2006 01-19CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
—X _ Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X Keith Borup
_X David Moe - Vice Chairman _X David Zaremba
_X Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve with Amendments
4. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit congregate
care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for
Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC – 824 East
Fairview Avenue: Approve
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: AZ 05-050 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. –
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Recommend Approval to City Council
6. Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: PP 05-051 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots
and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. -
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
Recommend Approval to City Council
7. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest
corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Recommend
Approval to City Council
8. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common
lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council
9. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
multi -family residential units with a request for reductions to the street
frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council
10. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-054
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of which 49.27 acres is
RUT proposed R-8 and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN -R for Bryce
Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 3935 West
Franklin Road: Application Withdrawn
11. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-056
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family residential
building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed
R-8 and TN -R zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3935 West Franklin Road: Application Withdrawn
12. Public Hearing: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick
Road Property by the Ada County Highway District — 3595 East Ustick
Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC — 3475 East
Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton
Development, Inc. — north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust
Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
15. Public Hearing: PP 05-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. — north of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
16. Public Hearing: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of
South Stoddard Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
17. Public Hearing: PP 05-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321
building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — south
of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Continue
Public Hearing to February 16, 2006
18. Public Hearing: CUP 05-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early
Care and Education Center by Young American Early Care and
Education Center — 1525 Leigh Field Drive: Approve
19. Public Hearing: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11
acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables,
LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane: Continue Public Hearing to February
2, 2006
20. Public Hearing: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC —
2445 North Wingate Lane: Continue Public Hearing to February 2,
2006
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance: a
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006„,. Planning -and Zoning
Commission Meeting: ,Nu W^
4. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit congregate
care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for
Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC — 824 East
Fairview Avenue: [ pot.”
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: AZ 05-050 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. —
west of North Locust G ve Road and south of Chinden Boulev rd:
_b�'1VV�Y�C��
6. Continued Public Hea ing from December 8, 2005: PP 05-051 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots
and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. -
west of North Lgayst Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
�v WiY�tN\
4f4QO& � C/e/
7. Continued Pubis Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone
for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — north t
corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: �go ✓ 1
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 1 of 3� iJ�n
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.ftv ^L v
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common
lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Pi venue:
Q,ovyff\J \. b -v AL
9. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
multi -family residential units with a request for reductions to the street
frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Pine Avenue: �0 ��U
10. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-054
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of which 49.27 acres is
RUT proposed R-8 and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN -R for Bryce
Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 3935 West
Franklin Road: h Mi C k110V\_
11. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-056
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family residential
building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed
R-8 and TN -R zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3935 West Franklin Road:
LQX�1
Cay,, � OV\ V3, ww12. Public Hearing -060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick
Road Property by the Ada County Highway District — 3595 EastUstick
Road: � ' �kj'DU
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC — 3475 East
Ustick Road: C60, 9 ub�IC - Z I U,6 U
14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton
Development, Inc. — north of East UsRoad and west of North Locust
Grove Road: C00 NkQA L r\ ?{ ov &�_ -ko CIO
15. Public Hearing: PP 05-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. — north of
East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Groveoad:
0�4_
C
c Iu
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
0 0
16. Public Hearing: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of
South Stoddard R:.,,
�-►�`C- �, k Z
17. Public Hearing:05-064 Request for Preliminary PlAt approval of 321
building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — south
of West Ove and Road and 7 t of Sou Stoddard Road:
It 18. Public Hearing: CUP 05-056 Request for a CondiAnal Use Permit for a
Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early
Care and Education Center by Young American Early Care and
Education Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive:
19. Public Hear g: AZ 5-062 q`desor Annexation and Zoning�of 5.11
acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables,
LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane,
20. Public Hearing. PP 05-062 Request for PrelimMary Plat approval of 25
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC —
2445 North Win ate Lane:
15� � � L p�b���L � � n 2
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
0
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF JAN 17 106 14:38 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2.
3.
Adoption of the Agenda:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning
DATE
TIME
TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC
PGS
CMD#
STATUS
05
01/17
14:01
3810160
EC --S
01'40"
003
216
OK
06
01/17
14.03
8848723
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
07
01/17
14:05
8841159
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
08
01/17
14:07
2088840744
EC --S
01'02"
003
216
OK
09
01/17
14:08
POLICE DEPT
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
10
01/17
14:10
8985501
EC --S
01100"
003
216
OK
11
01/17
14:11
LIBRARY
EC --S
01101"
003
216
OK
12
01/17
14:13
IDAHO STATESMAN
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
13
01/17
14:14
3886924
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
14
01/17
14:16
P -AND -Z
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
15
01/17
14:18
ALL AMERICAN INS
EC --S
01100"
003
216
OK
16
01/17
14:19
FIRE DEPT
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
17
01/17
14:21
208 888 2682
EC --S
01'02"
003
216
OK
18
01/17
14:23
208 387 6393
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
19
01/17
14:24
ADA CTY DEUELMT
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
20
01/17
14.26
2088885052
EC --S
01101"
003
216
OK
21
01/17
14:27
LAKEUIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
01'58"
003
216
OK
22
01/17
14:30
IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
23
01/17
14.31
ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
24
01/17
14:33
2088886701
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01/17
14:37
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2.
3.
Adoption of the Agenda:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning
k
a"i't- C4
CH
r
3
r
jj-
Y-- ,
H
��
�� ��
COMMUNICATIONS REPORT AS OF JAN IS '06 05:00 PAGE'01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
TOTAL PAGES TOTAL TIME
SEND : 0072
SEND
: 00025,53"
RECEIVE : 0000
RECEIVE : 00000"30"
DATE
TIME
TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC
PGS
CMD#
STATUS
01
01/17
09:13209-489-7630
EC --S
01"00"
002
208
-
OK
02
01/1709:35
2083761481
EC --S
00'34"002
210
OK ~' �
03
01/17
09:39
2083761481
EC --S
00"28"
001
213
OK
84
01/17
12:29
8872119
EC --S
01'03"
004
214
OK
85
01/17
14:01
3810168
EC --S
01"40"
003
216
0< ^
06
01/17
14:03
8848723
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
07
01/17
14:05
8841159
EC --S
01,00=
003
216
ON
08
01/17
14:07
2088840744
EC --S
01"02"
003
216
ON �
09
01/17
14:08
POLICE DEPT
EC --S
01"00=
003
216
OK
10
01/1?
14:10
8985501
EC --S
81'00=
003
216
OK '
11
01/17
14:11
LIBRARY
EC --S
01"01"
003
216
0<
12
01/17
14:13
IDAHO STATESMAN
EC --S
01`01"
003
216
OK
13
01/17
14:14
3886924
EC --S
01"01"
003
216
O#
14
01/17
14:16
P -AND -Z
EC --S
01'00"
003
216
OK
15
01/17
14:18
ALL AMERICAN [NS
EC --S
01100=
003
216
ON
16
01/17
14:19
FIRE DEPT
EC --S
01'00=
003
216
OK
17
01/17
14:21
208 388 2682
EC --S
01"02",
083
216
0<
18
01/17
14:23
208 387 6393
EC --S
01`00=
003
216
ON
19
01/17
14:24
ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
0i"00"
003
216
0< `
20
01/17
14:26
208B885O52
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
21
01/17
14:27
LAKEV[EW GOLFCOU
GJ --S
01"58"
003
216
0<
22
01/17
14:30
IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
01'01"
003
216
OK
23
01/17
14:31
[D PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
01"01"
003
216
OK �
24
01/17
14:33
2088886701
EC --S
01^00"
003
216
OK
25
01/17
14:37
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
01"00=
003
216
OK
26
01/17
16:42
G3 --R
00°30"
000
INC
,
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit congregate
care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for
Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC — 824 East
Fairview Avenue:
5. Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: AZ 05-050 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. —
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
6. Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: PP 05-051 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots
and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve
Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. -
west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard:
7. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone
for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest
corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —January 19, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
•
8. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common
lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Pine Avenue:
9. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
multi -family residential units with a request for reductions to the street
frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Pine Avenue:
10. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-054
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of which 49.27 acres is
RUT proposed R-8 and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN -R for Bryce
Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 3935 West
Franklin Road:
11. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-056
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family residential
building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed
R-8 and TN -R zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3935 West Franklin Road:
12. Public Hearing: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick
Road Property by the Ada County Highway District — 3595 East Ustick
Road:
13. Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC — 3475 East
Ustick Road:
14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton
Development, Inc. — north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust
Grove Road:
15. Public Hearing: PP 05-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. — north of
East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
e e
16.
Public Hearing: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
"
116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of
South Stoddard Road:
17.
Public Hearing: PP 05-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321
building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — south
of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
18.
Public Hearing: CUP 05-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early
Care and Education Center by Young American Early Care and
Education Center — 1525 Leigh Field Drive:
19.
Public Hearing: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11
acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables,
LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
20.
Public Hearing: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC —
s.
2445 North Wingate Lane:
N.
4
7 4
r'
div
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 19, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
"
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
". 'nSk'3,4 fi'A
i
y1
om
r
,s..- ...ss' TA
y'
Y
t
t�
�,
s.
cg,rx
0 0
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT * AS OF JAN 20 '06 01:39 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY OF MFRID►IAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
DATE
TIME
TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC
PGS
CMD##
STATUS
02
01/20
01:01
3810160
EC --S
01'52"
003
232
OK
03
01/20
01:03
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
01'07"
003
232
OK
04
01/20
01:05
8848723
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
05
01/20
01:0?
8841159
EC --S
01'0?"
003
232
OK
06
01/20
01:08
2088840?44
EC --S
01'08"
003
232
OK
07
01/20
01:10
POLICE DEPT
EC --S
01'07"
003
232
OK
08
01/20
01:12
8985501
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
09
01/20
01:13
LIBRARY
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
10
01/20
01:15
2083776449
EC --S
01'05"
003
232
OK
11
01/20
01:16
3886924
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
12
01/20
01:18
P -AND -Z
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
13
01/20
01:20
ALL AMERICAN INS
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
14
01/20
01:22
FIRE DEPT
EC --S
01'05"
003
232
OK
15
01/20
01:23
208 888 2682
EC --S
01'0?"
003
232
OK
16
01/20
01:25
208 387 6393
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
17
01/20
01.27
ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
18
01/20
01:29
2088885052
EC --S
01'0?"
003
232
OK
19
01/20
01:31
LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'01"
000
232
INC
20
01/20
01:31
LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'35"
000
232
INC
21
01/20
01.33
LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'00"
000
232
INC
22
01/20
01:34
LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU
G3 --S
00'01"
000
232
INC
23
01/20
01:35
IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
24
01/20
01:36
ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
25
01/20
01:38
2088886701
EC --S
01'06"
003
232
OK
THIS DOCUMENT
IS STILL IN
MEMORY
CITY OF MFRID►IAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be
truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup
David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
9 0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 19, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 19, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Zaremba, and
Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther,
Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to open this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning meeting for January 19th, 2006, and begin with roll
call of Commissioners.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Thank you. Before we adopt the agenda, I would first like to ask if there are any
changes to the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: A couple things that I noticed on the meeting minutes from January 5th. On the
first page under the roll call point where it talks about the chairman, they are noting that
as Dave Zaremba. That, actually, should have been Michael Rohm, I do believe.
Zaremba: My comment was going to be that that was his first meeting as chairman and
I thought the transition went smoothly and he should get credit for it.
Moe: Absolutely.
Rohm: All right. Well, we better make that change.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 2 of 92
Moe: And, then, also on page 19, down towards the bottom -- actually, the last
paragraph Moe is speaking, I think two points above that where it says More, I think that
should have been Moe that said yes. That would be the end of my comments.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, of course, I have one other.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: On page two there is a lengthy paragraph, of course, where I'm speaking.
About the third line up from the bottom, the last name begins with an A, not an E, and
I'm not sure that the second B, bravo, should be there. And, actually, that should be a
D, delta. And the only reason I make a point of that is since his first name is Bob, I was
not suggesting that it should be Bo, without the second B, bravo, but suggesting that his
last name didn't have the second D, delta, in it and I'm not sure of that, but it certainly
was not a B, bravo, it was a D, delta. Only comment.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other recommended change to the minutes? Okay. With that
would entertain a motion to accept the minutes.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda as amended.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Looks like we have got an
accepted Consent Agenda.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Before we start tonight's meeting, there are a couple of changes to the agenda
tonight and for those of you that may been here for Items 10 and 11 on the agenda,
which would be the Bryce Canyon Subdivision, that application has been withdrawn and
so it will not be heard tonight in any part. The second change, on Item 12, Public
Hearing AZ 05-060, for the Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property, will not
be heard tonight, because of improper -- well, the lack of posting. And so those
changes and the Sharp project -- okay. I'm going to open it. Okay. The last item on the
agenda, AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062 for Sharp Estates Subdivision, will be continued to
February and I didn't get the -- the 2nd.
Zaremba: 2nd.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 3 of 92
Rohm: 2nd. February 2nd, 2006. So, with those changes -- I know of no others at this
time. Before we open any hearings here tonight, I'd like to speak a little bit to the
process from which we go through here. When a project is first opened up we --
Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Rohm: The first thing we do is we ask the staff to present the project. The staff
presents the project as it adheres to Comprehensive Plan and/or ordinance. The staff
doesn't have a -- they are kind of a neutral presentation. And, then, the applicant has
an opportunity to sell the project, if you will. Once the staff has made their presentation
and the applicants have made theirs, then, the project is, then, opened up to the public
for you to offer your testimony. In certain cases as a group of people will have a
spokesman, like the president of a homeowners association, and if, in fact, there are
those in the audience that are relinquishing their right to speak based upon turning it
over to that representative, then, that person will have an additional length of time to
speak for or against the project and so -- and, then, once we have heard from
everybody, we will close the public testimony and have our discussion amongst
ourselves and, hopefully, be able to either make a recommendation to Council or
continue to a later date.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit congregate
care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for
Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC — 824 East
Fairview Avenue:
Rohm: With that being said, at this time I would like to open the continued Public
Hearing from January 5th for CUP 05-055, AZ 05-050, and PP 05-051. All three of
these are related to the Reserve Subdivision. Oh, excuse me. There is one -- pardon
me. The first one we are going to open is CUP 05-055 and this relates to Grace at
Fairview Lakes and that's the only one that will be opened at this time. And at this time
I'd like to get testimony from staff.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. Grace at
Fairview Lakes is a modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit in 2004. The
applicant was before you for an assisted living center, an Alzheimer's center, and
individual units that were for retirees. They are proposing to change the units for the
retirees to a -- I have got two numbers here. One says 38, one says 39 units. The
applicant might clarify -- 39 unit site for -- to mimic the existing assisted care facility.
There is no change to the landscape plan or to the existing drive aisles or public streets.
As you can see, the site is located off of North Lakes Drive, which is immediately off of
Fairview -- north of Fairview. The site has been developed since this aerial photo. The
Alzheimer's facility is to the western portion here. The assisted care facility is in the
center and the new site would be to the eastern portion of this site. As you can see, this
is the third phase. This is the 39 unit assisted care facility to be constructed alongside
the existing. As you can see, there is elevations. It will be a two story building, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 4 of 92
would be very similar construction to the existing buildings as well. And with that, staff
has recommended approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report, which,
essentially, do carry over the conditions of the previous conditional use permits for fire,
most of the Public Works comments, as well as the ACHD comments, because this has
not changed a lot of the different layout of the site. With that, I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Yes, I do have one. If we could go to the site plan. Actually, a couple of
questions. I may be remembering this wrong, which I do on occasions, but you're
saying that there is no change to the original plan. My recollection was that after much
public testimony, particularly from the people who lived along the north property line, the
decision was that there would be a landscape buffer and, then, a road all the way
through before -- and, then, a setback before we got to any buildings and I -- to be
honest, I don't remember seeing a change of that plan since then. Did we approve
something different in between? Or did the City Council change our recommendation?
That also happens sometimes.
Guenther: Okay. Let me show you -- I got to -- let me show you the existing -- technical
difficulties. I'm trying to bring up the projector quick here.
Zaremba: What I'm remembering is way back when this portion was going to be
residential -- and there may have been an iteration in between that I'm not
remembering, but --
Guenther: There was a fairly extensive number of applications that came through with
this site. One of them was an R-40 development, which was reduced to this R-15
development. As you can see, the units were along the portion -- along this side, as
well as closer to the existing facility, and the road here, the services through here, as
well as just some more parking would be included in there. But this was the approved
site plan from 2004. These two phases have not changed and this one is the one in
question.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Maybe I'm glad they are building an Alzheimer's facility.
Rohm: Anymore questions of staff? At this point I'd like to have the applicant come
forward, please.
Tamura: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I'm
representing Grace at Fairview Lakes. My office is at 499 Main Street in Boise, Idaho.
Commissioner Zaremba, one of the things -- clarifications I have is -- well, first, I concur
with all the conditions of approval from staff. The one clarification I want to make,
though, is your memory is partially right, that we had a discussion about that emergency
vehicle access hammerhead on the west end and what we did was -- the Commission
and, then, Council granted us a waiver where we move that to a 15 -foot setback versus
the full 20 -foot setback, to allow more landscaping against the buildings. And so in my
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 5 of 92
application letter on this modification, I asked for that same 15 -foot relief, so that we
could match the service drives on both sides of the buildings, but, you know, we did
have a discussion about setbacks and our site plan shows that, but I thought that I'd at
least point that out, that we are proposing a 15 -foot setback around the perimeters. We
have installed a real nice six foot vinyl fence. The one other exception that if the
Commission saw fit, would be on the hammerhead on the east end where it falls in that
kind of northeast corner, if it's possible, we'd like to move that to a five foot setback, just
so we could go ahead and provide more landscaping against our building. The resident
that's just to the east of that property line, his garage is on the end of his house and so
think the impact to that neighbor and knowing that's just a fire truck turnaround, I think
that the use of that is going to be, you know, very minimal. But other than that, that's
the only comments I have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Is it still your plan to have bollards at the end of Clarine Street?
Tamura: Yeah. So, it's our intent --
Zaremba: So, it's not really an access, except for emergency services.
Tamura: Emergency vehicle access only.
Zaremba: Would you do one other thing for me -- and this is, again, a memory with all
the iterations that have gone on here. At one time the regional pathway went through
an open courtyard between buildings along -- I think it was a drain or something that
was going to be a nice feature. I realize it's moved, but can you indicate for me where
the regional pathway goes now?
Tamura: What we did was -- part of the city's plan was to have a regional pathway that
follows the Jackson Drain and one of the compromises that we made is knowing that
the Jackson Drain crossed underneath Fairview Avenue, is we were going to install a
signal light at the intersection of Lakes and Fairview, that we had staff move it, so that
the pedestrian path goes down Fairview, across Fairview Lakes and, then, goes up the
east side of our development to this point right here. And since we have got this large
retirement center, we have got a ten foot pathway that follows along the south edge
here, turns the corner here, and it goes up and, then, we have extended this pathway
and, then, moved the fences and, then, filled in the Jackson Drain through the mobile
home park and it connects into the pedestrian pathway that goes through the
subdivision just north of the mobile home park. So, all of this has been completed and
connected through now, so we have got a public access that goes all the way from our
Fairview frontage all the way through our project and, then, ties into the subdivision to
the north. So, now it gives both the mobile home park and the residence to the north of
us access into our commercial development.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Tamura: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 6 of 92
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Tamura: Thank you for your time.
Rohm: Okay. I guess at this time I just have a question of staff. The applicant's
request to modify the hammerhead up in the northeast, is that something that would be
acceptable to staff?
Guenther: Mr. Chair, at this time, that -- or at the time of the original application the
Meridian City Code applied. With the new UDC, both these districts are residential to
residential, which would only require a five foot landscape buffer at this time. Craig and
I had discussion and it seems that the original CUP would dictate the landscape buffer,
unless this Commission changed their mind and allowed them to apply the UDC to that
-- to that side of that hammerhead. So, staff would support it, because the Unified
Development Code does support that, but the Commission --
Rohm: And it's only because this application is an amendment to something that was
presented prior to the adoption of the UDC, is the only reason that it would have to be
an exception.
Guenther: A Commission exception. That's true.
Rohm: There you go. Makes sense. And is that -- having not read the staff report in its
entirety, is that listed that way in the staff report?
Guenther: It is not. You would have to include in that your motion.
Rohm: Okay. Any further discussion on this application by the Commission? Oh,
excuse me, I better open it up to public testimony. Patty Sprout. Oh, she's just
watching the proceedings. Thank you for your comments. There are no other -- there
is nobody else signed up for it, but this is the time that if you feel so inclined you may
come forward and testify on this hearing. There is no additional public testimony, so at
this time we will just discuss it amongst the Commission and see where we go from
there. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have --
Zaremba: My personal opinion is that it's pretty straight forward and it's in a series of
things that we have had on this property and it's not surprising that this is the next in line
for their request and I think what they have been doing so far is fine and this is a good
addition.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 7 of 92
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-055.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move to approve file number CUP 05-055 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of January 19th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated August
16th, 2004, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: The only
modification would be that we agree to a five foot landscape buffer in the neighborhood
of the hammerhead that meets -- what previously was a hammerhead and no longer is
-- that meets Clarine Street. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate
Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing --
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 2, 2006. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-055. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: AZ 05-050
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management
Group, Inc. — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden
Boulevard:
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: PP 05-051
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential
building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management
Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden
Boulevard:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 05-050 and PP 05-
051. Both of these relating to Reserve Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 8 of 92
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you may recall a few
weeks ago this item was before you and the staffs recommendation was for denial.
