drive or would they still be required to provide public street access to them? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, the -- the Ada County Highway District may -- their access to the public street system could be still through this common driveway and out. Siddoway: So, it's conceivable that they could deny access to Black Cat Road. Hood: Again, yeah, they just need to provide access to the public street system and that would be facilitated -- and I could -- Bill and I were just looking at it, it looks like from the existing approximate edge of pavement on Cherry Lane there is about a 175 feet south to the north property line, so, yeah, right about where that pointer is at is 175 feet from that. So, going with ACHD's policy about right - in, right -out, you have to come down about another 50 feet before you could even have a right -in, right -out. And now you're getting into separation problems with the existing -- can't even remember the name of that street. Thom Creek. You're almost in between there. So, I don't know where a driveway would land for that place. If there isn't a stub, yes, Commissioner, they would have to provide them a driveway, because you can't have them access their property, but Siddoway: Okay. Then, a follow-up question. If additional lots were built down here that took access from -- from that drive, does that kick it into additional requirements to become a private street with a sidewalk and things like that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the — the common driveway provisions allow a maximum of four dwelling units. Our private street provisions you cannot construct a private street for single family detached residential. You can do a private street development in multi -family or in commercial developments. So, there isn't kind of an in between, at least by the code. Our code explicitly and prohibitively does not allow private streets for single family detached developments. Siddoway: So, then, following that logic, if there -- this property's only access is through this common drive it would be limited to one single family dwelling. u Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 32 of 43 E4 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, with three lots on it it would be limited to one with two lots. They could have two. Siddoway: They could have two. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some comments on this? Moe: Well, I thought I had my mind all made up, as a matter of fact. Now, I'm not so sure, quite frankly. I am struggling a little bit in regards to access into that other lot -- that other property to the south. I probably would have liked to have seen a stub there, but at the same point per access and whatnot, ACHD is going to have to grant an access into that property at one point or another and I'm not real sure I like the access out -- or through the private drive that we have go there. So, I guess in a round about way is I probably would not be in favor of a stub into that property there and although the zoning isn't proper, I'm having a hard time not seeing that the development as it's shown right now -- it would be fine with me. I think it's a good way to take care of the property that's left in that subdivision, even though it is a separate subdivision from the original Blackstone, it -- kind of take it all at one area and it works. So, the long and short of it is I would say that I'm in favor of it as it is. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I, too, was -- thought I had my mind made up, but it could go either of two ways. One, we could sit on it and wait and see if the owners of the other property might come around to either developing it or going commercial for all that whole section, both sets of properties. Or leave it as it is and let the other owner to the property take care of their issues. I'm not quite sure the responsibility the current applicant would have in making that work, since the other property owners aren't willing to negotiate. So, I'm kind of wishy washy there. I haven't made up my mind completely yet. Rohm: All right. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Well, it's -- it's messy. I don't -- if this were to stub, then, you have vehicular traffic, you know, coming around back behind this home. Don't particularly like the feel of that very much, but the think what I'm struggling with right now is this density issue and I have a round about question here. I have a question about open space requirement and is -- there isn't -- is there an open space requirement that would be for this subdivision that -- we heard testimony earlier that they weren't required to do open space, because the open space for the overall subdivision was counted as part of that; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 33 of 43 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I heard testimony to that effect, too. I wasn't at that preapp meeting. I don't know what was said at that preapp meeting. We don't count other open space that was provided toward new projects. This project is not required, just because of its size, being less than five acres to provide any open space, so -- Siddoway: So, it doesn't have its own open space requirement anyway. Hood: Correct. Correct. Siddoway: You know, I -- my gut is that I want to approve it as is. However, the thing that's in my way right now is this -- the word if in the statement that was made that this would meet the density requirements if it were platted with the overall subdivision. But the reality is it's not. It wasn't platted with the overall subdivision, so I -- I don't know if we can without violating that code and I guess looking to legal counsel and -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I may I think Commissioner Siddoway has hit the nail on the head. If you're going to approve this, I would hope that the maker of the motion could provide us with an interpretation of how this does fit the code and it simply doesn't. If it was a different zone, it might. But they are stuck with the decisions that were made in the past and we are stuck with the code that we have at the present. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway, in response to your comments and not necessarily in agreement with our legal counsel, I think that in all of our city codes there are provisions for hardship cases that we can say that the development that's being proposed, based upon its specific dimensions or what have you, mitigate the -- the rules on -- that we have as part of our UDC and I think that your earlier comments about each and every one of these lots being over the minimum lot size for that zoning is the compelling response here and this development as proposed by the developers, even though it is not part of Blackstone No. 1, it is -- in all other ways it complies with the zoning of the R-4 and from my perspective I think that that's the best utilization of that property and I think we should move it forward with recommendation for approval. Siddoway: And I would just state that it -- it does -- it does bother me that a project can meet the minimum lot sizes and not meet the density standards. Rohm: And I think that that's -- that's a math issue. This is .59 and you divide three lots into .59 and you end up with five lots per acre, but the fact of the matter is if all lots within this proposal are in excess of the minimum lot size within the R- 4 and I think that it -- if you take a look at its current use and where this developer is trying to take this, I think that it is in the city's best interest to develop i 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 34 of 43 it as proposed and it will enhance that comer from where it is currently and I think that that's part of our responsibility is to make sure that the interests of the city as a whole are addressed. O'Brien: Could I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Absolutely. O'Brien: I appreciate where you're coming from on that and I agree that we need to keep the interests of the city at hand, but what about the lot next door to it? Are we getting ourselves into a quagmire that's going to create a black hole there and not be able to do anything with it? Rohm: I think that that adjacent property will at such time that they come forward with an application for a development will find their own answer. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Is this piece of property eligible for that step up in density? Rohm: I was going to ask that myself. Newton-Huckabay: I don't -- I guess I don't understand why they couldn't have applied for a step up in zoning to allow the density of the three homes. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the applicant could request a rezone of the property to R-8, because it is medium density residential in the Comp Plan. However, staff would look at that as spot zoning and if you look at the surrounding residential subdivisions in the area, they are all R-4 zoning. It would be kind of hard for us to make those findings and justify that zoning. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just add to that, though. That's certainly the cleanest way. If you like the plat, certainly the cleanest way on -- it creates the record where you have the zoning that allows the density that's being proposed, as well as lot sizes that are being proposed. So, although staff isn't jumping up and down about spot zoning an R-8 parcel, we are less excited I would say about approving this without having the zoning to reflect what's actually on the ground. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 35 of 43 Rohm: Okay. Please come forward. Carpenter: I appreciate that. I just wanted to point out one issue in regard to that out -parcel. Mr. Edminster asked us to analyze that out -parcel. We spent quite a bit of time looking at it, doing layouts on it. We did layouts for commercial, they opted for residential, and reviewed ACHD's policy. We were able to get an access off of Black Cat to that out -parcel and comply with separation to Cherry and to the next entry. So, have made it work. I don't have the dimensions here in front of me. I don't have the layouts. If I knew it was going to be an issue I would have brought them, but we were able to get access to that parcel. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Uh -- Carpenter: John Carpenter. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, Mr. Carpenter. I wrote everybody else's name down but yours. Would you be willing to rezone -- or request a zone -- zone change to R-8? Carpenter: You know, that's what we had talked to staff about originally. We didn't have an issue with that, but we were told that would be considered a spot zone. Not an issue. We are looking to get three lots out there. If we are required to change it to R-8, yeah, that's not a problem. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Carpenter: I don't want to cant' and I guess spend a bunch of time and money on this. There is not a lot of profit in three lots, as you can understand, a small subdivision is minimal as far as what we want to spend on it, so I don't know if we could get a recommendation for approval with the condition to change it to R-8, but, yeah, we would be willing to work with you guys as needed to meet the legal requirements. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: I like that answer. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 36 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: I just want to go on record as I think that the three lots fits with the spirit of the rest of Blackstone and it doesn't -- you'd have two rather large lots if we didn't go with three. So, I would be in favor of going with an R-8 zoning, understanding that spot zoning isn't an ideal situation, but I think that would sell under the hardship of the shape of the lot better than any alternative. I'm concerned about access to -- to the lot below. If the applicant was able to get an access onto the Black Cat, I guess I can go with that. I don't think it's ideal, but I don't know that I'll burden these three lots with that. I'm not getting a lot of support to do that anyway, so -- Rohm: I guess my question of legal counsel at this point, then, can we move this forward with the recommendation that they adjust their application for an R-8 zone or are we going to have to continue it so that their application can be re - noticed for R-8, as opposed to the existing application as R-4? Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm actually going to have to defer to planning staff, because I think they are more familiar with how they would prefer to see that. I am glad that your question didn't include can we approve this conditionally, because that creates a conundrum if -- if the zoning isn't approved and you have to come back and undo the approval. So, I wouldn't recommend that route, but I'd look to planning staff to see whether we should table this until the rezone would catch up or move it forward and hold it -- not let it get to see Council before the rezone application and maybe there is a preference. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that, in fact, are the two options. So, it really comes down to you. I have heard this body say in the past you don't want to forward on any recommendations until what you're forwarding on is clean. Do you feel comfortable having the plat sit at City Council before seeing that rezone application and certainly from my perspective a little bit cleaner to have them be on the same agenda here and forwarded as a complete application to the City Council. But either way will work, I mean if that's the direction that the Commission is heading. What we will do is if you move this on tonight with a favorable recommendation is we will ask the clerk not to schedule this for Public Hearing for probably three to four months, depending on how long they can get an application into the city, we have to notice appropriately, it has to be to the Planning and Zoning Commission on an agenda and, then, to City Council. So, three months is going to be cooking if we can get three months. So, it would be at least three months before the City Council, if maybe not a little bit more before it would even get there. So, that's kind of the only advantage I see is to having that packaged, they are here and, then, they just move on together, rather than having that one kind of sit at the clerk's office waiting. Rohm: Not speaking for the balance of the Commission, but I think that keeping them together is in the best interest of everybody and if you want to hold it up 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 37 of 43 until the application for rezoning can make its way through your staff, then, so be it. But at least there is an assumption that it's a viable project based upon those changes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we want to give the applicant an opportunity to determine whether they want to move with a recommendation without a rezone to City Council? I mean I don't know what the motion would be from the Commission, but I would want to give the applicant opportunity to say, well, I'll take your recommendation for denial and take my case to the City Council or wait three months for the rezone. Rohm: And the applicant is certainly welcome to give us their position. Do you want to go through the rezone app? Todd: For the hardship option to move it forward, how would that be -- what would the wording on that recommendation be? Rohm: I'm pretty sure we would have to recommendation denial of three lots and you appeal to City Council. I am pretty sure that's the way that's going to end up. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would recommend -- I would make a motion to recommend approval of the application with two lots to city. That's how I would word the motion and, then, we would recommend approval with the staff condition of two lots, rather than three. Todd: We'll take our time and have it together for you next time. Newton-Huckabay: The rezone? Todd: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: So, you want to continue the hearing? Todd: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Perfect. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, while we have got the applicant up there, the time frame, when can we get -- if I can ask the question to the chair and if you could ask the applicant when can we get that application for annexation in, because that will help us knowing when to continue this item to. Todd: Tomorrow or by the latest Monday -- or Wednesday. There is no excess fees for that, right? This would just be a -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 38 of 43 Siddoway: There are. Hood: Yeah, there is a fee associated with annexation. It's in the neighborhood of a thousand dollars, 950 or -- Todd: Annexation is already done, it would just be the rezone? Hood: Rezone and annexation fees are exactly the same. Todd: Okay. Well, this would be the rezone from an R-4 to an R-8, so there would be a fee associated with that rezone that it would have to come through? And -- so, yes, we will do that. Rohm: Thank you. All right. Hood: And, so, Mr. Chair, if they can get us something tomorrow is good. We have got a lot of folks with Christmas holiday coming up out, but we could probably get them on the February 7th Council -- or Commission agenda if you like. That's really -- that's putting the clerk in a bind and noticing -- I mean that's right at 35 days, so -- Rohm: I'll tell you what we have got a marvelous staff at the city and I'm sure they can get that done. Todd: Members of the Commission, for this case I have been in hearings before where when there was a hardship in place for a subdivision or application that went through, the Commission had the option to waive that fee for the applicant. Is that the case for this application as well? Rohm: I don't know that this Commission has ever waived a fee ever. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could -- if I could chime in on that. The only authority that can waive a fee is the City Council and they would have to go there first before they even submit the application, you'd lose about four or five, six weeks. But that option is available to you. Rohm: All right. With that -- I guess at this time we need to have a motion to continue this to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Newton-Huckabay: I can do that. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 39 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number PFP 07-004 to the hearing date of February 7th, 2008, for the following reason: The applicant is going to do a rezone application from R-4 to R-8. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item PFP 07-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are going to take a short break here and we will reconvene in about ten minutes. Hood: Mr. Chair, I don't know if that was an official motion or action or not. I have got like a 30 second presentation and, then, just elections, unless you guys are really just wanting to take a break, but -- okay. That's fine. Rohm: We are going to take a short break. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time I'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and open up Public Hearing ZGA 17-002 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was pretty close. It's actually ZOA 07-002. Rohm: Didn't have my glasses on. Hood: I noticed you didn't have your reading glasses on, so -- thirty seconds. I'm already on the clock. Okay. This is a temporary use UDC text amendment and the primary purpose is to amend the current definitions in the UDC regarding temporary uses. We have been working with legal department staff and basically we are going to take everything currently in the UDC regarding temporary uses and move those over into Title 3 and kind of get fireworks stands, garage sales, temporary sales, carnivals, those types of things, outdoor markets, model homes, sales office, citizens use permits, they will all kind of be home together in this Title 3. So, we are amending our definition of what it is to be a temporary use. We are keeping just a minor minor section in here, but, essentially, we are striking everything out and you probably should see a new Title 3 -- I believe Emily is trying to put this on an agenda for January or February at the City 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 40 of 43 Council. So, we are just trying to make sure we didn't have city code in two places that were going to be in conflict. So, we are striking ours in anticipation. So, any questions I could try to answer them for you. Siddoway: So, the -- Mr. Chairman, the action tonight is to strike it out of the UDC. We are not -- this does not add it to Title 3 at the same time? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, that's correct. Yeah. Like I mentioned, Emily's working on the new Title 3. That doesn't even have to come back to this body, because it's in Title 3. We are keeping a small portion. We are still keeping a definition and that definition, essentially, says go see Title 3 and temporary uses and what you need to do. And, then, we are keeping I think a short little thing about model homes or one of the ones that we -- primarily we are the only department that works with them, but, essentially, it's -- it's paired way way back. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, my only concern is do -- if we strike it before it's added to the other ordinance, do we create a problem for any temporary uses that come in in that time? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, you are not actually striking it, it will be at the City Council and what we will do is when the City Council looks at Title 3, this will also be on their docket for that night. So, there will be a few seconds in time where this won't exit, but -- yeah. Siddoway: They will be at Council together, though? Hood: Correct. Siddoway: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to -- well, first of all, let's close the Public Hearing on ZOA 07-002. Siddoway: May just note for the record that there is no one in the audience. Rohm: There is no one in the audience. Siddoway: Move to close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on ZOA 07- 002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 41 of 43 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Could I get a motion to move this forward? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, we -- I recommend approval to City Council of ZOA 07-002 with no modifications. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of ZOA 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Election of Officers for 2008: Rohm: Okay. Now that we are -- what we all came here tonight for, election of officers for 2008 and I'd like to nominate David Moe as the chairman of the Commission. Siddoway: I'll second that. Rohm: I move the nominations cease. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded the nominations cease. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. With only one, I think you're the new chairman. Baird: Mr. Chair, we will require a vote on the record. Rohm: Okay. Baird: For the record. Rohm: All those in favor of David Moe being the new chairman signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 42 of 43 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: And at this time I'd like to open the floor for nominations for vice- chairman. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Wendy Newton-Huckabay as vice chair. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to nominate Wendy Newton-Huckabay as vice-chairman. I move that the nominations cease. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. All those in favor of Wendy Newton-Huckabay as vice-chairman say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are done. Newton-Huckabay: Adjourn. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: As your first official act. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) :7 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 43 of 43 APPROVED: G MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: )(kUI.X ►k.J • J Ios DATE APPROVED NIL- ` �® _!' ��.;�Q�,a� �� •�� /.mss% LLIAM G. BERG JR., gITY SLE ff!I Tj _ ,'11110191 11„00NON December 17,2W7 . AZ 06-063 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Waltman, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/4/07 -Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zone to C -G zone for Waltman Property - 505, 521, 615 & 675 Waltman Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Request for Continuance OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. December 17, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 11 December 20, 2007 CUP 07-020 APPLICANT Pamela Hall ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C -G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru - Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner -Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Attached Memo for Re -Notice No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. • December 17,2W7 RZ 07-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Patrick McKeegan ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I -L to C -G zone for Rocking KB Saloon - 3163 E. Lanark AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Attached Staff Report No Comment Sec Attached Comments See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached ITD Comments / Affldavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 December 17, 2007 CUP 07-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Patrick McKeegan ITEM NO. % REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C -G zone for Rockin KB Saloon - 3163 E. Lanark AGENCY COMMENTS 1TY CLERK: �TY'j JGINEER: 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: See RZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 December 17, 2007 AZ 07-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /15/07- Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres r from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ® 0 December 17, 2007 PP 07-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /15/07- Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Tor Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. December 17, 2007 AZ 07-018 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/6/07- Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 acres from RUT to a C -C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision - 870 W. Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: 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: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cly of Meridian. n LJ December 17, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING n u December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/6/07- 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: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE AZ PACKET COMMENTS OTHER: See Revised Plat Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PP 07-024 December 17,2W7 RZ 07-020 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Meridian Apartments, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments - west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • December 17, 2007 • PFP 07-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 - 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street 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: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sian Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • December 17, 2007 ZOA 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing - Amend the current provisions In Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Staff Report No Comment No Comment Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C December 17, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 20, 2007 APPLICANT Meridian City Planning Department ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Election of Officers for 2008: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.