You made a motion to remand this back to staff to come before you with Findings for
approval and conditions of approval as well. I have since amended the staff report to
reflect that request and I'm just going to touch on a couple of the conditions briefly.
There was one of the conditions regarding fencing that asked the applicant to address
at this hearing tonight how they intend to fence the perimeter. There was no fencing
discussed in the application or on the landscape plan. We do have certain fencing
provisions required by the Unified Development Code, specifically adjacent to micro -
paths. It is conditioned as such in the staff report. I just would like to see if the
applicant has any idea of what type of fencing material they are going to use. I might
point out, too, that the police department did require along the north property boundary
that either a six foot open vision or a maximum four foot solid fence be constructed
along the north boundary of those lots, due to the school being directly north. I just
wanted to point that condition out as well. I think it's underlined in the staff report as
well. Also -- and I'm going to jump to the site plan here and talk about a couple of the
other conditions. There is a roundabout here coming in off of Commander. This
conceptual plan shows conceptual driveways, too. One of the conditions from the Ada
County Highway District was that you cannot have any driveways taking access to this
roundabout area. Staff has continued that condition into the city staff report, as well as
no parking around the roundabout. So, no parking or driveways around the roundabout.
Also, this street -- they do have a temporary turnaround here that can be vacated once
the street is extended to connect up with Jericho, but until such time there is a
temporary turnaround easement that needs to be on the plat and they do need to work
with the fire department on appropriate signage and striping, just to make it clear to
everyone that this is not a driveway to be parking in, it is for emergency vehicles
primarily and sanitary service vehicles, large vehicles, buses, that may go down there
and cannot back all the way back up. So, it's their turnaround area. Also, the fire
department and SSC did not want to see parking directly across the street from that,
because that effectively takes away their turnaround area. So, that is also a condition in
the staff report. I think those are the main ones that I wanted to touch on. If you have
any other questions, I can sure stand -- or if you'd like more history, I guess I can tell
you that there are 12 building lots on the five acres that are before you tonight. There is
a lot of history with this application, so I don't think I will belabor anymore of the staffs
report, unless you have any questions of me.
Rohm: Any questions of staff before we move forward?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one observation.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: The staff report apparently was written by a Mr. C. Caleb Hood and I would
ask whether that change is a function of your recent marriage or would you prefer to be
referred to as Caleb?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 9 of 92
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, all the Commissioners, I have recently gone
to my middle name. It was a function of multiple things. A new year, a new life, and
do just prefer my middle name to my first name. Either one is okay. I'm just trying to --
and the new title, too, I guess, that I recently received, so I thought it was just a good
time to kind of --
Zaremba: A lot of life changes.
Hood: A lot of changes. So, I thought get more comfortable and --
Zaremba: All of them good, as far as I know.
Hood: So far so good, too, so -- but either way I will answer to pretty much anything,
so--
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Be careful what you say.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come
forward.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. Happy to be here tonight. I think we got through all the heavy
lifting the last time we met and talked about this project. I won't belabor the history like
Craig did. I think he mentioned he would not either. We have got a project tonight, it's
just five acres. They are relatively large lots, from ten and a half thousand, basically, to
sixteen and a half thousand square feet, larger than your average lot in Meridian. Craig
just barely touched on those elevations. If we can go back to those elevations. Larger
homes are slated for development on this lot -- on this subdivision. Craig asked me to
address just a few things, fencing being the first. We have no problem meeting the
fencing requirements. The new UDC requires the fencing to be included with the
landscape plan. When this was submitted the UDC wasn't adopted, but just so you
know, we will continue the chain link fence along the north where the school site is and
the remainder of the subdivision would be in cedar fencing. So, Craig, if you can go
back and just point that out. Just continue the chain link fence along the school site
and, then, a wood fence around the remainder of six feet. On the pathway that goes up
to the school -- it's not represented well here. Craig -- oh, there it is. Right through
there. We will do a four foot tall solid wood fence through there to comply with the
landscape ordinance. This is a representation. It's not the way it's going to be built. As
you remember, we talked about this at the last hearing. We understand that that's not
going to be able to work that way and we don't intend for it to be that way, it's just a
graphical representation that someone did for us. They didn't understand the reasoning
why or how we wanted the driveways at this location. We didn't give them great
direction. It's just to give you an idea of what the subdivision will look like in the future.
There is a stub street to the west. There is a stub street to the south. And ask if you
Meridian Planning & Zoning'
January 19, 2006
Page 10 of 92
have any questions of us at this time. We have read through the staff report and we
can live with and agree with the conditions of approval.
Rohm: Good. Makes things a lot easier that way. Thanks.
McKinnon: Yes, it does. Thank you.
Rohm: Any questions of Dave from the Commission?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Good. Thanks, Dave. We do not have anybody signed up to testify for this
hearing, but if -- at this time if anyone would like to come forward, this is your
opportunity. Seeing none, I think at this time I will just turn it back to the Commission.
Do you have any questions of staff before we close the Public Hearing, any one of the
Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make another observation. I thank the staff for their
preparation, but also note that the staff recommended denial last time and this time they
have phrased it that they have complied with what the Commission asked them to do,
but their recommendation is still denial. And in the Findings of Fact they have a list of
things the Commission must find and I notice that in other applications those are
findings that the staff takes ownership of and they, clearly, are not taking ownership of it
this time. So, if the Commission is making these Findings and going against the staffs
recommendation, it's clearly entirely on us.
Rohm: That happens from time to time.
Zaremba: I would make one further comment. When we had this before us originally, I
made a long comment about Mr. Centers' motivation and, again, I'll repeat I don't know
Mr. Centers personally and in thinking about it, I was out of place in my assumption of
what his motivation might be and making the comments about it and I would apologize
for taking the Commission's and the applicant's and staffs and everybody else's time for
my long dissertation. It's irrelevant what his motivation is or my opinion about it and I'm
sorry to have taken the time to express it. That being said, however, it doesn't make
any difference why this doesn't connect to Jericho. It's been known all along .-- and,
again, I believe we promised to the people of the Arcadia Subdivision, even those that
didn't live there yet, that there would be direct access to Locust Grove. And it's
irrelevant why that isn't happening. Whether there is good reasons or bad reasons, the
difficulty is this creates a problem for the City of Meridian, that it may be forever trying to
solve. To be honest, I have no problem with the presentation, but as staff has pointed
out, this fits into an area, not just one five acre parcel, and that area needs to have
connectivity and both ACHD and the city, I believe, are within their rights to insist on the
connectivity and I still have to comment that I don't think it's in the city's best interest to
take on this problem in this way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 11 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I am going to change my opinion from the last time we spoke. I
have thought a lot about this one after the original hearing and after reading back over it
and I have to agree with Commissioner Zaremba, the connectivity is needed there. We
all know how strongly I feel about the way Jericho developed with that big county sub,
but I think, if nothing else, thinking through the fact that it may not -- I mean there is a
possibility that we won't get that connectivity, I'm not sure that the way the emergency
turnaround at the end of this development -- it looks temporary and there is just a very
real possibility, if this is approved, it may be permanent and I don't think that -- I think it's
awkward and I think it's -- a temporary solution would probably be appropriate, but as a
permanent -- a potential permanent solution, I don't think that it would be the way
would like to see it developed. Again, generally, I do tend to agree with Commissioner
Zaremba, not in the best interest at the time -- at this time, because the connectivity,
do agree, is going to be critical in that area. End of my comments.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Any additional comments from
the Commission?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one. I think -- I think those are both good comments,
but I think it makes an assumption that that parcel to the west is never going to develop,
that it's going to stay an undeveloped piece of property. Given the way things are
happening in Meridian right now, I don't know if that's a realistic assumption. I mean it
could happen and that's the assumption we are making, that there is never going to be
any connectivity, but if that parcel ever develops, of course, there would be at that time.
I'm sure that every department is going to have that as a requirement.
Rohm: Well -- and along that line, the access road to the west at the end of this
subdivision takes you right into that acreage that would ultimately have the potential to
tie into Jericho and so that's, I guess, the other side of the coin from which
Commissioner Zaremba and Newton-Huckabay spoke. So, I kind of see where you're
coming from, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm not -- don't want it to be thought that I'm making the assumption
that piece of property is never going to develop. I am making an observation that in the
event if it does develop in a way that would block Commander Street, given the history
of this, that it was included and, then, it wasn't included, that it would block Commander
Street from being an access to the west, then, the emergency access point -- a
temporary emergency turnaround becomes permanent.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 12 of 92
Moe: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I think in our past discussions of this property it's been well noted that if that
property was to develop, that street would have to be connected back over to the west.
They wouldn't have an option not to do that. Therefore, that would have to go in.
Beyond that, a couple things -- and I have gone back and forth on this property as well
and because this property -- this whole area has quite a history within this Commission,
you know, the owner has sold off this property to where now he does not own that
property to the west and he is trying to develop his property only, the opportunity for
connectivity is still there at some point. So, quite frankly, I'm in favor of going forward
with this, because I don't see the need to not -- basically to penalize this owner for not
being able to do something with the other property. He has, indeed, sold that property
to others.
Rohm: Before we move forward, I have a question of staff. Because the property to the
west will now be adjacent to annexed property if a motion is made and carried forward
to the Council and them approve it as well, isn't there a requirement that any properties
that develop that are adjacent to city property have to adhere to city standards, as in
take city services via city water and sewer, and cannot develop as an out parcel with
septic and their own private well?
Hood: Mr. Chair, yes and no. There are provisions for county parcels that are within
300 feet of city services. The DEQ will not issue their septic permits if they are within --
close enough to city services, then, they will not issue a permit for a septic system. So,
you could still develop that piece in the county, whatever the county regulations will let
you do for the zoning, but you would have to address the city's Public Works
Department and get our services. So, really, in effect, it is difficult to develop that piece
in the county. There is no mechanism to initiate the annexation on the partial that's over
five acres in size if it doesn't have our services. So, not to muddy things more, but if
they are within a certain distance, then, we can -- they are required to obtain city
services.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want a clarification. My thoughts were going in the -- because
it's surrounded on at least two sides by already annexed -- will be annexed -- or
annexed. You can't force -- force it to annex into the city, is that what you're saying?
Hood: I may look at Counselman Nary or --
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe force is not the word I want to use.
Hood: Yeah. There are provisions in state code where the city can initiate and annex
properties. One of the outs for property owners is if they have more than five acres. If
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 13 of 92
they own more than five acres, the city cannot force them to come into the city. So, if
you have more than that -- there are several provisions, though -- and I'm just going off
of memory of what I remember that to be. If you are larger than five and you are
receiving city services, then, you have consented to annexation in the future. So, there
are some if this, then -- there is other circumstances, it's not just if you're five acres or
more. This map does not accurately represent the entire city limits either, because just
to the north is Westborough square, Westborough Subdivision, that has been recently
annexed into the city. So, that five to the west, actually, has city limits on three sides,
the north, east, and the west. So, we try to update our maps, but this one isn't totally up
to date. It will be somewhat of an enclave, but there are some properties to the south
that have not annexed yet and are still in the county.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: The Jericho Road properties are in the county still?
Hood: No. All of the --
Newton-Huckabay: Those get annexed?
Hood: Everything on the east -- or, yeah, east side of Jericho is within the city limits.
Everything on the west has not come into the city yet.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Dave, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on this, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple of thoughts and
some rebuttal. Just for the record, Jake Centers no longer owns this piece of property.
It's not typical for the city to require a property owner to come in and purchase a piece
of property to build a road all the way through. When Arcadia was built it had one
access, this stub street to Lochsa -- I mean to Saguaro was not built at that time, so
secondary access was not available. Furthermore, access to Leeshire was not
available at that time. There was not a requirement for Arcadia to be built -- for Arcadia
to provide access all the way out to Locust Grove at this time. Jake does not own this
piece of property. This property is owned by Mr. Luchini. Not For Sale, LLC, with Jake
Centers being the head of that. And, then, Go Properties owns this piece of property.
We have no authority to provide anything through here. Commissioner Zaremba, you
made an assumption saying that ACHD and the city would require this to connect all the
way through. ACHD in their staff report was satisfied with the stub street to the west
and the stub street located at this point. In the future this property, if and when it
develops, will provide an access road through here. If this property were not to develop
at anytime in the future, we wouldn't have this access road. The city can promise
anybody that this -- the city has made no promises that this would continue all the way
through, because the city has no ability to promise that. What they can promise is that
when these properties develop in the city, that a road will come all the way through
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 14 of 92
there. When this property was purchased it was two parcels of ground and those were
both build -able parcels of ground in the county. A property status report was issued by
the planning and zoning of Ada County stating that those are two build -able parcels of
ground. If someone wished to purchase these properties, they could build two homes
on these parcels and you would never have an access through there. At this point, this
five acres -- or the four acres, plus the one acre, provides an access to this point,
bringing us that much closer to this point. Is it in the best interest of the city not to
provide any access through here in the future and not to provide a stub street that would
provide access here? I don't know if it's in the best interest of the city to say you cannot
build this until everything is built. This would provide at least part of that stub road that
would connect all the way through Arcadia. If you say no to this project, then, you have
got a project that can't come forward, you have hamstrung both property owners,
because this property owner can't come in unless he comes in with Jake. And so what
you have done is create a situation that only -- if these are properties are developed,
they could only be developed together and they are different ownership and I don't
believe that you can make one property owner do one thing at a different time. And just
for clarification, Jake does not own that piece of property and ACHD has made it a
requirement to provide a stub street to that property, just as it is a city requirement.
Borup: I think we all understood that.
McKinnon: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure it got on the record from me.
Rohm: Thanks, Dave.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think considering this property, without considering the
background that went along with it, is asking us to make a decision in a vacuum,
assuming we know nothing about what might happen, and I think that that -- that that's
inappropriate in that instance. But, again, my big complaint is it would be -- if we moved
forward, I would like to see the emergency access put in this development in a way that
if it -- at some point in the future it becomes permanent, it's appropriate for a permanent
emergency access. Does that make sense what I'm requesting?
Rohm: If you want to put that in the form of a motion, then, we will see where it goes.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would like to know the opinion of the rest of the
Commissioners on that. If I stand alone in that opinion, then, I will end my comments
and we will move on.
Borup: Question, then, if that's what you're asking. What makes it a permanent
turnaround that's any different than it is now?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, this one had all the required -- the no parking requirements,
can't park across the street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 15 of 92
Borup: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: That type of thing. They need to make it wide enough, I would
guess. I mean I'm not a --
Borup: I don't know that this --
Newton-Huckabay: That's not my area of expertise.
Borup: Okay. But it is an engineer and planners.
Newton-Huckabay: I just need to have an opinion.
Borup: If it didn't qualify as a turnaround, it wouldn't be approved as it is now. I mean
whether --
Rohm: That's a good point.
Borup: -- it's temporary or permanent; it still has to have the same specifications, to my
understanding.
Rohm: A temporary solution has to adhere to permanent --
Borup: Standards.
Rohm: -- permanent standards, even being temporary, because there is no assurance
that at some point in time down the road that it will be carried forward. So, I think,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, although your comments are well taken, the staff
recommendation addresses those and by elimination of parking and things such as that,
the emergency vehicle traffic has been addressed with this application and staff report,
as I understand it.
Newton-Huckabay: I think it's great that nobody will park in a no parking zone in that
neighborhood ever.
Zaremba: My question to staff would be what constitutes a temporary turnaround. It
would be sufficient to roll four inches of asphalt over bare ground, wouldn't it, for a
temporary? And a permanent one would be a full road section.
Hood: The fire department still has standards, as was mentioned earlier. They do allow
-- it's not quit the same. Generally, it's going to be dedicated to the public and,
therefore, in ACHD's right of way. Here you have just got an easement across a build-
able lot. But as far as the cross-section of what's actually underneath that, it's going to
be similar. It still has to support a fire truck. The radiuses still have to be the same. It
is a little misleading and it isn't the ideal situation. I mean a cul-de-sac or a snoopy that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 16 of 92
is right of way clearly defines those areas, but your -- I mean everyone's -- it does still
function as a turnaround and it has been approved by the emergency services as such.
It's kind of a -- for a truly temporary use of something like this would work just fine,
generally. And you never really know how long a temporary turnaround is going to be
needed for. The idea is that you can use more of that area if you don't have to do a full-
blown cul-de-sac or a snoopy. I mean there is more build -able area there for lots. In
that instance that's nice for the development. You don't have, you know, a cul-de-sac
and if it does get punched through, then, you have got a bunch of asphalt you don't
need in the future. But either way it functions -- again, it's not the most ideal situation
for staff, but if emergency services is going to sign off on it and it meets their
requirements -- but there are differences between a full-blown permanent turnaround in
the right of way and something that's just temporary and 20 feet wide --
Rohm: Thanks, Craig. At this time I would like to have one of the Commissioners make
a motion to either close --
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-050
and PP 05-051. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Oh, am I doing a motion? I just closed it.
Newton-Huckabay: I won't be doing a motion.
Rohm: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion?
Borup: Okay. Well, I'd like to move on, so I guess I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, I move we
recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th, with the following
clarification and that was the applicant was asked to clarify the perimeter and micro -
path fencing. The applicant made the statement that the north fence along the school
would be a continuation of the chain link fence I think the school presently has; that the
fencing around the rest of the perimeter would be a six foot high wood fence and the
micro -path fence would be four foot or within city standards. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, both related to Reserve Subdivision. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? There are three in favor and two against. Motion
carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 17 of 92
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone
for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest
corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common
lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Pine Avenue:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
multi -family residential units with a request for reductions to the street
frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West
Pine Avenue:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing on AZ 05-051, PP 05-
052 and CUP 05-047. All three of these items relate to Ellensburg Subdivision and at
this time I'd like to hear the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You may recognize
the name Ellensburg Subdivision. It has been on the agenda a couple times before. It
was originally scheduled for the November 3rd, 2005, hearing. ACHD had not reviewed
the project and I think the traffic impact study was a little behind. So, it was continued
from that date to December 15th, 2005, for that hearing. The site was not adequately
posted, so, then, the item was continued to tonight. The project is located at the -- what
is presently the end of this section of Pine Avenue along Ten Mile Road. It is located at
the northwest corner of Pine and Ten Mile. The -- let's see. This will show the
boundaries a little more clearly. It is a triangular piece of property with pretty limited
frontage on Ten Mile Road and, then, quite a bit of frontage on what would be the Ten
Mile Avenue. The site is this one here in white. Currently the site is vacant. There has
been some recent development since this aerial photo, but this site does still remain
vacant. The surrounding land uses to the south -- there are some existing rural
properties on large lots. To the north there is Mosers Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8, as
indicated here with some -- it looks like fairly typically sized R-8 lots and, then, also to
the north and a little bit more west is a park and an elementary school that is Chaparral
Elementary School and a park that is owned by the West Ada Recreation District, not by
the City of Meridian. To the east there is the recently approved -- I guess Somersby -- I
think it was year before last or last year, with some limited office at the corner of Pine
and Ten Mile and, then, some higher density residential developments around that. The
general area of the project is -- is a mix of rural areas and developments. Staff does
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 18 of 92
anticipate this area will rapidly change when the Ten Mile interchange on 1-84 begins
construction and is completed -- scheduled right now for 2008 to begin construction and
completed a year or so after that. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan does list
the area to the south of here mixed use regional and the area will be -- will be vastly
different than it is today. The proposal before you is for 164 multi -family units,
consisting of -- in four-plexes. There are 41 four-plex buildings and four common lots
on 12.84 acres. Currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant has proposed
annexation to the R-15 zone. It doesn't look like we got a plat in here. The applicant
has submitted an annexation application and preliminary plat application and also the
CUP is for a planned development, an addition to the multi -family buildings. The
planned development does ask for reduced frontages. And I apologize for not having a
plat. The building lots are, basically, the footprint of the four-plex buildings and do not
have any frontage on a public road, therefore, needing the planned development for
those reduced frontages. It's important -- and I should have mentioned this first thing --
is that this application, because it has been continued a couple times, was submitted
under the old code. This is being considered under Titles 11 and 12 of Meridian City
Code. It was submitted prior to September 15th, 2005, when the Unified Development
Code was adopted. This may be the last project you see under the old code, because it
has been continued twice. Most of the others have ran their course through the
Commission. Some key items to touch on. Really, topic of the most discussion is the
Unified Development Code, when it was adopted in September, did adopt some fairly
stringent new standards for multi -family developments and that deal with amenities. It
deals with amount of open space. It deals with also some architectural features. This
application is not subject to those requirements, because it is under the old code, but as
a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission does have the ability, as they see fit, to
impose any of those requirements that they feel are necessary or would approve the
project on the project. So, as part of the staff report, I did include analysis of those
newer items that are in the Unified Development Code and I will go through those now.
As part of the Unified Development Code there was -- for units of 20 -- actually, this one
falls in the over one hundred units category. For units over one hundred units they are
required to provide four amenities and also any others that the Commission feels are
commensurate with the size of the development. They also are required that they
provide an amenity from each category. The category is defined in the new Unified
Development Code as being recreation, quality of life, and open space. Staff feels that
the applicant has met this requirement as submitted. They do have the amenities that
would qualify under the new code, would be the pool, the walking trails, the clubhouse,
the tot lot, children's play area, and grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet. So, they
have satisfied that requirement. The new code also requires that for multi -family
developments they are required to provide covered parking. For one bedroom units
they are required to give one covered parking space and for two bedroom units or
larger, they are required to give two covered parking spaces. The applicant has
proposed cover parking, so that is one item where they would not need the new
standards. The new code also gets much more specific about the amount of open
space that is required for the development. It breaks the units into categories by square
footage and gives standards for amount of open space by square feet that are required
for each unit. One hundred and fifty square feet of open space is required for each unit
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 19 of 92
from 500 square feet -- or 500 square feet or below. Two hundred fifty square feet of
open space is required for each unit that contains the 2,512 square feet of living space.
And 350 square feet of common open space is required for every unit above 1,200
square feet of living space. The other stipulations on that open space is that for it to be
eligible must be a minimum of 20 -by -20 feet. This application does appear to comply
with that requirement. I think it's evident from the colored land here. There is a large
amount of common open space on the project there by the applicant's calculation.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Josh.
Wilson: Yeah.
Moe: In regard to the open space within your notations you speak of the common
space out there by the collector, basically, by Ten Mile Road.
Wilson: Okay.
Moe: As far as fencing, per se, have we got anymore information on the applicant, what
they are going to provide out there?
Wilson: I have not received anymore information about fencing.
Moe: Hopefully, we will be hearing from --
Wilson: I will ask the applicant to address that. I did find my figure here. They have
provided 13 percent of the site as open space and that is outside of any required street
buffers and, therefore, qualifies as open space. There is the large one in the northwest
corner -- there is the large grassy area that will also serve as storm water retention. In
the center of the development there is the grassy area with the children's play area, the
tot lot, and, then, some grassy area provided by the clubhouse and pool and there is
also the large open space out by the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, in addition to
open space provided along the rear of the units. So, from staffs analysis they do apply
-- or they do appear to comply with that requirement that the UDC would place on them.
An item that staff feels does not comply as submitted is the elevations. The new -- the
new multi -family standards do have some fairly specific architectural standards that they
are required to meet. There is required to be a mix of materials and articulations on the
elevations of the buildings. I think it's probably shown more clearly on Buildings B and
C, that they are proposed to be of one material for the entire facade of the building, with
some -- with -- there is some projections on the architectural facade here, but they are --
on this building in particular they are fairly minimal and would not meet the requirements
of the new architectural section. This building does have a little more modulation in the
facade, a little more variation and probably would meet those requirements. Again, it
doesn't have that mixed materials that the new code talks about. And this -- this
building facade does also have the modulations, but not the mix of materials. The new
architectural standards also refer to an appearance of durability of quality of
construction and they reference material such as stone, stucco, wood, tile, brick. These
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 20 of 92
buildings are proposed to be stucco, but it does -- they do lack the -- any rock or brick
accents that that architectural section does mention as well. It also talks about a
variation in roof lines, which I think you could go either way on these. You know, there
are some projections that do give some variation, but, then, again, you also have the --
you also have the pretty consistent flat roof lines that may or may not meet that section
as well. I think the -- as noted in the staff report, they really do meet most of these new
multi -family standards and I think the applicant has made an effort to provide as many
as they can. The main ones that they don't meet being the covered parking and the
elevations. The elevations in regards to the site layout are fairly easy to change. The
covered parking -- and the applicant should address this -- covered parking may take up
a little more space and they may lose a few parking spaces due to the posts that are
required for canopies over parking spaces and fitting parking spaces around those.
That may require some site redesign and lose some parking on that. But the elevations
should be fairly easy to incorporate a mix of materials and just slightly change
architectural styles of those without really changing the plat or the site layout too much.
I think with that I will end staffs comments and take any questions the Commission has.
I do apologize for not having a copy of the plat in the presentation.
Rohm: Thanks, Josh. Any questions of staff from the Commission?
Borup: I have got one. And not necessarily on this specific project, but are the -- your
references in the UDC, are those correct? 11-4-3?
Wilson: Are those -- I'm sorry, Commissioner, are the references correct?
Borup: Yes.
Wilson: Is that what you're asking? Yes.
Borup: They are not in my book. I mean -- maybe I have got the wrong one.
Zaremba: It does take some interpretation. The entire new UDC is Title 11, so ignore
the 11. When you're trying to look one up, you want -- the one you're referencing, 11-4-
3.270, 1 think, ignore the 11. You need to look for Chapter 4 --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: -- and, then, within Chapter 4 --
Borup: That's where I was at.
Zaremba: -- the paragraph 270D.
Borup: I was in Chapter 4.
Zaremba: It took me awhile to figure that out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 21 of 92
Wilson: Commission Zaremba is correct. The 11 is -- the entire UDC is in Title 11 now,
but that is the property reference to it, but -- yeah, so ignore the 11, look for Chapter 4.
1 will -- I will, I'm sorry, correct one code reference. Under the section elevations, under
the CUP analysis, it references the elevations as complying with UDC 11-4-3.270D.
That should, actually, be E is the section for architectural standards.
Zaremba: You're on page nine and you're talking about Roman numeral V?
Wilson: Yes. That is Roman numeral V on page nine.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple comments, if I may.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: On page four there is passing reference to the fact that the Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designates this -- I can't talk tonight. Designates this property
as public -quasi public. At the time that the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated
and adopted, there, actually, was no definition of public or quasi -public in the existing
ordinance. It was something that the Comprehensive Plan group looked around and
said we should have this designation for certain properties. The property that we are
talking about at the time, and maybe still is, was owned by a church, which the group
call public -quasi public and had a sign visible from Ten Mile at approximately this
location, indicating that a church was going to be built on that site. They made no
request to become public quasi -public, this is something that the Comprehensive Plan
group did. This Commission in previous actions has established the precedent that that
designation is not a zoning designation, does not run with the land, it's a use
designation and if the use goes away, that designation goes away. It, essentially,
evaporates. The applicant doesn't have to do anything to remove a public -quasi public
designation, other than change their use. So, I don't know whether or not it's still owned
by the church, but if they are proposing a different use than building a church, they don't
have to do anything about this designation in the Comprehensive Plan. It does not run
with the land. So, I would comment on that.
Rohm: Well, I remember that sign being out there and so -- and that's probably how the
Comprehensive Plan designated that as such, so I appreciate your comments.
Zaremba: I would also comment on another thing that staff has asked us to consider --
and now I'm on page eight, under the new multi -family standards that appear in the
UDC, which we would only be able to incorporate if we added it as a condition under the
conditional use. But the item four that says developments with 20 units or more shall
provide the following: Property management office, a maintenance storage area, a
central mailbox location, and a directory and map of the development at a convenient
location. I was on what was called the Process Improvement Group that helped
develop and write the new UDC. We at various times had experts in different fields
come and talk to us, things that perhaps were new to Meridian, but not so new in other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 22 of 92
areas. One of the people that came was somebody who has built and managed multi-
family developments for many many years and I emphasize the manage part of it,
because his expertise was telling us what was wrong with these developments, what did
they discover long after they had been built that they should have had in the first place.
This paragraph four he was very strong about. All of those things they discovered they
should have had and it's difficult for the area to continue its own management, they end
up with maintenance materials just stuck out in one of the parking spots and I would
suggest that this Commission consider incorporating that somewhere in there. Think
about it as we are talking about this project. It was a reason for it getting into the UDC.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Commissioner Zaremba, I would note that I have had the same concern on that
same issue. I'm, actually, waiting for the applicant to tell us what they thought of the
conditions within this proposal.
Rohm: Yeah. And before we hear from the applicant, I would like to say that not only
this application, but every application that we have heard since the development of the
Unified Development Code we have tried to incorporate the things that we have learned
in years past into proposals as they come forward, even though it had not yet officially
been adopted. But we made those conditions of approval in other projects and so more
than likely we will at least consider that for this application as well. With that being said,
I would like to ask the applicant to come forward, please.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding
Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle, here tonight representing Centennial Development. And I'm
going to make this easy for you. I do understand staffs intent of analyzing the new
code and we understand that we did submit this under the old code requirement.
However, we did look at the new code when designing this to a certain degree. And I
believe by looking at what staff has analyzed with the new code that we meet or can
meet the majority of those requirements. So, I'm not going to be up here arguing too
much about those, I'm just going to get right into it and we can kind of follow along.
With that, I'll, first of all, thank staff for laying out the intent of the project. I can get into
more detail about that if you'd like, but going specifically to the new standards as
suggested by staff, first of all, regarding fencing, we are going to have vinyl fencing
surrounding the property, with the exception of the drainage ditch along the north, that
will be a chain link fence. Everything else will be -- exterior will be vinyl fencing. As
staff has indicated, we do comply with the new standards for setbacks for the service
areas, the outdoor storage areas, waste disposal areas. We do comply with the open
space standards, old and new. With regard to number four, we do intend to provide a
management office within the clubhouse, a maintenance storage area, a mailbox
location, and directory location sign within the development. So, if you'd like to make
that a condition of approval, we will adhere to that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 23 of 92
Nickel: Regarding covered parking, we also intend to provide that within this
development, so if you would like to make that a condition of approval, we believe we
can handle that within the existing layout without wiping out too many parking -- or
required parking spaces within the development. Regarding the amenities, we do
comply with those. As you can tell, we have the walking pathway, the clubhouse and
pool area, the tot lot, and the green -- or grass open areas, in addition to the green area
around the units themselves. So, we do comply with that and those standards of both
the old and the new code. That brings us to the elevations. If staff will put those on the
screen. I do believe we meet the intent of -- as far as the -- how did he put it here? The
offsetting -- the offsetting walls. If you look at all three of these elevations, you can tell
that there are offsetting walls within each of the -- each of the three examples. I think
what we need to look at is what staff is talking about, the extra treatment. These are all
going to be stucco, so we would have no problem. And, if you recall, we did this on
Medford Place not too long ago. So, on these elevations, we would have no problem
adopting or incorporating elements of brick, rock, something other than the stucco to
kind of provide that with an extra -- an extra esthetically pleasing look to those
elevations. So, again, if that's something you're interested in putting as a condition of
approval -- I'd prefer to get this moving along, as opposed to coming back with a
drawing like Kevin did in the past, but we could provide something more detailed to the
City Council based on your recommendations tonight.
Rohm: Shawn, before you leave that subject, I want to make sure that you have read
through the architectural standards of the new UDC.
Nickel: Yeah. I have got them right here.
Rohm: And I'm not trying to move this beyond this point -- a conclusion, but I think that
as long as what you propose is clear before it goes to Council, then, I think we are -- we
can live with that. It's just everybody understands that you have to have different
materials and just break it up some and, then, as long as you can respond to that, I
think that that's the intent from this Commission.
Nickel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And after your discussions on the Medford development, if
you recall, we kind of scribbled in there little cobbles and things. When we took that
forward to the City Council, they also wanted us to elaborate on that and so we spent
some time with them as well. So, I think in this case we will go ahead and, actually,
revise the elevations. So, I don't want to go through that same thing again, but -- yeah.
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt while we are on the same subject, speaking
of the elevations. I see they have provided three different types and let me ask are you
providing those because you, eventually, plan to choose one of them and make them all
the same or will this project have a variety of the -- of all three?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 24 of 92
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we are showing on the site plan or the
PD plan three types of buildings and so those represent those three types of buildings.
So, they will be intermixed within the development.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Nickel: Everything else I believe we do meet and I think staff -- I have talked to staff in
the last couple of days and I think we are on the same page as far as what's, you know,
technically required, because this was submitted with -- you know, under the old code.
What their suggesting is and what the applicant is willing to do and provide you with, if
you want to condition those, I -- there is nothing in here, really, that we could not live
without agreeing to.
Rohm: Good.
Nickel: So, if you want any other information on the development itself, I will be more
than happy to or we can wait and we can let the neighbors talk and I can get up
afterwards and talk about that. We can do that.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn.
Zaremba: I do have one other question I want to asked before we go to open public
testimony and it has to do with the private street -- actually, there is two questions that
have to do with the private street. It mentions on the plat that all common areas will be
maintain by the homeowners association. Is Lot 2 -- is that what the private streets are?
Nickel: Yeah. I believe that's a private street over there. The private street would be
contained within Lot 2 and that would be under the --
Zaremba: So, that's a separate lot and the maintenance of it will be done by --
Nickel: Yes.
Zaremba: Then, the other question is a reference to the fire department's comments
and they are -- let's see. On Exhibit B, fire department comment number nine, they
have the concern about the ability to address the project and have all of the addresses
visible from the street. I guess my question relating to that is do you have any intention
of naming the private streets and addressing off of those or -- just discuss what's going
to happen, if you would.
Nickel: I will ask staff, as I believe that's the reason they want us to come back with an
application for a private road prior to final plat, is so those will be named for the -- so the
fire department does have the ability to address those off of a specific street, rather than
Pine Street and, then, having unit numbers, they'd rather have the actual addresses. Is
that correct, Josh?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 25 of 92
Wilson: That is correct. The private streets will be required to have names. The
comment from the fire department would have come before the UDC was enacted. The
UDC brought about the ability to get these private streets and, therefore, eliminate the
need to have that big monument sign out on Pine where every building in that complex
would be addressed off of Pine and, you know, Building A, Units Al, A2, A3, A4, or
however they would do it. Now, what the private streets allow them to do is name those
streets and address each building off of the private street it's located on. So, it's quite
preferable to the old method.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, our -- when we originally -- and this has
been going on for quite some time, but when we originally laid this out and met with staff
and met with the fire department, the intent was to have this as a service drive, which is
why it's not labeled with any street names and when we met with Joe Silva, we really
met regarding emergency access, turnarounds, circulation. At that point he -- I don't
think he was verbally real strong on the addressing. In the last several months that has
come up more and more. So, again, we would be happy to apply for the private road
and satisfy the fire department.
Zaremba: Great.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I had one question. It seems to me on the Medford
Place we went to great pains to insure that the units facing the street, their rear
elevations were also architecturally appealing. Are these rear elevations all along Pine
Avenue or -- I can't tell by the --
Nickel: It's somewhat different, madam -- or chairman, madam, commissioner. This is
somewhat different than the scenario with Medford, because, as you recall, Medford
kind of sat down in a hole. It was not -- we were not able to landscape or fence the
units from Eagle Road or Victory. In this case, with the flat elevation, with the berming
that we are going to have along the boundary and the landscaping, you're better able to
hide that and offset those elevations. So, what we are proposing is just those different
materials along the front elevations of the development.
Newton-Huckabay: I remember the conversation going the other way and that Mr.
Amar was making the point that because they sat down low, an argument against
architectural detail, in fact.
Nickel: I don't recall that, because I know we did agree to -- because of the visibility of
Eagle Road and Victory, that we did agree to provide those elevations all the way
around the building and that's what I recall from that.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there going to be, what, a three foot buffer, landscape berm?
Two to three -- is there a six foot fence around -- is that a fence around the perimeter?
Nickel: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 26 of 92
Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comments are well taken, though. I
mean if, in fact, the architectural elevations are -- the intent is to make the project look
better from the front and you have a whole row of them all along the extension of Pine
Avenue, it's just as much in keeping to that same architectural review in place on the
back side of those as well. I think that was kind of your point --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would think from those looking at it from the south --
because it's -- these are all two story buildings, generally, the back of four-plexes are
stucco with a deck and a slatted deck -- deck off the top level and --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Although my memory does fade sometimes, I would, actually, say that I would be
in agreement with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay as far as what we had decided on
the other development was from the back -- from the street side. If you're looking at the
back of these buildings, we just didn't want to see one constant look all the way down
the street and that is why we tried to make sure that we did have some esthetics to
those other buildings. And realizing we are going to have a fence here and whatnot, we
are still going to have, I assume, two story structures going through there, so I, actually,
do have a concern that the upper level is just going to look like one solid plane all the
way through Pine Street as we go and I would think that you guys may need to kind of
review that when you're going through your final before you get to City Council as it
goes forward.
Nickel: Okay.
Rohm: Well, I think that it would be in keeping to make that a condition of approval.
So, any other questions of the applicant before we take testimony from the public?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. At this time I'd like to ask Rick Jensen if he'd like to come
forward.
Jensen: Good evening. My name is Rich Jensen. My address is 3720 West Pine,
Meridian, Idaho. It, actually, borders the eastern portion of the boundary of this
property. My property line is this property line also. This is my property here. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to go on the record opposing this project, this type of
development west of Ten Mile. I believe it's inconsistent with existing single family,
fairly expensive homes in that area. I also think that there may be an impact to property
values of the land -- of the current landowners in the area west of Ten Mile. I also think
that this development -- this building density is too high for the amount of space that's
there on that acreage. I would recommend reducing the number of lots that are in that
area. And, therefore, my recommendation is that this type of development, basically
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 27 of 92
four-plexes, stay on the east side of Ten Mile where it is consistent with existing four-
plex developments and would fit into that plan better. If the project is approved, the
applicant has talked about vinyl fencing and I would hope and ask that if the project is
approved, that this fencing along this boundary is high enough and stout enough to
keep primarily children and other people from trespassing on my property, because I
raise livestock in that area, so there is a safety issue there, just keeping out of that
property. We'd also be interested in not having two story buildings along that property
line to protect our privacy and view. The applicant -- it looks like everything in there is
going to be two levels. I'm also interested and concerned about how the applicant is
going to maintain privacy of the -- of the private lane. That lane is a dirt lane, as you're
familiar with, and its upkeep and maintenance is the responsibility of the landowners in
that area and trespass is probably inevitable and I would just like to know a question as
to whether the applicant has addressed a way to limit the amount of trespass that will go
all the way down Pine Avenue -- our dirt lane. Excuse me. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. At this time would Lora Wilder like to
come forward, please.
Wilder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Lora Wilder. I live at 3401 West
Pine Avenue, which is the property immediately to the south border of the proposed
development. If you would show the aerial view I can point that out. This is our house
right here and this is our property line right here. I'm not going to either say that I
oppose or support this project. I have concerns and some things that I would like to ask
and some questions. First of all, I appreciate the effort the applicant has shown towards
complying with the new Unified Development Code. I would urge you to make as
conditions of the project the architectural standards. We live on the south side, we will
be looking at the rear of those buildings and we realize that anything else that develops
in that area will have to adhere to the new standards and that way the project will fit
better with the existing surroundings. I feel that that's very important and it needs to be
officially made a condition. As well, I would like to see item four on page eight that we
discussed with the property management office, even though the applicant has
expressed that they are going to do these things, I would like to have it be a condition,
so that it's formal and that we are assured that it will be done. In addition to that, I have
some questions. As you can see -- well, first, I would like to say for the public record,
too, that we raise -- we have an agricultural production operation, which is part of our
livelihood. We raise sheep. In addition, my children raise 4H pigs and cattle and the
pig pen is very close to the property line, which I showed that to the applicant when we
had the neighborhood meeting, and I just don't want to have any trouble. So, we would
like to state that for the public record and on the plat we would like to see the Idaho
Right to Farm law referenced. We have pretty much accepted the city is growing faster
than we had hoped and so for that reason we are not going to oppose the project, but
we, too, are concerned about our privacy and the privacy of this road. Applicant will be
building their own road just to the north of the existing road and they do state in Exhibit
B that it will be prohibited for people to be on the private road, but I would like to know if
there is currently a fence to the north of that private lane and we would like to see a
fence remain in between what they are extending for Pine Avenue and what is the a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 28 of 92
private road. Otherwise, I don't know how we will keep pedestrian traffic, children,
bicycles, others off of that road and for the safety of our livestock and our privacy, we
would like to insure that there is some way that we are going to limit and keep people off
of the road. And I'd like to know how that's addressed. Also, on the intersection down
here, I understand part of the property is going to widen to the south on the Shawl
property and I would like to know a little bit more about how they are going to set up that
intersection. So, as I understand it, those of us on the private road will merge onto their
new road down there and I'd just like to know a little bit more about how that's going to
work. So, thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else that would like to testify
on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Shawn, would you like to come forward.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, Shawn Nickel. Appreciate the neighbors' comments. We
did have a neighborhood meeting -- it seems like forever ago. And I do understand their
concerns, specifically with the -- with the roadway kind of a -- Pine Street comes in
process again. If you recall, the other side to the west, we had the issues with Pine and
EI Gato and everything. And in this case it's the same thing. You have got the existing
Pine private lane, which is not on our property, and it's privately owned and maintained
and it, actually, aligns up with Pine Street on the other side. We are offset, so at this
intersection we are going to have to do a transition and we are, actually, purchasing a
small portion of Mr. Shawl's property in order to properly align that intersection per
ACHD's guidelines. So, we will have a transition. We are going to be paving a portion
of Mr. Shawl's property over here and, then, transitioning their private lane as it comes
up and goes -- it comes up -- or, actually, you can kind of see that little triangle right
there. So, we will pave to this area right here and, then, it will transition to the gravel
road to the west. I think a fence along that boundary is probably a good idea, so we
would agree to have fencing along that south boundary to keep people from
encroaching on the neighbor's lane. I don't know if we need to work with them, if the
neighbors were intending to access our roadway and I will -- and we can work with them
at a later date on that and coordinate that -- the location of that fence. So, that shouldn't
be a problem. The gentleman --
Zaremba: Mr. Nickel?
Nickel: Yes.
Zaremba: While we are on the subject of the road, tell me -- I guess the question is
what width -- are you building the whole road bed or what would be a half plus 12 or --
Nickel: Yes. Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nickel: Enough of a travel way for us to meet ACHD's requirement. But it's going to be
completely on our property. We have no access to their -- to their private lane.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 29 of 92
Zaremba: Okay.
Nickel: Regarding the gentleman to the west, there will be a six foot high solid vinyl
fence with no gates or accesses to the west. So, it will be a straight shot all the way
across there. Regarding the density, we do understand we are encroaching into a rural
area, but this is definitely an area in transition and as staff has indicated, the Ten Mile
corridor is going to change significantly in the next couple of years with the -- it already
has, but once the interchange is complete, there is a combination of mixed use, there is
industrial, there is high density residential all the way down to the -- to the interchange
and keep in mind that when the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted, transportation
was really looked at and this is an area -- this intersection of Pine all the way down to
the interstate is an area that high density and mixed use was looked at very -- very
intentively and transportation was looked at. There is a designation for a future rail
station in this area for future light rail consideration along the railroad track. This
particular piece of property, high density, with the park and the school located to the
north and the transportation corridor, it's an excellent place for a higher density
development and that's one reason we have proposed that. Commissioner Zaremba,
you were correct in your definition or your explanation of the public -quasi public
designation and that's exactly what staff told us when we initially looked at this property.
Regarding the conditions that the neighbors spoke of, we are in agreement to those
conditions, as I stated earlier. And we will put the Right to Farm Act on the plat as well.
So, that's all I had. If you have any other questions, I would be more than happy to
address them.
Rohm: Shawn, how many units are along this west line?
Nickel: There are six buildings -- kind of hard to see. Josh, can you put the other
colored site plan up? There is one, two, three, four, five, six buildings, so 24 units.
Rohm: With it being all of similar color here, it's hard for me to outline the specifics of
the --
Nickel: Is it shown better on this one here?
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I believe one of the testimonies was a request that they
break up that -- that skyscape along that west line, because it's right adjacent to their
property and I was wondering if you had considered any change in the building
structures along this west line, as compared to the balance of the project?
Nickel: Commissioner -- or council member -- Commissioner -- I guess you're
chairman. Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Can you put up the aerial again, Josh? I'm
butchering everybody's name tonight. One thing we -- one thing we did consider is the
location of the house, the existing house of the neighbor. I do understand their concern.
We believe that there is enough of a buffer. If their house was closer and these
buildings were looking right down onto them, I could see the concern. I believe that with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 30 of 92
the solid fence, with the landscaping, the setbacks that are required by code, I think we
do meet the -- we are compatible -- probably not as much as they would like to be, but
think that we have done what we can to at least look at that.
Rohm: Well, I think the fact that not all of the buildings are faced specifically the same
direction, there is some break up as you go along that west line and so that's
appreciated. Thank you.
Nickel: Great.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel? Mr. Chair? It occurred to me -- and I'm looking at this -
- that on this five foot pathway, is there any opportunity to -- in that northwest corner to
at some point endeavor to meet up with access -- thank you. I mean right here. Access
into Fuller Park at some point? Because they have a nice walking path that goes the
perimeter of the park and I would just think that somewhere in here would be nice, if
that's at all possible, I would just --
Nickel: I would say yes, because, if you recall, some of you, the Chesterfield
Subdivision over here and the Castlebrook Subdivisions over here, had the pathway
and, the bridge across to the park. So, I think the ability, if the gentleman here was ever
to redevelop, I think the ability to connect a pathway through that property to that
pathway would be appropriate. We could mention that in an easement somewhere on
the final plat, that that is anticipated for connection.
Newton-Huckabay: I think given where this is -- I mean there was quite a large
development in here going in, that getting across here walking around the outer
perimeter and up here into the park through -- this is across the drain; right?
Nickel: Yeah. The drain is right there, so --
Newton-Huckabay: But I think that would be really nice in that area to get up into the
park through there.
Nickel: And also keep in mind that Pine Street eventually will connect.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Nickel: And, then, access to that pathway on this side would be available, as opposed
to trying to cross this ditch or that ditch a second time, so -- but, yeah, we can -- we can
put some sort of easement recognition in that corner if they -- and you guys will be
looking at that --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That would be great. I think that would be nice to have that
kind of connectivity.
Nickel: I'm looking back at my engineer. Do you see any problems with that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 31 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm not asking you to make -- to do that, I just -- my --
personally I have spent a lot of time using that park and the path around it and it's quite
nice and it would be nice to have that access into what's going to be -- I envision
probably fairly commercial area in the future.
Nickel: I think that would depend on their layout --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Nickel: -- but, if not, we would have the access across Pine, eventually, for that.
Newton-Huckabay: All right. So, we would be, then, leaving Mr. Jensen more options
that he would have otherwise --
Nickel: That's true.
Newton-Huckabay: -- when he goes to redevelop his property.
Nickel: That's true.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Any other questions of the applicant before we move
forward?
Zaremba: I would ask one more and it's probably a question of staff while Mr. Nickel is
still here. Conditions of approval, which is Exhibit B, paragraph one, the planning
department, 1.1.6 says other than public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot
access to West Pine Avenue is prohibited and a note shall be placed on the face of the
plat restricting access to West Pine. I realize this layout doesn't at this time indicate any
direct access to Ten Mile, but once it's annexed and somebody comes up with a
different plan, I'm just wondering if we should add the statement that there is also no
direct access to Ten Mile?
Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba, i think that's appropriate and --
Zaremba: And is the applicant comfortable with that?
Nickel: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. That was the only issue I had remaining.
Rohm: Good. Thank you, Shawn. Appreciate your comments. Okay. At this time
does the Commission have any further discussion or could we entertain a motion to
close?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 32 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-051, PP 05-
052, and CUP 05-047 relating to Ellensburg Subdivision.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-051,
PP 05-052, and CUP 05-047. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Thank you. Lots of notes on this one.
Zaremba: Yes. I would start by saying I appreciate the applicant's willingness to work
with the issues that have been raised. I would comment, in deference to the gentleman
that asked that there be lower density, this is an area where this kind of density is really
envisioned and, in my opinion, appropriate. As has been stated, the transportation
changes that are going to happen in the near future, in the short-term longer future, and
way down the road, almost require this area to develop with the heavier densities, so
that they have access to transit, which may been there, to the rail line which may be
there, and it is one of the ideas to actually pack the density around this kind of area.
So, I'm afraid we are not going to be much help on that one. And I believe the applicant
has been very cooperative on all the other issues. It seems like a good project to me.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Any other comments? With that being
said, I would entertain a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I suppose we should kind of tally up the notes that are going to be
needed to add to the motion.
Borup: Good idea.
Newton-Huckabay: For Commissioner Moe, who is getting quite prepared, I might add.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe has been taking excellent notes here, might I add.
Moe: Oh, I'm so glad you have noticed. Basically, what -- if I was to go forth with a
motion, basically, items that I would be looking to include, basically, within the
preliminary plat, would be, basically, at 1.29, noting that the preliminary plat will have a
note to the Right to Farm Act be put on the preliminary plat. As far as the preliminary
plat, that's about all I have there. Under the CUP, basically, I'd start off with 1.3.7, to
require that all comment -- all items within the multi -family standards in UDC 11-4-3.27B
be included within a Conditional Use Permit and, then, a 1.3.8 that the elevations -- the
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 33 of 92
elevation standards within the UDC 11-4-3.27E be required to include both the front and
rear of the buildings.
Zaremba: I would modify that at least the Pine rears.
Moe: Oh, yes. Say Pine Street side only.
Newton-Huckabay: Pine Avenue.
Zaremba: Pine Avenue.
Moe: Okay. Pine Avenue. All right. We will go back over these when I get through
the notes. Then, basically, the next item would be 1.38, which would be that the
applicant will provide fencing between the private road and the paved road. I did not
understand what type of fencing that was to be.
Zaremba: Vinyl. Oh, between --
Moe: No, between the private and paved roads.
Zaremba: I'm not sure we discussed that.
Moe: We did not. That could be a work -with -staff item.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: What would be an appropriate type of fencing for that use?
Zaremba: I don't think vinyl would work well separating two roadways. Just too brittle.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, that's what I would --
Moe: I would just say to be determined with staff.
Zaremba: And work with staff.
Moe: That's the end of my notes.
Newton-Huckabay: I had a note on an easement for potentially continuing the path on
the northwest corner of the property.
Moe: 1.39 would be to provide an easement for a walking path.
Newton-Huckabay: Path extension. Micropath extension to neighboring property.
Moe: To the northwest?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 34 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Northwest.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Moe, back on the plat, site specific
requirements 1.1.6 references only not direct lot -- direct lot access to West Pine
Avenue is prohibited --
Moe: And Ten Mile Road.
Zaremba: I would add Ten Mile. And that should be stated on the plat as well.
Moe: Yes. On the plat. Yes.
Zaremba: Other than that, I think you have excellently captured the tone of what we are
asking for.
Rohm: We are ready for a motion.
Moe: All right. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-051, PP
05-052, and CUP 05-047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date January
19, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated September 13, 2005, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval. Under the preliminary plat, item number
1.1.6, at the end of the sentence where it is noted: A note shall be placed on the final
plat restricting access to West Pine Avenue. I would like to add: And to Ten Mile Road.
Next item, also under the preliminary plat, a number 1.29 -- 2.9, excuse me, be added
to include that the preliminary plat will note the Right to Farm Act on the document.
Under the CUP items I would like to add an item 1.3.7, all items within the multi -family
standards, UDC 11-4-3.276 be required to comply. And another item would be 1.3.8,
that the elevation standards under UDC 11-4-3.27E be complied with, with the addition
of the rear side of all lot -- all buildings on Pine Avenue be required to comply as well.
That's it.
Newton-Huckabay: I think we get the spirit of it.
Moe: Next item would be 1.3.9, the applicant will provide fencing between the private
road and the paved road at Pine Avenue. The fencing type will be determined with
staff. And, then, the next item would be one point -- I think I'm down to 1.4.0, which
would be that the applicant will provide an easement to allow path extensions to the
northwest of the property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 35 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Can I have a point of clarification?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Were the elevation changes going to be made prior to City Council,
so that we would have that review?
Moe: Yes, they would be.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: So noted. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Zaremba: Let me ask staff do we need to add what used to be a standard condition,
that the new plat will be submitted to staff ten days before the City Council meeting or is
that handled another way now?
Wilson: If you are proposing changes to the plat -- and I believe you are with the -- with
the easements and also the notes, I think that, yes, we should get those prior to City
Council hearing. So, that would be another condition.
Moe: So moved. End of motion.
Wilson: And ten copies to the clerk.
Rohm: With ten copies.
Moe: With ten copies to the clerk. End of motion.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Rohm: That was a fine motion, I will tell you. Okay.
Zaremba: Would you read that back?
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, CUP 05-047, including all staff comments with
amendments as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: At this time we traditionally take a 15 minute break and we will reconvene at
9:15. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 36 of 92
(Recess.)
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-054
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of which 49.27 acres is
RUT proposed R-8 and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN -R for Bryce
Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 3935 West
Franklin Road:
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-056
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family residential
building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed
R-8 and TN -R zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3935 West Franklin Road:
Rohm: We are now ready to reconvene our regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission for January 19th, 2006. And at this time I'd like to
open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-054 and PP 05-056 for Bryce Canyon Subdivision
and just request a motion to accept their withdrawal.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: But I would like to offer a question -- a little discussion before.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: This is a project where Public Works is desirous of having a sewer easement
through. What happens to that or did happen?
Guenther: They go around.
Zaremba: I didn't hear that.
Guenther: They go around.
Zaremba: Okay. All right.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of this application
for AZ 05-054 and PP 05-056. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 37 of 92
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick
Road Property by the Ada County Highway District — 3595 East Ustick
Road:
Rohm: The next item is AZ 05-060 for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road
property and there has been a request to continue this until the February 16th regularly
scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning, due to lack of posting.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Could I get a motion to that effect?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: So moved.
Guenther: -- if you wanted to table it until February 2nd, that would also work. There is
a neighboring property that will be heard on the 16th and that is why they -- that item
was requested for a month, instead of two weeks.
Rohm: I think the 16th is a good date for that to hear the two projects at the same time.
So, thank you for your comment, but this -- I think the 16th would be better from my
perspective. Would someone like to make a motion to that effect?
Zaremba: I'll remake the motion that we continue AZ 05-060 to our regularly scheduled
meeting of February 16th, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-060 to February 16th,
2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, on the last one did I also understand there was a notice problem?
Are they aware it needs to be noticed?
Guenther: They failed to post, so they will have to re -notice, I believe.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 38 of 92
Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55
acres from RUT to C -G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC — 3475 East
Ustick Road:
Rohm: Well -- and carrying it out to the 16th gives them plenty of time to get that done.
Okay. Good. With that, at this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-
061 for Una Mas and start with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Staff is
recommending continuance of this project. However, we would like to hear it. The
applicant is here. This is a 9.55 acre parcel. It is approximately 300 yards to the east
side of Ustick Road. This site plan -- this is a conceptual site plan drafted by the
applicant. The ACHD property that we just continued is this site right here, which is
approximately four acres, which is for their new public road connection. This public
road is going to be the extension of Records, which is across from where the Sportsman
Warehouse is and the Meridian Crossroads project. This road would be the mid block
future collector connection, splitting Ustick and Fairview, and that is why the staff was
recommending the continuance, is because this site -- the Una Mas project, which is the
9.55 acres immediately to the east of the ACHD project, and the Gateway Marketplace,
which is immediately east on the intersection of -- the southwest corner of the
intersection of Eagle and Ustick, are all open applications at this time at the planning
office. Currently, in front of you tonight would have been the ACHD and Una Mas,
which are for annexation only. With that, this application did come in prior to the City
Council, essentially, giving better direction to staff that they don't want to see
annexations without development proposals. However, this is kind of a unique situation
due to the fact that this site for Una Mas does not have a public road access. It does
have frontage on Ustick Road, but ACHD has determined that the site would be for a full
access point offsite for this project. If you look at -- at the actual site right now, there is
a single family residence in the center of this site, which ACHD has granted future
construction access point for this site, if it takes a bit for the ACHD project, as well as
the undetermined Gateway Marketplace project, to deliver their cross -access to this
site. So, currently, this is kind of landlocked due to the fact that ACHD has already
improved Ustick Road at this site and they did not give the site an access point and
there is no cross -access to the existing points on Ustick Road. Now, that being said,
one of the conditions -- or not -- one of the comments, which will be written into the
development agreement for this site, would be cross -access to the east to the ACHD
site, to the west, which is the Gateway Marketplace, and to the south, which is a
commercially zoned Redfeather site. At this time one point to bring up is that the ACHD
project is not going to retain all of that project. They are only going to keep what they
need for their future collector road. The remainder of that portion, which is requested to
be considered as a C -G, general commercial zone, is going to be sold to the highest
bidder. Now, if the bidder turns out to be this site, then, this site plan would be
completely not inconsequential as a preliminary plat would be filed that would be
brought all the way over to the future collector road. Now, there is a lot of what ifs with
this site, which is why staff recommends a continuance of this application. However,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 39 of 92
the applicant is here and wanted to have discussions with this board -- or with the
Commission in order to try and get this project moved forward. So, I will stand for
questions at this time.
Rohm: Did you say that there is existing cross -access to the west or --
Guenther: There is no cross -access at all.
Rohm: At all. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff before
ask the applicant to come forward? Okay. At this time --
Rosse: My name is John Rosse, I'm with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. We are
at 1717 Chisholm Drive in Nampa. We are here today for annexation only and I want to
point out that, you know, I want to clarify that we have no access to this site at all, which
is -- you know, we are working on trying to resolve that, but in the -- currently right now
this access right here isn't on our property at all, it belongs to the neighboring -- to the
neighboring parcel and the access agreement that is in place right now is for the
residential. As soon as we change the -- change the usage of it, that access agreement
is null and void we don't have it. However, we do have a verbal approval from Gary
Inselman at ACHD to put a temporary access in until such time that the neighboring
parcel is developed and according to our discussions with Planning and Zoning that
cross -access agreement will be granted north, south, east, west, basically, on all those
type -- on all those parcels, which we don't have a problem in doing. You know, we are
more than happy to work with the neighboring parcel when their development is --
comes through and is approved. Our understanding right now is that there is a -- that
there is a lot of issues with that site that -- that have not yet been resolved and one of
the things that we are concerned is we have got -- we have got potential clients for both
of -- you know, along the top and the bottom of our site and we would like to -- we can't
submit any applications, we can't do anything until we are annexed in and so that we
can even submit development applications with -- you know, on what we would like to
do. With that said, I want to address this parcel a little bit. Once ACHD does propose
and -- or gets their road approved, there is going to be a strip of land in here that, you
know, we are hoping that we can be the highest bidder on and make it feasible.
However, there is not -- that's not -- that is the what if. Right now all's we'd like to do is
be annexed in and we don't see that -- staff denying that or asking for a continuance on
the 16th pending getting ACHD in and this parcel in is going to make any difference at
this point. We look at it as if the neighboring parcel comes in and they have got a bunch
of problems and they are continued or moved off or denied at that point, we have
wasted a month that really didn't make any difference to the annexation process. We
understand that when we submit our parcel for -- after annexation, we still have our
development agreement that still has to go in front of Planning and Zoning again, where
we can have conditions put upon us at that point. We will have -- you know, by that
time the neighboring developments, ACHD will have been in, and you guys have had
time to look at that and we can -- at that point we will know a little bit better on what's
going on from all of the other parcels. So, I'm asking for you guys to grant us the
annexation tonight and to wait and get our development agreement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 40 of 92
Rohm: Discussion?
Zaremba: Public testimony?
Rohm: Before we do that, there is one other person that has signed up, Michelle
Broadhead. Would you like to come forward, please?
Broadhead: Michelle Broadhead at 2875 Duane Drive. I guess I -- I wasn't sure exactly
what would be happening at this meeting. Annexation I don't have a problem with, but
we are a neighbor -- that little street that ACHD owns, we back up to that on Duane
Drive and mostly our concerns are what is going to happen with this and nobody seems
to have any answers, which you can see from the discussion tonight there is lots of
what ifs and nobody knows what's happening. So, as a neighbor that's all I'm
concerned about is just what that's going to be like when it develops. So, if that's not
going to be decided tonight, then, we will come back and wait again. So, thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none, at this time maybe we will have some discussion amongst the
Commission. Start down at the end. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some
thoughts?
Zaremba: I looked like I was about to speak, I guess.
Rohm: You did.
Zaremba: Yes. I understand the applicant's desire to get something moving on this
property. I'm sure that often makes it easier for them to close a deal on who a future
tenant might be. The city, however, has consistently -- and the City Council,
specifically, has consistently asked either for a full concept plan or a preliminary plat to
accompany annexation requests. One, so that it's confirmed that the annexation
request is for the correct district and also so that they can hear the applications at the
same time. While I understand the desire to move it along, I agree with staffs request
that this probably is going to have a lot of questions hanging over it until some of the
neighboring issues are resolved and, again, as the previous applicant on another
subject has said, it's hard to hold one property hostage to the neighboring properties,
but there are a number of things that need to be resolved and I support the idea of
hearing the three subjects together on the one night. Staff?
Guenther: Well, the purpose for the continuation request is not as much for the
Gateway Marketplace project as the ACHD project. Staff was recommending -- if you
got the ACHD staff report, if they had posted the site we would have recommended
approval of that site tonight and gone forward with that. But because of their being held
up, it seems that this one probably has to be held up as well, which is why the
recommendation was the way it is. However, that being said, again, ACHD still has to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 41 of 92
sell that portion of the property and it's up to this board to determine if this, as an
annexation, can just go forward or not, so --
Zaremba: I realize the other piece of property is
continued that issue, because there was not notice.
portion that they wish to sell off -- it appears to me 1
built on it and meet any setbacks and that gives me
would be successful in the bid, because who else can
Is it wide enough to put anything on it?
not actually before us, but we
But would you speculate that the
o be too small for anything to be
great optimism that this applicant
use something that that's narrow.
Guenther: It is wide enough to put something on it. It would be a very weird looking
project, but it is wide enough to put something on it. Because this road, being a
collector road, would require a 20 foot buffer for the entire length of that road, as well as
if there is a use buffer between two uses, typically it's a five foot landscape buffer
between parking lots. That narrows it down to about 45 feet of build -able area. So, you
could have a 45 foot wide something in there, excluding parking.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I am in favor of continuing as well. As I have stated
before, it's nice to be able to make a decision with the bigger picture and that would be
my preference. Especially since I do not want to see a 45 -foot wide building come
before this Commission in the near future or a strip of property.
Rohm: I view this a little bit differently than the rest of you, inasmuch as this application
is for zoning, not for specific building structures, and albeit that it is going to be affected
by both the property to the east and the west, the zoning itself won't change regardless
of what happens with either parcel east or west and from my perspective, the zoning
doesn't tie anybody's hand to how this specific nine acres will be developed, it -- that is
still yet to be decided by what happens with those adjacent properties and so we are not
-- from my perspective, we are not tying the city's hands by moving forward with an
annexation with the commercial designation, we are only giving the applicant an
opportunity to explore his options, so that when he comes back to us with a preliminary
plat or something to present from a construction standpoint, he will have potential
tenants, because he already has the zoning to market from and so that's just the other
side of the coin to your opinion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Sorry.
Rohm: No. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 42 of 92
Moe: As far as the property to the west, are there any dates set for reviewing that
project as well?
Guenther: February 16th.
Moe: The 16th. Well, I guess my point is that as far as trying to go ahead and looking
for the approval as far as this evening, my concern is by letting them go ahead and if it
was approved tonight and, then, they go forward trying to work through their
development and whatnot, when we still have cross -access agreement situations and
whatnot to that other property, I would like to see how they are looking to develop
before we get too far along on this property as well, just to make sure that we don't have
any conflicts on what -- how they are looking at their property in regard to access to this
one as well. So, therefore, I think I would -- I think it would be better to continue this
until then, so that we could see that one as well. Did I just confuse you?
Borup: No. No. I --
Zaremba: That gives the applicant time to talk to the other neighbors and work
together.
Rohm: Commission Borup, you're --
Borup: I think the only question I had -- and I have gone back and forth on this, but the
project to the west beyond the 16th, is that going to have a preliminary plat?
Guenther: Yes, that is with a preliminary and a conditional use for design.
Borup: Okay. So, we will be able to see specific projects. Well, then, I'd think maybe
that does make sense. The ACHD property was strictly the annexation only also. So,
waiting for that design would really have no effect on this, but perhaps the other one
does.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the Public Hearing is still open and the applicant appears to
care to add something.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Rosse: I just wanted to add, you know --
Rohm: You need to restate your name and --
Rosse: I'm sorry. John Rosse with Hansen Rice. I appreciate, Chairman Rohm, your
comment. I mean we are -- we are just looking for the zoning and I appreciate your
standpoint. We have talked with the neighbors on both sides. You know, we have had
the discussion with the development. The proposal for them to have an access road
coming down here, we have talked with them about it, it seems like that's in their
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 43 of 92
development agreement -- in their development application currently, doesn't it show
that?
Guenther: It shows a service drive.
Rosse: A service drive. Which we have issue with. But there is a service drive down
that road, which we have talked with them about. We have also talked with them about
at the bottom of the south of our project providing cross -access agreement across ours
or putting a road in there to connect Eagle up to cross over the alley way. We have had
these discussions already with them and they -- you know, it's more of a fine tuning at
this point, rather than, you know, trying to come up with something. We have already
had the discussion, we are just trying to, you know -- like I said, it's just fine tuning at
this point. And I think --
Moe: But please consider we haven't seen any of this, so, therefore, we don't know
exactly what you guys have really discussed with the property to the west.
Rosse: I understand that, but I don't understand where the -- where the zoning is going
to have any affect on that.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, the zoning does have a bit of an effect on that, because once
you have your zoning, you still have eligibility for one building permit and you can pull a
certificate of zoning compliance and actually put the building down without having cross -
access, because when we changed our Unified Development Code, you can have
multiple buildings on one parcel in a commercial district.
Rosse: But that would be subject to Planning and Zoning approval; correct? And
conditions of approval?
Guenther: No. It's subject -- by the way the development agreement is written in my
staff report, it is conformance with the Unified Development Code, which states that a
commercial district that is an approved use, permitted use in a C -G district, would only
receive staff level approval and would not have to be heard by this board.
Rosse: Okay. Well --
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one other question. If you did receive the annexation
and zoning, you're still coming back with a preliminary plat; is that correct?
Rosse: We were not -- when we submitted our annexation application, it was not
requested for a preliminary plat. We could have provided that. We don't have a
problem with that at all. It was not -- at the time when we submitted it wasn't a
requirement, otherwise, we would have provided it. I mean it's not --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 44 of 92
Borup: So, the intention was just to receive the zoning and, then, whatever was built on
there would comply with --
Rosse: Absolutely.
Borup: -- with UDC? So, we would not see anything, then?
Rosse: No.
Borup: Okay.
Rosse: I mean we have got -- we have got two potential clients that would like to
pursue a develop application to submit, which we would -- I guarantee we will be at the
February 16th meeting whether we are zoned or not, because we definitely have
interest in what goes on on the -- our east and our west neighborhood. However, to
hold us up a month over zoning when we still have to do our development agreement
makes no sense. It seems that we are -- it's just the zoning and we still have to do our
development agreement per the code. We still have --
Borup: Thank you.
Rosse: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Before we move forward with a motion on this, once we do, I'm wondering if we
could go back and reopen AZ 05-060 and rather than continue that to the 16th, go back
to the staffs recommendation that we continued it to the 2nd and at least rather than
having it a full month out for this applicant -- because I think the consent is that they
would continue this and we can continue them both to the 2nd, rather than the 16th. Is
there any support for that thought process?
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Would it be appropriate to ask the city
attorney to weigh in on this? I'm utterly confused. Is that appropriate?
Borup: Do you want to weigh?
Rohm: Well, I think you can always ask a question of counsel, that's why he's here.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, there you go.
Nary: And your question would be whether --
Newton-Huckabay: I would like your opinion on this. I mean with approving or
recommending the annexation and zoning approval of that tonight versus waiting.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman Rohm is correct, I mean,
certainly, you can consider this zoning application and request for annexation without
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 45 of 92
any project that's planned for it, without any plat. There have been occasions in the last
few years that the City Council has reviewed those types of applications and granted
that. But as Commissioner Zaremba stated, that isn't as common as having a better
idea of the -- either that development application or the surrounding applications. The
comfort level of the Council has felt is either that the application or proposed
development concept that is being brought forward will be and can be developed or that
by the nature of the surrounding uses of the property that the types of development that
will occur on the property that's not platted or not -- or doesn't have any proposed uses
on it at the time it's being requested to annex, are going to be more limited. Here you
have a fairly narrow small piece of property that may have some limitations on uses and
I guess my only concern is in looking at the staff report and listening to the testimony is
that I'm not really sure what to do a development agreement on, other than to say they
were going to limit -- unless you want to limit specific types of uses to try to be
compatible. But I think both concepts that the Commission has raised are valid. You
certainly are welcome to go forward and consider this matter separately. The idea of
having a better sense of the surrounding properties and what is being proposed and
how this relates to those certainly gives both you a better picture, as well as the City
Council, and certainly the chairman's suggestion of only continuing this a couple of
weeks versus a month is probably a fairly reasonable compromise. But I mean the
applicant's correct, he can certainly request to go forward, but it may get delayed at the
Council level just as well, because, again, their concern is going to be the same as what
this Commission is asking is what's the rest of the surrounding areas going to look like,
how is this property going to relate to the rest of the property that are looking to develop,
even if they are going to be approved to be annexed without any concept plan being
proposed.
Borup: I think the 2nd's a good compromise. How full is that agenda?
Moe: One more thing about that, though. The 2nd would be to hear the ACHD --
Borup: Right.
Moe: -- but nothing to the west. That is still planned for the 16th.
Borup: Right. I think the only thing we need to make sure there is a cross -access
agreement and --
Rohm: Between the ACHD property and --
Borup: No. And to the one on the west, too.
Rohm: Well, we can make that a requirement that --
Borup: Right. At that time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 46 of 92
Rohm: -- when that's heard. You know, we have got a 14 item agenda and this one's
significantly longer, so I don't think that's out of the question to add it to the 2nd.
Guenther: Commissioner Rohm? Attorney Nary is completely right, though, there is not
much in the development agreement, other than to require them cross -access to the
other parcels. So, there is not a significant development agreement with this site and it
is the same conditions of approval for the ACHD site, that they provide this applicant
cross -access. And that's the only conditions that staff has included with that
development agreement.
Zaremba: On that subject, I'm reading page six of the staff report, item ten analyses,
where you say prior to annexation and ordinance approval there will be a development
agreement. I don't find the cross -access among the bullets that are listed there.
Guenther: It would be on page seven at the absolute last one in the development
agreement. It says that in the case of any division of the property cross -access to
parcel south and west of the site be granted. I'm sorry. I'm reading the ACHD staff
report. It would be southwest.
Zaremba: It would a division out of that, regardless of whether it's a whole property or
it's divided, there needs to be cross -access among --
Guenther: But the ACHD property will be divided because of the road. That's why I
was reading the wrong one. In the Una Mas one it should probably read that it would
not be up to ACHD to determine the access points, as well as the limitation on the
division. For the annexation it should be cross -access regardless of division or not.
Rohm: Thank you. I think it's probably time to move forward and with a
recommendation for a continuance. Have we closed yet?
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? Sorry.
Zaremba: We wouldn't if we are going to continue.
Rohm: Oh, that's right. Question?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, Mr. Hood reminded me -- when you
continued your prior matter, we didn't -- we didn't actually survey if anyone was here to
speak on that matter. You did mention at the beginning of the meeting you would be
continuing that matter. So, since you already took the action and to back up, you may
have a notice problem, because if someone was here to speak on the highway district
application, they left thinking it's going to be on the 16th.
Borup: Did anybody sign up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 47 of 92
Nary: I don't know that anybody was even here. But that's the danger of backing up
and trying to change something you have already taken an action on. And my concern
would be the notice problem of doing that over.
Rohm: The only person that signed up is still here and --
Zaremba: On the other matter?
Rohm: On the other matter.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Personally, I think that we should still continue to the 2nd and
running the risk of not having heard anybody that was hear to speak on that -- on that
matter, because there was just the one sign up. So, it's still my desire to see both of
these continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the 2nd. But that's -- I guess we
will see if we can get a motion to that effect.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask my question now?
Borup: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: Joe, were you saying when you made your comments about the
only item that would be in the development agreement being the cross -access as
justification for approving the annexation tonight?
Guenther: As Mr. Nary had said, there is no use restrictions on this site. It would be
general commercial as per the UDC and the only thing that staff would require of this
site would be the cross -access. And, then, the standard development agreement
conditions, which are mostly Public Works conditions.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Borup: I'm not sure what we accomplish by --
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was just thinking. So, the only thing we accomplish by
continuing it is avoiding them having the ability to put one commercial building with
access to Ustick Road in compliance with the UDC code, is that what you're saying?
Guenther: Well, you can put multiple buildings on a commercial lot under the UDC. So,
you're not limiting the number of buildings by --
Borup: But if they have got no access --
Guenther: That's the problem. That's the what if is where are they going to get their
access from once they go for their certificate of occupancy and ACHD eliminates the
access point to Ustick, if none of the other projects come through in a timely manner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 48 of 92
Borup: That's --
Guenther: That's the applicant's risk.
Borup: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: But that's irrelevant to --
Borup: Yeah. We can't control that.
Newton-Huckabay: -- annexation.
Rohm: That was kind of my point about 45 minutes ago.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, you could have been a little more clear 45 minutes ago.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, we have got a motion.
Borup: I'm going to do a 180 here.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, let me float a motion and we will see if it flies. Mr. Chairman, I move
that we continue AZ 05-061 to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 16, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-061 to our regularly
scheduled meeting of February 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Let me do
that again. Two ayes.
Newton-Huckabay: You have three.
Rohm: Okay. It's been move and seconded that we forward -- or we continue AZ 05-
061 to the regularly scheduled meeting February 16, 2006. All those in favor say eye.
All those opposed? And I'm going to go with the continuance to the 16th. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, folks. Thanks for coming in.
Newton-Huckabay: February 16th?
Rohm: February 16th, 2006.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 49 of 92
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton
Development, Inc. — north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust
Grove Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. — north of
East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open public hearings AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063. Both of
these requests are for Quenzer North Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Quenzer North
Subdivision -- I think it's referred to by Brighton Corporation as Quenzer No. 10 -- is a
parcel of land containing an existing residence. You will probably notice that the
annexation request is for 5.03 acres to the R-8 zone and the plat is for 5.47 acres. The
-- let's see the best way to show this. The triangular property at the bottom has already
been annexed and zoned and platted as part of Quenzer No. 9. It was platted as an
open space lot for that subdivision. So, with this application they are proposing to re -
subdivide that lot and, then, also annex the additional properties to the north and
subdivide them as well. So, on the 5.47 acres they are proposing a total of 12 lots, for a
total density of 2.19 units to the acre and that is gross. The existing home contained on
the larger lot to the east is proposed to remain and have a large lot around it. The
remainder of this site would, then, be bisected by an extension of -- I think that's
Quenzer Way and have some additional build -able lots platted on it. The triangular
property that was platted with Quenzer No. 9 as an open space lot -- it's a little clearer
on the landscape plan. The western portion is proposed to become a build -able lot and
the eastern portion is proposed to remain in landscaping within parkways, with street
trees on either side of Quenzer Way, with detached sidewalks. A couple of items
relating directly to the landscaping for the site. Also, divisions are required to have five
percent landscaped open space gross of the subdivision. As proposed the proposal
has 2.17 percent. The applicant does need to come up with that additional percentage
to meet the five percent. They are required to widen the parkways in accordance with
the Unified Development Code to a minimum of eight feet, to contain class two trees,
and, then, the applicant has stated that they will also be adding a landscaped common
lot on the north side of Leigh Field Drive to make up the remainder of that five percent
requirement. I would ask the applicant to address their plans for that in their
presentation. That change to the plat we would like to see before the City Council
hearing, the same ten days in advance, ten copies. The existing home on the property
will retain access from Leigh Field Drive, the existing driveway, which is located at this
location. Really, the issues on the proposal boil down to the landscaped open space
and the requirement to have the five percent, which the applicant has stated they will
address. And, then, also the fact that there are currently horses housed on the
property. Horses within Meridian city limits are a topic that the Unified Development
Code doesn't really address. So, has part of the development agreement, staff did
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 50 of 92
propose a couple of restrictions and in discussions with the applicant I think they are
proposing to modify one of those restrictions and I think we are agreeable to it, if the
Commission is as well. It is your ultimate decision. Those restrictions would be that the
housing of livestock would be restricted to -- it's Lot 7, Block 31, the existing home that
currently houses the horses and that upon vacancy of the property by the current
owner, listed as Vanessa Klaus, that those horses would be removed from the property.
The restriction that staff had put in was that they would be removed from the property
when the current owner vacated it or 2010, whichever occurred first. The applicant did
have some concerns about the short time frame of that -- time line of that, proposed that
we -- we change that that no new horses be added and limited it to the life of the current
horses and I think staff is okay with that. Really, where -- that was kind of a -- really, we
just don't want the horses to remain on the property in perpetuity. The 2010 was kind of
a meaningless date that was just kind of picked. So, I think we are agreeable to the
applicant's proposal, that no new horses be added, be limited to the lifespan of the
horses currently on the property, and that -- or if the applicant vacates the property,
whichever occurs first. North Quenzer Way is proposed as a reduced street section of
29 feet per the Meridian fire department's requirements. There will be no parking on
North Quenzer Way and signed as such. Until North Quenzer Way is extended to the
north, there is fire department easement placed on the northern -most lot that is -- it is
depicted on the plat and the fire department has approved that turnaround as proposed.
When North Quenzer Way was extended with any proposal -- with any proposal for
development to the north, that easement would, then, not be necessary and the
roadway would continue on and the fire department gain access there. Just some quick
housekeeping. This will come up in the next application as well. There is some typos in
the staff report. Must have had Ellensburg on the brain this day. There is some
references to multi -family on page five under item nine, zoning ordinance item A, it does
-- it states that UDC 11-2A-2 lists multi -family developments as a conditional use.
There are no multi -family developments proposed on this site. That is a typo. They are
single family houses. That error is repeated under annexation analysis, Item 10, Item A.
And also again in the preliminary plat analysis. So, I don't think those typos require any
action by the Commission, I just would get those in the record and point those out. With
that, I think I will wrap up staffs comments on the application.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Josh, going through -- I think it's probably typos as well or maybe even just give
me some information. On page two of the report where you talk about the present
Comprehensive Plan designation, you're noting that it is mixed use neighborhood and,
then, you got in parenthesis neighborhood center. Should that, actually be there?
Wilson: That should, actually, be there. It is the correct Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 51 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it's right there. That one.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Because there is the school.
Moe: Then, on page seven under your exhibits, on your drawings, your note in
preliminary plat of the 15th of November and on the plan -- and, actually, back on page
-- under Exhibit B, your note to preliminary plat labeled and noted as November 11th,
2005, so the plan -- I noted the plan as November 11th as well and I'm assuming the
15th would be wrong or do you have another plan?
Wilson: No. The 15th is incorrect. It is the 11 th.
Moe: Okay. Okay. And, then, on page eight, under the landscape plan, was that not
revised on the 1st of December?
Wilson: Yes. That is correct. That should be the 1st of December.
Moe: Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you.
Wilson: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: And this would be a clarification. I'm not sure I'm quit getting it. What is
currently shown as Lot 1 and Lot 11, are they, actually, platted on a previous
application?
Wilson: They are. They were final platted with Quenzer No. 9.
Zaremba: And they were platted as usable open space?
Wilson: Yes.
Zaremba: Do we know whether removing -- well, apparently Lot 1 is still planned to be
landscaped open space, but it's removing Lot 11 and the width of the road as well, is the
previous application still within -- within the requirements for open space?
Wilson: The subdivision overall would be within the requirements and I believe,
actually, probably a little bit above once they do add the additional landscaping required
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 52 of 92
to meet the five percent for this small piece. That will replace what they have taken out,
plus some.
Zaremba: Okay. And just run me through whether or not this plat can include
something that was already platted as part of another plat. That's okay?
Wilson: It can. It's can. You can re -subdivide a platted lot in a subdivision, essentially,
is what this is doing.
Zaremba: They don't have to redo the other application?
Wilson: Correct. It just becomes part of this plat.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Walker: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jay Walker.
represent Brighton Development Corporation and my address is 12601 West Explorer
Drive, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. 83713. 1 appreciated staffs comments. In an effort to
consolidate her property, Mrs. Klaus did sell this 2.2 acre parcel to us and included
annexation of her residency and as part of that grandfathered her livestock, her horses,
into that. Both her and her sister obtained that from their deceased father and run a
horse outfit there and it probably makes sense to keep their operation conjunctive there
as they work together at this effort. I really don't see an issue with her horses. I think
that will be resolved here shortly. So, I appreciate your consideration of removing that
clause, the or clause in those two locations under the staff report and the preliminary
plat analysis, as well as the annexation comments. And also, as Josh has stated, for
the overall subdivision we did exceed the common area and landscape requirements --
city requirements and will meet the five percent on this additional annexation and,
thirdly, when we platted the original Quenzer Commons Subdivision there was a five
foot landscape strip required by ACHD and since that time that has been modified to be
eight foot and we would be happy to adhere to that condition put on and I'm open to
answer any other questions. I do -- as a part of some neighborly commitments, we
have agreed to adjacent property owners to the north and Mrs. Klaus a few things and
want to put them on record, just so that those property owners are heard. First, Laird
and Vickie Graham have asked us to continue the private vinyl fencing that Copper
Basin currently has. We are more than willing to comply to that. We will also insure
that any tail water from Mrs. Klaus' pasture is collected and piped to the discharge
location on Mr. Laird's -- or Laird Graham's property as he's requested. He's also asked
that Lots 6 and 16 have single story structures on them. Residencies. And we will
commit also to that. And, then, has a part of some of the recommendations of Mrs.
Klaus, you have addressed the one, her retain -age of livestock, particularly the horses,
and we appreciate your consideration there. I think other than that, we feel like we can
meet all the conditions that you propose.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 53 of 92
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Before you sit down, see if there is questions from
the Commission.
Zaremba: I do have two -- actually, three. On the subject of horses, I understood staff
to say not that they were removing that, but that there was some agreement to change it
that there would be no new horses and that the permission was for the life of the current
horses. Is that the way you understood it?
Walker: That is the way I understood it. Let me just read what we have in their -- in
their staff report that staff recommends that horses should be allowed to stay until either
vacation of the property by the current owner, which was part of the purchase and sale
agreement that we entered into with Mrs. Klaus, so I would prefer that that be the
statement and, then, that January 1 st, 2010, be striked from the record.
Zaremba: I don't think that's what staff suggested. The first part of the sentence -- and
we have all agreed to -- if she vacates the property, then, that is off. The second we
have agreed not to attach that date to it --
Walker: Okay.
Zaremba: -- but there was -- the change was the requirement that she not add any new
horses and that the existing horses could live out their full life there, but no new horses.
Walker: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay. So, there is still an or clause in there, but it's not that specific date.
Walker: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. And the other question -- well, still on the subject of horses, would it
be appropriate to put on the face of the plat the Right to Farm Act, which was mentioned
earlier, and what I'm thinking of is the people who move into Block 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 may
-- we may want to have them notified there may be horses next door to them and I think
the Right to Farm Act probably would cover that. Is that an appropriate thing to put on
the face of the plat?
Walker: I think that would be appropriate. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, new subject. Landscaping. I think I understood staff to say
that you're planning to add five feet of landscaping along that property line; is that
correct?
Walker: That is correct. Mrs. Klaus is agreeable to that.
Zaremba: My question on that would be -- thinking a long way down the line, many
many years from now, probably -- if Block 7 is eventually subdivided, the access street
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 54 of 92
is likely to need to line up with something View. I can't see the first word of it. Which
would mean removing landscaping and stuff. Is that something that's fair to assume?
Walker: Yes. And that's Heritage View Avenue. Yes. Yeah, that would -- I think that
would be -- that would be a good assumption.
Zaremba: Okay.
Walker: And you see a problem with that?
Zaremba: Then, my question to the staff would be do we need to now have an
agreement that even though the current access to the current house is fine, that when
there is a change, that that access will be given up and the new access will be -- align
with -- or am I nitpicking too much? ACHD would require that.
Wilson: Correct. ACHD would require that upon subdivision of this larger re -subdivision
of this larger lot, but it doesn't hurt to get that on the record and make it clear that's your
recommendation.
Zaremba: Okay. And that works for you?
Walker: I haven't spoken to Mrs. Klaus, but I'm sure once she vacates the property she
probably wouldn't mind --
Zaremba: Okay.
Walker: -- what's done with it.
Zaremba: Well, I guess my concern is your investment in landscaping; some of it's
going to get torn out again.
Walker: We don't have a problem with that.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. It's probably a small section anyhow.
Walker: Yeah. It looks like it.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it for me.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just on the question of the Right to Farm Act, the Right to Farm
Act wouldn't apply to raising of horses. It applies to livestock that are food products, not
-- so not -- so horses don't apply to that. So, you don't have to include that in the plat,
since there is no agricultural purpose -- or agricultural uses existing on the property
currently that would qualify, you don't have to include that. If you want to give notice
that there is horses there, I think there is probably visual notice that's probably
adequate, but it wouldn't be necessary to include it on the plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 55 of 92
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, if I could just have the opportunity to address one thing.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Wilson: Public Works Department did have one concern with a note on the plat that --
and that is note two that reads that all side yard lot lines shall have a five foot drainage
and irrigation easement on either side of the lot lines for the front half of the lot to allow
for attached garages in the rear. All rear yard lot lines shall have a ten foot utility
easement. If Jay could just state on the record whether or not they intend to attach
garages on the rear of that -- of these lots.
Walker: We do not intend to attach the garages in the rear of the lot.
Rohm: Thank you.
Walker: Thank you.
Rohm: Would Laird Graham like to speak at this time? From the audience he says his
concerns have been addressed. Next one is Bev Hooker.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate to ask if there is a spokesman first
before you go through the whole list.
Rohm: It's a pretty short list.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Bev Hooker indicates that she didn't need to speak. Next one Mike Sweet.
Sweet: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mike Sweet. I live at
1334 East Loyalty, which is directly to the south where this project is. We live right next
to the new development, the project nine, that section of the development. We are
members of the homeowners association, the Heritage Commons homeowners
association. I just got a bill for our fees to enter that association of 436 dollars for the
year. Excuse me. 432 dollars for the year. And we haven't paid that up yet, but we
have paid all of our dues that have been assessed prior to this time. We have had
considerable -- and throughout the rules and regulations, the laws of the city of Meridian
and those of the Ada County Highway District, there is reference -- excuse me -- at
several times to the rights of a homeowners association and in this case -- and there is
several waivers, there is certain types of activities that the homeowner association can
be approached for the homeowners association to take some activity with regard to just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 56 of 92
matters that you're talking about here. We have been told considerably by Brighton that
this homeowners association would be turned over to a number of members of the --
when the ownership of property within the subdivision -- and when we bought our
pieces of property, when that reached 80 percent, that we would be entitled to take over
the homeowner association, that we would, then, organize -- be allowed to organize and
take over that position and this has been done -- oh, last summer there was
considerable amount of talk about it. There was a letter written to us that said that
anybody who wanted to become -- to run the executive director of the homeowners
association would make application and there was a considerable amount of
conversation. Subsequent conversation also said that it was going to be done this fall --
the past fall. As these additional properties come in -- we haven't had specific
conversations to it, but I would assume that all of these members are going to -- all of
this land is going to become -- going to be allowed access to the homeowners
association and it's our position that -- and we have been -- there have been several
items that we have approached Heritage Commons -- excuse me. We have
approached the Heritage Commons Association and the Brighton Industries to try to get
some of these matters resolved, certain matters that we have had problems with. And
the association has already been to the -- which Brighton is the -- owns and manages
the association and they have gone to these different political subdivisions and gotten
releases and gotten -- and talked and represented. But it's our belief now that this
creates a definite conflict of interest. As you can see, if they are in there representing
themselves as a developer, how can they, then, truly represent the people who are
paying dues and who are in the association? And there is a considerable number of us,
so we have presented a number of petitions and so forth that have considerable
signatures and we would have no problem in the area organizing the homeowner
association to appear before you and to question and represent these matters. So, in
the -- we have no problem with the further development of these lands, but we feel that
the association -- and I would assume, although I don't have direct evidence, I would
assume that all these people are going to be the owners of new lots and this new
portion will be offered positions in the homeowner association, which allows them to use
the swimming pool. We have got a very nice area out there and there are certain things
that we are paying for in doing that. So, we feel --
Rohm: Sir?
Sweet: Yeah.
Rohm: I'd like to have you conclude at this time.
Borup: And Mr. Chairman or -- is there something that you're asking this Commission to
do?
Sweet: Yes, there is. Specifically, I'm asking that you, as a part of this -- of this asking -
- their application, that a condition be that they release the home -- they release and
allow the homeowners to organize and take over the homeowner association part that
Meridian Planning & Zoning a
January 19, 2006
Page 57 of 92
would present to you and be involved in your discussion here. So, that would be our
request.
Rohm: Thank you.
Sweet: Any questions?
Rohm: And we will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to your questions and
we will take it from there. Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, I would comment on that. The provision in most subdivisions that the
developer has control of the homeowners association until there is -- pick a number,
usually around 80 percent sold, is a pretty typical thing. That appears in the CC&Rs.
The CC&Rs are not an issue that the city regulates. We have nothing to do with the
CC&Rs. We encourage subdivisions to have them, but I -- if I'm understanding, your
question also is at what -- what counts towards that 80 percent? Are all phases done
and that's something we certainly want to ask the applicant, you know, to answer you.
But I would say, again, that the city doesn't have anything to do with CC&Rs. It would
be interesting to know that answer, but we wouldn't enforce it anyhow.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And that's appropriately stated. Next person on the list is
Rod Westerberg. Okay. From the audience he says he has nothing additional to add.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this issue? At this time I'd like to -- if
the applicant would like to come back forward and respond to comments made.
Walker: This is Jay Walker. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho.
83713. We have heard Mr. Mike Sweet's concern there and, obviously, you have heard
from him that we are commencing that process, but we, as developers, retain the right
to annex additional property and continue with the development and there is a lot of
development activity, as you can see, continuing and for that purpose we have retained
that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before he sits down?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close
this Public Hearing?
Zaremba: I would comment that I think most of the questions have been answered and
that this is a project that is compatible with the surrounding projects.
Rohm: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-063,
request for annexation and zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 58 of 92
North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc., north of East Ustick Road and west of
the North Locust Grove Road. And PP 05-063. And I won't read the details on that
one.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-063
and PP 05-063, both relating to Quenzer North Subdivision. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Will make the recommendation to City Council, with one -- I need
just some clarification on where I would put the notes regarding continuing the vinyl
fencing along the west property line -- and it was the west property line. I want to verify
that. And, then, there was the water collection comment and I didn't -- I got collect
water and that's all the farther my note went. Did any of you get that?
Rohm: It is the collector for the water off the large parcel lot. The parcel that the --
where the horses are, they are going to collect the water off of that and take it to proper
drainage.
Newton-Huckabay: Collect water from --
Rohm: If you could put the plat back up there --
Newton-Huckabay: Josh?
Rohm: If you put the plat back up we can designate the lot. It's Lot 7.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to add a comment to that effect and where would I put
it?
Wilson: In regards to the fencing?
Newton-Huckabay: The fencing and the water and, then, the Lot 6 and 16 agreed only
be one story.
Borup: Could she just add to the motion that -- to incorporate the comments made by
the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Hey, I'm all over -- I like that idea.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 59 of 92
Wilson: You can. Those conditions would go in with the preliminary plat and the
applicant did clarify that the fence would be on the north and east property line.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, north. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I can just say the
comments regarding those three items be added to the preliminary plat comments?
Okay. Mr. Chair, I move to recommend --
Zaremba: Plus the change about the horses.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I got that one.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ
05-063 and PP 05-063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January
19th and a preliminary plat date dated November 11, 2005, with the following
modification to the conditions of approval: That the statements regarding the
continuation of the vinyl fencing along the north property line and that the water
collection methods from parcel seven comments and the comment regarding that Lots 6
and 16 will be one story dwellings only, be added to the staff report. And, then, on page
six, about halfway down the page, bullet -- the sixth bullet, that should read that
livestock shall only be allowed on Lot 7, Block 31 -- am I supposed to change livestock
to horses?
Wilson: That would work. I think, though, you do need to make sure and modify the
condition of approval in Exhibit B, the reference to page six. It is discussed in the body
of the staff report, but the actual -- it's a comment, because it's under annexation, but
that should be on B 1.1 is where that should be changed.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, changed on B 1.1. Okay. That horses shall only be allowed on
Lot 7, Block 31 -- oh, I'm on comment B 1.1 at this point. And the livestock shall cease
to be housed on said lot upon either vacancy of the property by the current owner,
Vanessa Ann Klaus or for the life of the current horses. Current horses. Whichever
occurs first. So, we are striking: Or January 1, 2010. End of motion.
Zaremba: Should we tag another sentence on that that says no new or -- new horses or
other livestock can be added?
Newton-Huckabay: As stated -- please amend as stated per Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: In the same location.
Newton-Huckabay: In the same location.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January19, 2006
Page 60 of 92
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063, including all staff comments with the
amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of
South Stoddard Road:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321
building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — south
of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
Rohm: Okay. I would now like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-064 and PP
05-064 and open with the staff report, please.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We move on to Bear
Creek West, located generally west of Stoddard, east of Linder Road and south of
Overland in south Meridian, south of the interstate. The applicant has requested
annexation and zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT and R-1 in Ada County to the R-8
medium density residential zone, for preliminary plat approval of 320 single family
residential lots and 34 common lots. The site is vacant agricultural land and also
contains an existing residence on Linder Road. Some of the existing uses -- in this plat
-- or aerial photo will be a little outdated. There is the existing Bear Creek Subdivision.
It's a little bit hard to tell if that shows a house as being there or not. But there is the
existing Bear Creek Subdivision that will be shown better on this vicinity map to the
east. To the -- really, to the north, west, and south are a mix again of agricultural lands,
a church use, some residences in platted Ada County subdivisions south of the
Ridenbaugh Canal and, then some more agricultural land. Unfortunately, these are on
their side, but the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 320 build -able
lots. I was provided a list just before the hearing of the size of the lots, so I'll go through
those. Between 5,100 square feet and 6,999 square feet there are 44 lots. Between
7,000 square feet and 8,999 square feet there are 86 lots. Between 9,000 and 10,999
square feet there are 92 lots. And above 11,000 square feet there are 98 lots. The
applicant has proposed a collector road to be named West Kodiak Drive. See if I can
get something that shows it a little better. Unfortunately not. Essentially, it -- the Kodiak
Drive bisects a portion of the property and, then, is on the north property line of another
portion of property. So, on these plats north is to the right, so Kodiak Drive connects to
Linder Road and bisects the property here, comes to this point and, then, it is on the
north boundary of the property. The portion of the project that Kodiak Drive is on the --
is on the boundary line with is a future middle school site. Kodiak will be a residential
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 61 of 92
collector with detached sidewalks and street buffers along it. And, then, the remainder
of the roads are proposed as local streets. ACHD did approve a reduced street section
for one portion of the local roadways. The name of that I think is Eggers. The initial
proposal did not meet the minimum fire department requirements and ACHD, I believe,
did say that that was okay, as long as they did meet the fire department requirements
for that reduced street section. If it was the reduced street of 29 foot, it would be the
standard no parking comments per the Meridian fire department. So, this will, maybe,
show it a little bit better. Okay. Now, north is up, so it may be a little easier -- little bit
easier to orientate. Kodiak Drive, the residential collector that bisects a portion of the
property and, then, is on the north boundary here, is indicated there. Craig, if you could
move that up a little bit. That will work. That will work. There is an existing church
property along the northern boundary of the site. Mentioned in the staff analysis, I
believe the name is Christian Family Matters and there are representatives tonight that
will speak on their behalf. They have a valid Conditional Use Permit with the City of
Meridian for an indoor and outdoor church. I will maybe let them get into a little more
detail exactly what they do there, but there is outdoor services with a PA system
associated with those services. They are concerned about impacts on adjacent
properties and concerns of home buyers in this area of the subdivision in regards to
their use. They have provided a letter dated December 12 that was in part of your
packet that discusses these concerns. In discussions with the applicant, they have
addressed these. I didn't get anything in writing. I will let the applicant address those
during their presentation, but there are some measures they have taken to mitigate
those effects along that -- along that property line. From my recollection those
measures are a berm with a fence on top of it, some additional landscape plantings
along that property line and an increased setback from buildings -- from those houses to
that property line. Also, the possibility of notifying any buyers in this portion of the
subdivision that there is an existing church use with a PA on there to prevent those
conflicts if you get a homeowner who buys a house there and, then, complains to the
city or to the church about that PA system when it was -- it preexisted the houses.
Moving south in the subdivision -- and as previously mentioned, this is Linder Road and,
then, this is Stoddard Road. Stoddard Road is a half mile collector. Linder Road is
currently classified as an urban collector, but it is a -- it is a section line road and with
increased development in Meridian it would be anticipated that would become an
arterial in future Ada County designations. The southern boundary of the property is the
Ridenbaugh Canal with a subdivision in Ada County on the south side of -- I think there
is a couple different subdivisions. There is Eggers Subdivision, there is Molla farm
Acres, and there is also Pebble Lane Estates on the south side of the property. It's
much more apparent on the full size landscape plan that the Commission has, but the
applicant has proposed an open space lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal with a ten foot
multi -use pathway. That multi -use pathway does connect to Linder, continued through -
- through the property along the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is a small portion that the
applicant does not control, it is outside of their property boundaries, where there would
be a break in the path as proposed, right there in that bend in the Ridenbaugh. The
path is, then, picked up again as the Ridenbaugh enters their property and they have
the ability to place the multi -use path there. The idea being that they are providing the
multi -use path where they can. In the future it could be completed and connected to -- I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 62 of 92
may need a little help here from Mike or the applicant where the multi -use path comes
out of Bear Creek -- the original Bear Creek, but the idea is that in the future those could
connect there and, then, continue also on the other side of Linder along the
Ridenbaugh. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are, really,
the church use to the north and their concerns about conflicts between their use and the
proposed houses in Bear Creek West. As submitted, the subdivision -- the application
before you did propose for the existing home on Linder Road to continue their access to
Linder Road. We have recommended a condition of approval be that they take access
from internal roads. That's consistent with ACHD's analysis of the project and it is also
consistent with requirements placed on subdivisions that come before you. We do ask
that they take access from internal roads. There is a Comprehensive Plan policy that
specifically addresses limiting access points on collectors and arterials and the
extension of that roadway to give that lot frontage and, therefore, access from that
roadway would rectify that. In conjunction with that, there would, then, be the
continuance of the 25 -foot required landscape buffer along Linder for the majority of the
project, there is, actually, a 35 -foot landscape buffer shown along Linder. Only 25
would be required. It seems fairly likely that they would include the 35 there to be
consistent as well, unless there is some kind of conflict with the existing house. The
provided open space does meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code,
with 10.3 percent of the property being dedicated to usable open space, with a -- with a
pool and grassy area located in the middle adjacent to the school site. It's kind of
centrally located for all the residents in the development. There were some concerns
with fencing along the open spaces. The Unified Development Code requires that any
solid fencing -- and I guess the applicant could clarify this as well. It's listed in their
application materials as vinyl. Usually, we don't see nonsolid fencing that's vinyl.
Usually, the nonsolid fencing that's vinyl -- or the nonsolid fencing comes through as
wrought iron. So, they have indicated -- they propose a six foot vinyl fence along the
boundary of the Ridenbaugh Canal along that common open space lot and also on
another common open space lot within the subdivision. Meridian code would limit that
to a four foot fence if it was solid or six foot if open vision. Like I said, we typically don't
see open vision being vinyl. If that's the case, they are proposing an open vision vinyl
fence at that six feet. That would comply with code. They just do need to clarify that.
So, the condition reads that the fencing on those open spaces does need to comply with
Meridian City -- or with the Unified Development Code. Again, the same housekeeping
as in the last report, unfortunately. In the process facts it does list that -- and process
facts are on page two under item five. It does say that the subject application will
constitute a conditional use. They are not applying for a conditional use, they are
applying annexation and preliminary plat. There should be Items A and B that state that
the application will constitute an annexation and a preliminary plat as determined by the
Unified Development Code. Again, under the zoning ordinance it references the multi-
family developments conditional use. There are no multi -family developments with the
subdivision, it is all detached single family housing, principally permitted in the R-8
district and it does reference the multi -family again in the annexation and preliminary
plat analysis, unfortunately. So, I apologize for that. I want to clean those up. The last
item I will touch on is the fact that the ACHD Commission has not approved the project
as of tonight's hearing. I did receive a draft staff report that I was able to base my
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 63 of 92
comments on. In the past the Commission has not acted on applications that ACHD
has not approved. Because of ACHD's criteria, this application does require a Public
Hearing, which will be held January 25th at the ACHD Commission. I did recommend in
the staff report that this item not be acted on tonight, that it be continued to the next
available date, which would be the February 2nd hearing. At that hearing we can verify
that ACHD did approve the project as proposed and limit any new testimony or
discussion to those ACHD hearings and the issues that may come up in that. What that
does is it insures us that we don't get any surprises at the ACHD Commission that
would change the layout of the subdivision or change its compliance with code and
staffs findings and we get the majority of the discussion on the subdivision out of the
way tonight and, then, at the next hearing we can just verify that it was approved and
you can make the motion to approve the subdivision, if that's your choosing. I think with
that I will turn it over to the applicant and also ask if the Commission has any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Zaremba: I don't, but I do, actually, have a question of the other Commissioners. As
part of my package I was given a letter from Dana O. Armstrong of the Christian Family
Matters church addressed to Mrs. McKay and I assume we all got that. Separately from
the package, I got a lengthy letter, a well thought out letter, from a Mr. Luke S. Lance
and my question is did everybody else get that?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. We are representing the
applicant on this particular project. So, I'd like to kind of go over the project to
familiarize you with it. As Josh indicated, we are referring to this as Bear Creek West.
As some of you know, I worked on -- did the planning for Bear Creek in the late '90s, I
think it was. It seems like a long time ago. This particular project is the same
development team, same planner, and we wanted to continue the same type of homes
that they have in Bear Creek, providing a good mixture of different lot sizes, different
home sizes. The applicant owned all of this and the school district showed interest in a
middle school at this particular site, so that's what you see right here in this area. The
school district has purchased that as a future middle school. It's my understanding that
that school is probably about four to five years out. It will have to be in the next bond
issue, according to the information that Wendell provided me. Take into consideration
that -- that that middle school will generate quite a few vehicle trips per day,
approximately 1,458 vehicle trips per day, we thought it was in the best interest of this
particular area and our development to have a continuous collector. Stoddard is the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 64 of 92
half mile here and as you know Stoddard goes up and interconnects to Overland and,
then, goes south to Victory. We connected here right in alignment with Kodiak Drive.
This is one of the entrances, one of two into the primary Bear Creek portion. It comes
up -- the collector would come up and intersect here at Linder. This property is unique
in the fact that it has some elevation to it. The Ridenbaugh Canal is right here on our
south boundary. There is I think approximately 35 feet of fall from this point here down
to right in here around the collector and, then, there is about 15 feet of fall from the
north portion going south down to this collector. So, we have some real good
topography to work with. And in planning some property that has topography like this,
we have to run perpendicular to the contours of the property, so as it's sloping this way,
we are running perpendicular to that, so the lots are all rising continuously. We don't
want lots on one side of the street considerably higher than lots on the other. So, that's
kind of one of the driving forces of our design. I decided that a central open space that
kind of -- everything flowed into was the best approach on this particular piece of
property. This is about 2.85 acres. In the middle here you see a restroom facility, a
pool, parking area, a little gazebo, some pedestrian pathways and play equipment. And
most of the roadways focus coming into this central area and, then, there is kind of a
loop collector here that would wrap around. This area here has it's -- it has one central
access with a split median. It comes up here. This is the area that Josh indicated
where we had a reduced right of way and that's because we had a single load only on
one side of the street with this kind of pocket park here. That type of development was
done in like Lexington Hills and some other developments. It creates a nice little open
space. We also wanted to make sure that this was pedestrian friendly. On your
Comprehensive Plan this is designated medium density residential. It also designates it
for a multi -use pathway, one that goes along the Ridenbaugh connecting over to Linder,
which we did delineate on our portion that adjoins the Ridenbaugh a multi -use pathway.
Now, when we get over to this location here, that we couldn't continue the path on, so I
took the path and I'm dropping it into the subdivision through this micro -path right here
and, then, down and it would link over, people could go over to the Bear Creek
Community Meridian park over here. We also went with an east -west connection. Not
only do we have the pathway -- multi -use pathway here, but we have got a pathway
coming across linking these pocket parks together. We have play equipment, like a tot
lot here. We have one in the primary 2.85 acre park and, then, we have another one
here. This particular area was more cumbersome to work with, because the collector
did isolate it. The location of this collector was dictated basically by the topography and
the site distance and coming in at this location seemed to be the best approach.
Therefore, this particular pod is isolated from the primary Bear Creek West, but has it's
own open space and that is the focus as you would enter into the development. We
also placed a pedestrian pathway coming out the corner, which would, therefore, lead
right into the middle school. We have one existing house, as Josh indicated, located
here on Linder Road. It's an older farm house. They wanted to retain the home, retain
a certain area around that home. I suspected that the staff would be a little bit upset
about the direct access to Linder. We did anticipate that and so we thought about
providing a driveway out the back of that cul-de-sac and that's why we kind of left it
open. However, the staff does want us to bend this down to give them street frontage to
take that direct lot access off Linder. We -- I did bring with me a design that does bend
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 65 of 92
that over to demonstrate to the Commission that that is feasible. As I mentioned, this is
designated medium density residential. That's three to eight dwelling units per acre, as
you well know. What we are proposing here is 2.74 dwelling units per acre. That's our
gross density. Our net density is 3.52. So, really, our gross is just a smidge under, but
our net is a little over. So, we are on the low end. As Josh indicated our lot distribution,
we did provide him with a breakdown this evening. We have -- our smallest lots are
located kind of right in this particular area here and I have got a nice pocket park open
space lot right there and I think that's got a tot lot in it also. Yes, it does. Those lots --
our smallest one is 5,100. So, from the 5,100 to 6,999 square feet we have got about
13.35 percent of our total lots. In the 7,000 to 8,999 square foot we have 26.875
percent. In the 8,000 to 10,999 we have got 28.75. 11,000 and up -- our biggest lots
are around 25,000 square feet. We have 30.62 percent. So, 59.38 percent of the lots
that you see there are 9,000 square feet and above. So, these are pretty good size.
Concerning some of the other projects that have been coming through the process
lately, this is very low density. Our open space total, we have got about 14 percent
open space, around 16.386 acres. If you take out the buffers, the mandatory buffers we
are at a little over ten percent. We anticipate this to be in five phases, most likely
starting right over here and -- with phase one and, then, working our way westward. As
far as the utilities, there is water here in Stoddard. There is a city well over here in Bear
Creek Park. We will, according to the staff, based on their water model, have to come
up to Overland Road, extend a 12 inch line, and bring it into the subdivision and, then,
install a pressure relief valve in order to stabilize the pressure due to the elevation
change that we have. As far as sewer, this is designated as the Black Cat Trunk. It is
not our intent to get into the Bear Creek lift station. It is our understanding, based on
Meridian Public Works, that they are diligently working on getting the Black Cat Trunk to
the south side of 1-84, which I believe is going to be a 36 inch. So, this is, obviously,
contingent upon serviceability by the Black Cat Trunk. It's stated so in our conditions of
approval and recognizes that fact. As far as the fencing, I believe that the landscape
architect went in and showed vinyl fencing. In speaking with Mr. Johnson, he's
indicated that in the open spaces they would probably prefer wrought iron and, then,
along the multi -use pathway at the Ridenbaugh it would be wrought iron. The multi -use
pathway, they installed some of that with Bear Creek to the east of us and he
anticipates doing the same here. Traffic. When we had our neighborhood meeting, that
was one of the big questions that kept popping up, you know, what is ACHD's time line
for improvements out in this area. Josh, can you put up the vicinity map, do you think?
There we go. According to ACHD, what they are going to do in 2007, they will be
rebuilding Overland Road from Meridian Road over to Linder and they will -- they will,
basically, be creating a seven lane intersection at Meridian Road and Linder and they
will be creating a three lane intersection at Stoddard here. They will be signalizing this.
And, then, I believe a five lane intersection will be installed here. And some of the
residents that own parcels along Overland have indicated that ACHD is in the process
of that right of way acquisition at this time. ACHD seemed to feel quite confident that
2007, you know, is when it's going to happen, because it is on their priority list and
appears to be funded. As far as trips per day, we are going to generate about 3,100.
And, like I said, the school -- middle school at about 1,458. So, about 4,559 vehicle
trips per day at total build out. And like we -- we indicate that this will be probably about
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 66 of 92
a five phase project and we would like to go on the record to allow us for some phasing
flexibility based on market conditions. We feel that we have taken a lot of time working
through this project. I did meet with the church -- I'm not sure what they call -- members
here to the north. We walked that north boundary, talked about it, looked at their church
facility, I talked to them about the functions that they have. We did receive that letter
from the Christian Family Matters. I did respond to them via e-mail, which I don't
believe you guys have a copy. I will provide staff with a copy of this. We indicated that
we would move Elias Drive, which is this one here, south ten feet, which, therefore,
would mean these lots adjoining the church would be between 150 and 155 feet in
depth. We would adjust our lot lines to try to shift some lot lines east and west to -- we
have got three lots that back up to them right now. We would make that two lots, versus
the three. The two lots that would back up to them, would be single level, so that there
would be no two -- second story, obviously, overlooking into the church facility. We
indicate in our landscape plan we will construct a two foot berm with a six foot fence
there to give, obviously, a little more privacy. And the developer said that they would
plant some arborvitae there to try to create some type of a vegetative buffer on our side
also. One of the other things that we thought was real important is that we would
disclose in the purchase agreement that the church facility exists, that outdoor activities
are very common there and that these activities are approved preexisting. They
recognize that and should in no way be considered a nuisance. Very similar to the right
to farm, just recognizing that that particular use does take place. One of the other
things I'd like to mention, we have Eggers Subdivision here, one acre lots. There is
Ariel Estates over here, they are five acre lots. And, then, there is some -- I think two
acre lots in this particular area. And, then, there is kind of a rural lot located here. We
did take great care to try to make sure that these lots were deeper, wider, were our
largest lots. If you look at our plat, these particular lots are -- this depth here is about
145 feet. This is 164. This is 143. These lots are ranging -- I have got some that are
14, 12, 15, 18, 17, 16 thousand square feet. And in our lot distribution, like I said, all of
our largest lots are on this perimeter here, in order to, obviously, create some type of a
transitioning. The smallest lots were located right here kind of in a cluster down by the
collector. We would ask the Commission to approve this project. We feel it's a good
project. We have received ACHD's staff report. We have nothing that we disagree with
in the ACHD staff report. I did provide a letter. I apologize for the tardiness of my letter,
but I had a death in my family this week and I have got a funeral to go to in the morning
and so it kind of took up some time. We are pretty much in agreement with most of
staffs conditions. We just mention some corrections that needed to be made
mentioned -- I think Josh said the multi -family. The only thing that I found that would --
could be problematic is it talked about requiring us to install all of the sidewalk along
Kodiak prior to the issuance of a building permit I think on the first phase. Stoddard,
that is reasonable. And I think along Kodiak, for any portion of that collector that is part
of the first phase -- if the first phase comes up to here or if it comes up and makes this
loop, but I can't extend sidewalk where I don't have a roadway built. So, I think the
wording on that needs to be modified. There is reference to the Ten Mile stub drain.
think they meant to say the Ridenbaugh Canal. The only other issue that I wanted to
bring up was the fire department. Their condition of approval was very confusing. They
talk about a 39 foot measurement and parking restriction and I don't think that is correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 67 of 92
You know, an ACHD local street is 36 back to back. They are saying anything 30 --
anything 39 foot or less requires -- and that's from face to face -- requires restricted
parking. And that's not a condition that we have seen in the past. I'm not sure if those
numbers have been transposed -- maybe Josh can find their memo. But that condition
is not accurate. It should read anything less than a 36 back to back, which is a standard
Ada County Highway District local street, then, they do restrict the parking. That's the
last information that I received from Joe Silva. But not 39 face to face. Because a 36
back to back is 32 face to face. That concludes my comments. Do you have any
questions?
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant by the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: I was interested in seeing the modification with the house on
Linder.
McKay: Yeah. I thought you might ask. This is the modification. Right now the cul-de-
sac comes out like this. Here is the existing house located on that Lot 38, Block 5. If
you stick this in here, it looks like -- not doing a very good job of holding it. It looks like
that. So, what we have done, just bent the cul-de-sac down to give it frontage. Still
maintaining landscaping, therefore, allowing them to take access off of a local versus
Linder.
Zaremba: Would you mind making a 360 with that, so, first, the staff and, then, the
audience can see it?
McKay: Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yes. It looks like that. The cul-de-sac at this time is shown
stopping back here with a couple of flag lots off of it. This takes direct lot access. We
are just taking it and bending it down.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask one more question? If that homeowner wanted -- would
that be easy for them to put it into smaller lots at some point if they choose to with that
design? This is an awfully big lot that at some point I can see if they sold it they would
want to incorporate it more into the subdivision.
McKay: They wanted to keep those approximate dimensions at this time. It's about
39,000 square feet. So, it's a little less than an acre.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
McKay: If we extended that street there, they potentially could pull it in -- you know,
have a driveway. I think your new ordinance allows for up to four dwelling units, single
family detached, to share a driveway. So, they have like a common drive coming off
there. So, yes, to answer your question it could be re -subdivided in the future without
causing any detriment to traffic on Linder.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 68 of 92
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Zaremba: Yes. Actually, my first comment would be my sympathies to your family.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: And I appreciate your taking the time to be here tonight to do what must
seem like something that's not quite as important to you as your family, but I appreciate
you being here. The letter that I mentioned earlier from Luke S. Lance was addressed
to us and I don't know if you ever received a copy of that.
McKay: I did not, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. He lists a number of things that he's concerned about. Maybe he's
here tonight to repeat it when we get to public testimony. One of the things that caught
my eye is on his page four, I believe it is -- and I'll read it to you. This is about home site
statistics. With the proposed zoning of eight homes per acre, this will force the builder
to build up to increase size and marketability. This will take away from the view
easement of houses on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. And what caught my
attention is the view easement. Typically, standard procedure is that nobody is
guaranteed a view through their neighbor's property. Are you aware of any view
easement that would encumber your property?
McKay: No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
Zaremba: Okay. If he's here we will ask him about that. Okay. That was it for me.
McKay: One thing, I guess, I'd like to mention -- they are sitting up high, this is
dropping, keep in mind.
Borup: Eight to ten feet.
McKay: No. Thirty-five. It's dropping 35 feet down to this point.
Borup: I mean just to the road is about eight to ten feet. Just the first road.
McKay: Yes. You're correct. Yes, sir. So, because they are on a high point, we are
going to be below them.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
Wilson: Chairman Rohm, if I could just maybe clear up that fire department comment a
little bit.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 69 of 92
Borup: Please.
Wilson: Believe it or not, Craig thinks that that is an accurate condition. What it's
specifically referring to is dead end cul-de-sacs of between 500 and 750 feet in length,
which there doesn't appear to be any in this subdivision. If I can get to the conditions of
approval here real quick. Okay. So, that 3.2 is, actually, specifically, referencing dead
end roads between 500 and 750 feet in length do, actually, require those dimensions,
the 39 feet in width. But there don't appear to be any on this project and we think that
item was probably included in error. Their standard street section comment that
references the 29 feet is 3.9, which is probably the appropriate one and 3.2 should
probably be stricken.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time it's time for public testimony and Don Webber, would
you like to come forward, please. Before you speak, is there anybody here that is
speaking for a homeowners association or are each of you speaking individually?
Okay. Come on forward.
Webber: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Don Webber and I live at 1525
South Calistoga Avenue in Meridian. 83642. I'm here to speak on behalf of Christian
Family Matters and, additionally, I am the owner of record of the adjacent property, the
4.3 acre property to the west of Christian Family Matters' property and that particular
site is a home end site, it has a contract of sale between myself, Don Webber, and
Christian Family Matters. As mentioned in the staff report, we do have some concerns
about the adjacent properties to the north to our property. I should preface that with
saying that we have no concerns about the project as a whole. I believe they do a very
good quality job of developing. It was brought to their attention pretty recently, within
the last month -- well, actually, about the last month, that we do exist there. They were
unaware of that, so we got our public notice of the neighborhood meeting and we took
action and at our request we did meet with Beck McKay, she came to the property, and
we gave her a big scope of what do do there. We have a Conditional Use Permit that
allows us an indoor and outdoor Bible fellowship use and we are a very active
fellowship, so we don't limit to certain hours of the week and certain days of the week,
we have many different activities, as well as working with a lot of young people. The
real nuts and bolts of the issue is they -- the developer has agreed to make some
concessions, we are appreciative of that. They have come some way, but I think the
real meat of the issue is that we need to consider -- or asking you to consider that they
make the adjacent properties right behind Christian Family Matters an open area and
also consider the lots from there going west to be single stories. The reason we ask
that -- and that is outlined in the letter from Christian Family Matters that you have --
that Dane Armstrong addressed. You have that in your packet. Is we are concerned
that when homeowners do actually purchase the lots and build their homes and want to
enjoy their quiet and peaceable enjoyment like any homeowner would, we understand
that it would be disclosed to the homeowner, but bear in mind that we do have an
outdoor fellowship and we do, weather permitting, most frequently we do meet
outdoors. We meet at the southern part of our property, which we developed with code
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 70 of 92
requirement, landscaping and so on, where we might have 150 plus people sitting
facing south. So, we have great concerns that although that's to be disclosed to
property purchasers, in all practicality, when it's all said and done and, then, when the
two neighbors need to live with each other, us and the neighbors across from us, that
they may have real trouble with what we do there, going on at different hours and
different times of the day. Of course, we are not there until late late hours. However,
we are an active fellowship. So, what I'm asking the Commissioners to consider that
they -- the lots directly behind, numbers 18, 19 and 20 be considered open use. Then,
lots 12 through 17 be restricted to one story and, then, appropriate landscaping buffers,
as they have already proposed. So, I'd ask for your consideration on that.
Newton-Huckabay: Why 12 through 17 one story?
Webber: Those are -- well, we are considering since we operate a lot on the south --
southern part of our property, that it may pose a conflict with two stories looking back
over our lawn and looking at 150 people having an outdoor Bible fellowship. So, we are
trying to think about what's best for both parties involved down the road. That's why I'm
proposing that.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any other questions for this -- for Don?
Zaremba: I do have a comment and, actually, it doesn't relate to the current application
that's before us, but as I previously admitted, my memory is sometimes faulty, but when
I saw the discussion in the letter from Dana Armstrong about it expanding into
apparently what is your property or property you're selling to the church, first let me say
I encourage churches, I'm happy you're there. My recollection is that when this came
before us for the CUP that you're referencing, the church was already there as an
existing nonconforming use in that parcel. The CUP was required to continue it as a
nonconforming use and I believe there was a provision in the CUP that it either expired
or voided if there was any expansion. I would ask you to get with staff. I'm just alerting
you that there may be a provision that stops you from expanding. I'm not sure.
Webber: May I address that, Commissioner?
Zaremba: Sure.
Webber: That did come up when we annexed into the city about a year and a half ago.
What was advised us and we understand that if we do want to expand onto the
additional parcel or do other things on the existing Christian Family Matters' property,
we have to go through the process of -- the permit process and meeting any
requirements to do so. So, while the adjacent property that I'm still the owner of record
on is not part of Christian Family Matters' property and we operate our Conditional Use
Permit on the existing property, I just thought it would be wise to forewarn the builder
that we do come and go on the property, people live on both properties as residents,
and we thought it would be best to propose the open area and the single story, some
buffer, just landscape buffer, and when this is all said and done and we have to live
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 71 of 92
together as neighbors and the developer is long gone, that we are not going to have
issues there. So, it would best for both.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Webber: Thank you.
Moe: Actually, I have one question. I'm just curious. Mr. Webber, you made a
statement earlier you own the property to the north from the Lots 12 through 17; is that
correct?
Webber: That's correct.
Moe: Okay. I was just -- and you're not concerned with any of the lots to the east of
your property as far as Lots 21 and beyond as far as going single story?
Webber: No. I don't see that as a problem.
Moe: Okay.
Webber: I don't see that as a problem.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Neil Bowl.
Bowl: My name is Neil Bowl, 3803 Gemini Circle, Boise, Idaho. 83709. 1 don't have
much to add besides what Don added. We are -- I am in favor of the development. It's
a good job. We do -- my concerns are the same as Don's regarding having an open
area behind Christian Family Matters. That would be something we'd like you to
consider. We don't want to hold up the development. We don't think -- that's not our
intent. But we do see that sewer is a ways off and ACHD still needs have their say, so
maybe just catch our breath and take a good look at it and not jump to any quick
conclusions, but take a good look at maybe putting a common area behind there. That
would be -- that's my concern. So, thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Sandy Cisneros?
Newton-Huckabay: There was a statement from the audience that she left.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Chuck Rough.
Rough: My name is Chuck Rough and I'm the property owner at 2707 South Stoddard
Road, which is -- borders the proposed subdivision on the -- kind of the southeast
corner. I have a five acre piece of property there. I just have a couple of issues I just
want to address or maybe some concerns. I'll just kind of go through them here. One is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 72 of 92
that the trash that's developed from a subdivision of this size from the builders. From
the first Bear Creek that was put in there was quite a bit of trash that gets blown around
and it seems to -- some of it ends up on my property and it's kind of a constant thing
trying to keep that cleaned up and I'm not sure how, if the -- this Commission can
address that in any way, but I would like to just look at how -- when their construction is
going on how we can address the trash that's generated from all the contractors that
come in. Along those same lines is the dust and noise that's generated also. There will
be a significant amount of construction that will border my property and the amount of
dust that gets generated from the construction; I'd just like to see how that's going to be
addressed. And, then, the property buffers, kind of review that a little bit. Need to look
at the final plan that they have submitted and see what the depth of lots will be that
adjoin my property and see what kind buffers that they have along there. There is some
trees that -- some existing trees that border my property and the subdivision property
and I'm just interested on what's going to happen to those trees. Are they going to be
taken out and replaced. Since they are right on the property line, need to kind of work
through that and find out what the plan is for those trees. The streetlights that are in the
current Bear Creek Subdivision are fairly bright and pretty much light up my five acres
across the street and if there is lights like that, I'd like to see some type of shielding to
be put up, maybe to not flood those bright lights onto my property. I do have livestock.
I have five acres. I do have livestock there and it would be good for the homeowners
that would be purchasing property adjacent to mine to understand that I do have
livestock there and that would be something that they would have to deal with. Just
interested in ACHD's comments on the traffic that's going to be generated on Victory
and the traffic that's going to be on Overland. Both areas right now is pretty much a
mess and adding additional traffic there would just mean that -- to kind of see what their
plans are. That's pretty much the comments I have and would like to see how those
issues will be addressed as this development moves forward.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: My comment to you, sir, is thank you for your organization. That's very much
appreciated.
Zaremba: I would make a comment, sir. Of course, the applicant will come back and
answer questions as well, but I think our dust abatement and construction blowing stuff
-- our ordinances have improved since Bear Creek was begun. There are rules which
the applicant has to comply with, standard rules for everything, but I think they have
gotten stronger since the beginning of Bear Creek. The other is there are also rules
about the down -shielding of lighting, so it's not supposed to be bleeding off onto other
people's property and that's not an issue for this applicant if you're talking about
previously and across the street, but you could call the police department and ask to
speak to the compliance officer at the police department and they will come out and
take a look at the lights and see whether they are complying with the down -shielding
and no bleed off.
Rough: Okay. I will do that. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 73 of 92
Zaremba: And we will ask the applicant to answer the other questions.
Rough: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: James Prather.
Prather: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. James Prather, 2595 South
Linder, Meridian. I'll make my comments brief. I appreciate the presentation tonight.
did not make the earlier meeting of a couple of months ago. It's well thought out. It's
well prepared. I think they have a few perhaps lose ends that they are taking care of as
shown tonight, but more specifically, I live right across the street on Linder to the west.
If I can -- correct.
Zaremba: In that area?
Prather: One south. Right there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Prather: What I would like to see here -- and I do appreciate, again, the attention of the
applicant taking this into consideration, but Ariel Estates is the subdivision that I live in
to the west. We are five acre estates and most of us in there -- well, all of us in there
have made a pretty substantial investment, along with Eggers Subdivision, which is to
the south of the Ridenbaugh, most of those lots in there are between one acre and two
acres. And what I would like to see -- and I won't speak for the rest of the owners, but
I'm sure -- if there could be a little bit more attention paid to the transition. Eggers is
probably 25 to 30 years there and Ariel Estates I think are about 12 years old. What we
would like to see is perhaps those lots that were enumerated to be somewhere between
-- I believe Becky said somewhere between 13 and 18 thousand square feet. Just
bumped up to see if we can get closer to half acre lots. The way they are now, they are
just roughly maybe on an average of a quarter acre coming up to acre and five acre
lots. It would be nice, since we were in here preceding this development -- and, by the
way, I -- this is what I do for a living as well. That's a good development and we know
it's coming and we, actually, welcome it. But it would be nice if they would revisit their
position and make those abutting lots to the north of the Ridenbaugh -- just the lots that
abut that up about a half an acre. And that's my comment.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Ruth Ann Green. From the audience she states that her issues
have been addressed. That is everybody that signed up for this, but at this time I'd
welcome anybody else to come forward that chooses to speak.
Bradshaw: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Allen Bradshaw. I live on 2730
South Linder Road and I'm south of -- of the canal as well and I would kind of reiterate
what James Prather said about the transition of the lot sizes in respect to the size of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 74 of 92
lots that have been in existence for quite a long time, that maybe they look at expanding
those lots with that. That's all.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Anybody else? Yes. Please come
forward.
Young: Good morning. My name is Jan Young. I live at 1330 Eggers Place and I own
two lots in Eggers. I have been there since May of 1979 and Becky has really
addressed most of the concerns I had and I do feel approval for this and I agree with
what Mr. Prather also said about along the canal, the additional lots being just slightly
larger. One thing I do -- would like to address is the church that's down off of Overland.
Living up on -- in Eggers Subdivision I'm not really sure how that was approved for them
to have the outdoor speakers, but in the summertime up all the way to Eggers you can
hear the church and it is very loud. So, I think anyone buying down in that subdivision
would need to be aware that you can hear it throughout the entire subdivision and all
the way up to our subdivision and that's one thing I'd like address. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. I think that probably speaks to his concerns about the lots
-- wanting to see them become common lots, rather than developable lots, so -- in
support of what his comments were. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like
to comment on this at this time? Seeing none, Commission?
Zaremba: I would ask a question of staff on -- I agree that the church's CUP allows the
public address system, but doesn't it still need to comply with sound levels leaving the
property? Aren't there some rules about that?
Wilson: There is a noise ordinance. It's contained in the Meridian civil code that Mr.
Nary would likely be more familiar with than I am. Our Unified Development Code
specifically addresses PA systems within 100 feet of residences needing a CU. It
doesn't, actually, set levels or anything else, it just kind of falls back on the civil code,
which, if I remember correctly, doesn't set decibel levels either, it's fairly vague and says
that it can't disturb other properties, I think. But I would defer to Mr. Nary on that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's, actually, the criminal code that
we are referring to, but under the city noise ordinance, activities on religious property
are exempt. So, it wouldn't violate the city criminal code.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: All right. I think, probably, at this time it's appropriate to ask Becky to come
back up and let's see what she has to say.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. I have
spoken with Mr. Webber on multiple occasions and we have made what my clients
thought was good faith measures trying to, obviously, buffer the church from our future
residents and vice -versa. We looked at possibly putting some open space up there, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 75 of 92
that is the high point on this portion. This particular pod here everything is sloping to the
south. So, as you well know, any storm drainage, where sub surface or surface from
retention ponds, have to be in a separate common lot. So, that was one reason that
they were concerned about taking the open space and moving it and that was one of
the recommendations that Mr. Webber had at the time. As far as their PA system --
Rohm: Becky -- oh, I was just going to say, it sounds from the testimony that we have
heard that the PA system penetrates the entire subdivision and not just the adjacent
lots, so I'm not sure that you could really address that adequately without elimination of
the subdivision. But, anyway, that's --
McKay: Let me try -- one thing I have noticed, sound carries over bare ground and it
carries for quite a distance, depending on the weather conditions and the way the wind's
blowing. My past experience, like along Interstate 84, for example, very noisy facility.
Some of the residents that were in subdivisions beyond the freeway -- and I designed a
subdivision between them and the freeway, I have seen them since the subdivision was
built out and one thing they said was, you know what, I can't hear the freeway now. So,
that was one good thing about the development going in. So, you know, the sound is
going to carry, because there is nothing to block it. When you do start getting built out,
we do see a reduction in the distance that sound will carry, I mean that just lays to
reason. One thing I did talk to Mr. Webber about is a church facility really any different
than say a high school, a middle school, elementary? I used to live by an elementary. I
could hear the little kids squealing and laughing and playing, the bell ringing, I have
done lots of subdivisions next to high schools, they have outdoor sports events, lights,
PA systems, traffic, and noise. There are lots of things associated with that type of
activity, but yet schools are able to coexist and be compatible with residential
development. We see churches primarily in residential areas. This one is a little
unique, that they do have it looks like more outdoor activities than the average church.
Most of them are indoors, but you do have like some of the LDS churches have
baseball diamonds behind them I have seen and, you know, other outdoor activities that
take place. So, I don't feel that their use is not compatible with us or vice -versa. I've
tried my best to, you know, come up with different ideas to buffer them. I guess I leave
it up to the Commission, if they believe that the two lots behind them that are limited to
single story that are 150 feet deep, that we put a berm, a fence, and landscaping, is still
not enough. I leave that to the Commission to make a determination. As far as the --
Mr. Rough indicated, who lives right here, about the trash. The staff -- or the
ordinances always, I think, required the perimeter fencing, which, obviously, it's
supposed to catch any of the building trash that's blowing around. However, if you drive
around and we have had a big windstorm, you will see that some of the trash will go up
over a six foot fence. That's, obviously -- you know, that burden's upon the developer to
make sure that the builders understand that they must contain their trash, they can't just
leave it, you know, around to blow all over and to go off of the subject property. As far
as dust and noise, the city -- for the record, the city's pretty tough on dust. I have
received phone calls from the staff and said Mrs. Smith or Jones called me and says
that there is dust out there and you better take care of it. We call our contractor
immediately, they send water trucks out. Most contractors are very cognizant of that,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 76 of 92
they are very conscientious about trying to get their water trucks out there. If we know
we have, you know, a dust issue, they are pretty sensitive about it or if we have -- one
time at Redfeather Estates we had an adjoining neighbor that had asthma and so we
went to great pains to try to make sure that we took care of the dust and his wife called
me if there was any dust, so -- existing trees. There are some existing trees that the
Commission should be aware of. You see them right here on this landscape plan. But
there is some that appear to be on the common boundary and, then, there are some
that are primarily on the adjoining property. What I told the gentleman that lives there,
that we can, obviously, meet him out there and look at the trees. He says some of them
are like those black Locusts, they are not in very good condition. We, obviously, don't
want to create a hazard, if it's determined -- we could get the city forester out there to
look at them, that they should be taken out, because they are not safe, that they are on
their last leg or diseased, but we typically try to retain as many trees as possible and the
ordinance states that we must. We have to mitigate, obviously, any trees that we take
out that are existing. Street lights. The shoe box lights should be -- you know, they
should be shining downward. Sometimes they get tipped a little bit and they will shine
on adjacent properties. I did out at Bridgetower have an adjoining neighbor call once
and say it's shining in my bedroom. We sent an electrician out, they adjusted the little
shield, and they said, hey, that worked great. So, maybe that's what needs to be done
out here at Bear Creek. I'm not sure what the situation is. But, obviously, there are
ways to try to relieve that problem. As far as just livestock, the right to farm, obviously,
we would be willing to put that on the plat, that's a state law, if we have any agricultural
that surround us, we, obviously, have to recognize those and respect those and any
subsequent owners have to do the same. Traffic. I went through ACHD's plans for the
improvement out in this area. I mean this area is planned for, funded, it's within next
year. We did do a traffic study. Washington Group International did our traffic study,
they went and did counts, looked all the surrounding intersections. We had them go
beyond what -- just the Overland and Linder, we had them go further out and look at
what's happening out there and look at the impact. They did a very thorough job. Ada
County Highway District has incorporated all of those comments into their staff report
that we received. We will be installing left turn bays, right turn bays on Linder, sidewalk
along Linder. We will be donating the right of way to Ada County Highway District along
Linder, 48 feet from center line. Along Stoddard that will be free right of way there,
because it's designated as a collector. We will be building curb, gutter, sidewalk, half of,
I think it is, a 46 foot section. And, then, obviously, the addition of the collector at our
expense will be accommodating traffic moving in between this half mile. Not very often
that the projects have a continuous collector. I like them. I'm an advocate for them. In
this instance I think it's going to work real well with this school. So, we feel that, you
know, all the traffic issues have been answered. As far as Ariel Estates and Eggers
Estates, we did -- we did look at those lots and I'm sensitive to the rural lots. In fact,
did Ariel Estates. Last five acre lot subdivision I did before they required dry line sewers
within the Meridian's area of impact. If we look at an aerial photo -- and I can submit
this for the record. As you can see, I had them go beyond our project, which shows the
location of the homes. To give you the scale of this, this is one inch equals 200 feet.
So, some of these homes -- I think the closest one I found along this Eggers boundary
here was about 160 feet from the closest point of their home to the rear lot line. That
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 77 of 92
would not be to -- you know, the home would be further away, but to the rear lot line.
This particular gentleman talked about the impact on him. From his home over to this
lot line I think is 235 feet. So, that kind of gives you an idea of the separation that we
have. In looking at our distribution of lots, I brought this just to kind of demonstrate to
the Commission that we did -- we did go through a logical process in determining our lot
sizes. Everything you see in blue are our largest lots. Everything in pink is the next
largest. Then, it goes down to the orange. The yellow are smallest. And pink are
second. Yeah. No. The pink -- I'm sorry. It goes blue, pink, orange, yellow. Got it
reversed. So, as you can see, all along Eggers and wrapping around there to Linder
from the existing home, everything is blue. Over here we have some pinks. But we --
you know, these lots are pretty good size. They are not half acre, but I've got some that
are 19,000, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 12 -- I mean they vary. I try to keep them wider and
deeper than any of the other lots that I had. So, I think I have made an effort. I think
that's all that I have. I think I have went through my list. Does the Commission have
any other questions, comments? We would like to move forward, if -possible. I don't
think with the large collector and our vehicle trips generated that we violate any ACHD
policies. In fact, their staff report indicated that we are in compliance. And we meet and
exceed their requirements.
Moe: Becky, you made comment in regards to the lots right behind the church --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: --being single story.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: And I didn't hear you comment at all on Lots 12 through 17, possibly making
those single -story.
McKay: From --
Moe: From Linder over.
McKay: From here over?
Moe: Yes.
McKay: The applicant doesn't agree.
Moe: Thank you.
McKay: I guess that burden is on the Commission to determine if that is necessary.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Becky, I was just wondering what you expect build out to
be on this, approximately, because the sewer is not there yet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 78 of 92
McKay: Fall 2007 and that is the best optimistic that I'm hearing from staff. I mean
Mike may correct me. I know they are pushing hard to get it across the interstate.
There is a need for it. All your trunks are at capacity or over capacity south of 1-84, so I
know this has been a priority and it's even popped up higher on the priority list. We
accept the fact that we may have to wait. We had hoped to get the first phase on this
year. That was our hope. We think this will probably be, you know, a five phase
project. Typically, projects run one to two phases a year, roughly. So, build out, you
know, could be three to five years, depending on market conditions and, obviously,
availability of the sewer.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: I, actually, have a couple of questions, if I may. And, actually, the first one is
probably directed at staff, Mr. Cole, but while you're here, what is the mechanism for --
enforcing is not the right word, but making sure that sewer is available to enough
homes? Is it the certificate of zoning compliance or certificate of occupancy, that they
can't get until their sewer -- or am I making that up?
Cole: Commissioner Zaremba, they are not allowed to build in any lots in this
subdivision until the Black Cat --
Zaremba: So, they can't break ground.
Cole: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Cole: They could move a little dirt around if they wanted to, but until -- to answer the
earlier question, the Black Cat Trunk is planned to be on the south side of the interstate
in '06. From that point it's still roughly a half to three quarters of a mile away from Mrs.
McKay's development. There is an application pending that would bring it to her front
door. Depending on how fast that developer builds his sewer out, it's conceivable she
could have sewer by '07, but that's a very --
McKay: Optimistic.
Cole: -- optimistic expectation. Thank you, Mrs. McKay.
Zaremba: Thank you. Appreciate that. So, you have heard that and you're aware of it
and you probably knew that before I did.
McKay: Yes, sir. We are aware of that and, obviously, we realize we may have to file a
time extension on the preliminary plat in the event that there are any setbacks. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 79 of 92
staff has been very diligent and has not allowed us to start any subdivisions, that is the
infrastructure, until that trunk was on its way. That's been pretty much a standard.
They don't take any chances that somebody builds something that has no connection to
a trunk.
Zaremba: Okay. Great. The other question that I have is in regards to the police
department requirement that you have objected to and this is something that Ada
County Highway District, I'm sure, will be considering and that's that you consider traffic
calming on West Kodiak to slow the speeds and stuff. My guess is that one of the
methods that ACHD has presented to us as being traffic calming is a meandering street,
which, to me, you appear to have been. I don't see any real straight-aways.
McKay: No, sir.
Zaremba: And I'm not sure that we have the authority to change a police department
requirement, but I guess you're assuming ACHD is going to go along with your design.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we received the same comment on
Volterra, because we have a continuous collector that in that instance ran from one
arterial -- Ten Mile to Black Cat, another arterial. I think what the police chief -- I think
he thinks it's like a local street for front -on housing. There is no front -on housing along
the collector. A collector can carry up to 8,000 vehicle trips a day, because it doesn't
impact anybody's home, because it's not in front of their home, unlike the local street
that we restrict to less than 1,000 vehicle trips. People do go faster on the collectors.
We do our best to try to give them a meander, not make them a straight shot, as,
Commissioner Zaremba, you indicated. One thing we did do here is on the landscape
plan we do show some pedestrian crossings, like some stamped pavers. That does --
that does make them slow down. It just kind of -- for some reason they will reduce their
speed when you designate crosswalks. Also, you know, that would be a school zone.
So, you will have, you know, some type of restricted speeds during the school hours.
They usually have the little flashers and so forth. I don't see that as a problem. On
Volterra Ada County Highway District just kind of shook their head and said this is a
collector, not a local. If it was a local and you're trying to put this many vehicle trips on
it, you would have a problem. You wouldn't meet their policies. But we meet all of
ACHD's policies.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Before we proceed with this, I'd like to just make a comment
that because we do not have the report from the Ada County Highway District to include
in our deliberations, I think that the testimony that we have received tonight from the
audience and rebuttal from the applicant is all in good order and I think this has been a
healthy discussion. What I would like to see us do -- we can't make a decision tonight,
because we do not have that report from the highway district. What I'd like to see us do
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 80 of 92
is just stop the discussion at this point in time, move to continue until the following
February 2nd meeting and only take testimony associated with the Ada County Highway
District report period at that next meeting and there is no sense in making any additional
deliberations tonight and we will just conclude it with the Ada County Highway District
report that we will receive between now and February 2nd. Any comments?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly agree with that, that the testimony should be
limited to the ACHD report, but I also think there is some merits to discuss an issue
when it's fresh in our minds. Not that we would be making -- necessarily making a
motion, but in my mind it would be good to maybe discuss some of the issues that's
been discussed while it's still fresh, rather than --
Rohm: And I guess --
Borup: -- weeks from now.
Rohm: And I don't have a problem with that. I was hoping that we could get through
this and open the last item on the agenda, but I'm open to hearing comments from each
Commissioner associated with testimony currently received.
Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend that we go ahead -- we stay until we open the
last item on the agenda, but I do agree that we should discuss this one, if we want to
make the changes. Even if it is after midnight, that we --
Borup: The time to have made that decision was earlier in the evening, maybe, and
moved things along then.
Newton-Huckabay: But I mean it's only -- because 19 and 20 are continued.
Borup: I only have two comments and I don't know how many the others have.
Zaremba: Yeah. I was going to say anticipating that this discussion may be fairly brief;
I think I've had most of my answers -- my questions answered. I would like to hear
Commissioner Borup's concern, but I also feel the following two issues, one of which
hasn't been noticed and we are going to continue that one anyhow, will probably also go
fairly quickly and I would be amenable to starting it even if it happens after midnight.
Rohm: Fair enough. I can live with that. Commissioner Borup, you're on.
Borup: Okay. I only, really, had a couple of notes. I mean I had a lot of notes, but two
that may be open for discussion. One was perhaps a transition on the southern part of
the subdivision. I got to look at things on what we have looked at historically and I think
there is very good transition here. These are large lots compared to what we normally
see against same size neighboring subdivisions, so I don't have any concern about that
and I think they have done a good job of some real -- real large almost estate size lots, I
guess maybe small estate. And the other is the property to the north. Not just on this,
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 81 of 92
but I have always been opposed to limiting two story houses. I have never really felt
that it really makes any sense. It shouldn't be a factor in my mind. I've seen it done in
others and you go back and look at it afterwards and some of the single story homes
are -- have got the same height as the two story. One of these -- so I don't know that --
and the taller homes there is going to be bigger blocking away. I don't see -- if you
leave an open area there, that's going to just funnel the noise through there. So, I
would not be in favor of having any limitation on heights. You know, if the developers
want to do that to a couple of them, I guess, that's -- you know, that's up to them, but
that's my feeling.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, I think they are well thought out statements and in
support of those, the distance from lot line to adjacent existing structures is pretty
significant and I don't think they'd even be able -- from the horizon I don't think they'd
even see the two story homes.
Borup: Well, that's what's really different in this one is the topography. It's something
we are normally not looking at either.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments.
Newton-Huckabay: Slopes up?
Borup: Yeah. Or slopes down. The canal is the high point.
Newton-Huckabay: But isn't the property somewhat bowl shaped? It slopes down and,
then, goes back up?
Borup: Right. Yeah.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts that you'd like to share?
Zaremba: Nothing to add. I agree with what Commissioner Borup just added and I
have previously said or asked everything that I care to do.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no additional comments.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Ditto.
Rohm: All right. I think we have done with comments.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 0 --
Meridian Planning & Zoning ® •
January 19, 2006
Page 82 of 92
Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
Wilson: Sorry to interrupt. The applicant did indicate that she's out of town the 2nd, so
if you could choose the 16th or if that agenda is full, maybe one after that.
Borup: The 16th is probably better.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Thank you. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we
continue the Public Hearing for AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064, both relating to Bear Creek
West Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006, for the
sole purpose of considering action taken by ACHD and making a decision that night.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All
opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 05-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone for Young America Early
Care and Education Center by Young American Early Care and
Education Center —1525 Leigh Field Drive:
Rohm: Okay. We have got three minutes to spare. At this time I'd like to open up the
Public Hearing on CUP 05-056 associated with Young America Early Care and
Education Center and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a Conditional Use
Permit for a child care center for up to 100 kids. The existing child care -- or the
proposed child care center is located within an existing building, approximately 5,100
square feet. It is on a .5 acre lot -- a little over half an acre lot within Quenzer Commons
Subdivision No. 8, so the subdivision you heard earlier is this property right there and,
then, there is the triangle that their street came up. We are just back to the east a little
bit. The applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor play area within -- on this lot,
approximately 1,200 square feet. Let me see if I have a little better -- it shows it a little
bit better. It will be in this general vicinity, fenced off -- I'll get to the fencing here in a
second, but it has about 1,200 square feet. And there are 31 parking stalls within this
lot. There are other parking within the area today. There is a cross -access agreement
currently in place for the subdivision, so if they do get some overflow traffic, there are
some other parking available currently in the general vicinity. This property is currently
zoned C -N, which is a neighborhood business district. Just a couple of the conditions,
guess, to quickly run through the staff report. Staff is recommending that the hours of
Meridian Planning & Zoning r
January 19, 2006
Page 83 of 92
operation for this business be restricted from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. That signs be
placed -- and I have kind of drawn the signs in on the site plan. A couple of signs here.
Staffs concern was that parents or guardians would come and just drop off or pick up
kids and park kind of right in the middle of the drive aisle, thereby preventing other
parents from exiting or blocking this and having to back up. So, just some signage
there at the entrance saying you need to park, you can't just wait here. Fencing. The
applicant was proposing to do a six foot vinyl fence, I believe, solid anyways. The
police department had some concerns with not being able to see into the play area and
what goes beyond potentially behind that area. They have requested that the fencing
the short run is about 20 feet long on the north and along the east property -- or at least
east side of the play area be open vision, non -climbable, usually a wrought iron type
fence. There is also a condition in the staff report that prohibits any of the play
equipment in this outdoor play area to being over six feet tall. There are residential lots
in Quenzer directly to the west and so to keep that privacy and because the landscape
buffer between a day care with up to 100 kids and future residences, none of them are
here today -- or living there today, we have made that restriction so kids can't get up on
a tall ladder or something and shout into someone else's back yard. Did have one
change that I would request to the staff report as presented. It's in Exhibit B, condition
3.19. It's, actually, a fire department condition. There was some question as to whether
or not a full blown fire sprinkler system will be required for this. I'm not trying to step on
the fire department's toes by any means, but I hope that this request will allow some
flexibility at least in that condition. I guess I'm asking that you change the word will to
may. That's like the fifth or sixth word. Let's see. Right now it reads a fire sprinkler
system will be required for this occupancy and it continues on: Contact the fire marshal
for details. We propose that 3.19 would be amended to read a fire sprinkler system
may be required for this occupancy. Contact the fire marshal. I think the intent is still
there, it just leaves that door open for if, in fact, a fire sprinkler is not needed or a full
blown fire sprinkler or some other way they can deal with fire code without having to put
a full sprinkler in. I do not know what the code says, so, again, I don't think we are
trying to change the intent of that condition, I think it just allows some flexibility. So, with
that I will stand for any questions. Oh, one more -- we did get comments back from
Central District Health Department. There is a note from them to request that the
applicant contact Susan Simmons at CVHD regarding the license. So, there is a
contact for the applicant to get the license through the state to become a licensed child
care provider, if she hasn't already done so. But with that I will stand for any questions
you have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have two. On conditions of approval paragraph 1.5 is
where you state that the hours shall be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Are we
assuming that's all seven days of the week?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I would imagine it's
Monday through Friday, but it wasn't in the applicant's application. We may get them to
clarify. I wasn't sure if they would have anything on Saturday or not. You can -- it's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 84 of 92
certainly within your jurisdiction to condition that Monday through Friday, I just wasn't
sure and I forgot to ask the applicant, so --
Zaremba: Actually, I was going the other way, to allow all seven days.
Hood: Yeah. Yeah. And that -- we could specify that it's good --
Zaremba: I think it should be clarified one way or the other.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you through?
Zaremba: Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: I would like the applicant to speak to that, too, because I think that
those hours are too restrictive to run a day care in today's business environment.
Borup: I agree.
Newton-Huckabay: We employ 150 people who have to be to work at 6:00 a.m.
Borup: Boy, you're tough.
Newton-Huckabay: They get to go home at 2:30.
Hood: And just to further that, the applicant, actually, asked for 6:30 to 6:30, 1 believe,
and I give them another half hour just in case people were milling around or someone
showed up late. I don't know if that's generous enough, but I thought, you know, boy,
you're going to need probably at least a half hour. So, I did take some liberty there,
so --
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think I would -- I guess I would encourage you not to limit
yourself and have problems down the road to those hours, because I think that would
be too restrictive to be competitive. That was business advice. I'm sorry.
Rohm: Are we ready to hear from the applicant? Are we ready for the applicant?
Borup: Let's go.
Zaremba: I, actually, had one more question. I'm sorry.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: And this, again, on the conditions of approval relates to 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10
collectively. Am I understanding that the play area is going to be in the required
landscape buffer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 85 of 92
Hood: Yes. And --
Zaremba: And is that okay?
Hood: Yes and no. It is within the required landscape buffer. The landscaping -- that
provision I think in 1.10 does state that if you move any of those required trees or -- that
are required with the final plat, that you need to contact my department and make sure
we still have the same number within that landscape buffer. Now, the current UDC
requires there to be a screened barrier at full maturity for those trees. That was not the
case when this was approved. I mean the city knew that there was a residential district
next to this C -N before and allowed this buffer 20 feet. Now, I don't think it was
envisioned that a day care would be using that area for their outdoor play area, but it is
in the request setback or buffer area between the building and the property line. But
there isn't much of a conflict, to tell you the truth, if you can see on the -- I think there is
a landscape plan in here. There is room, I think, to have a tree or two within your play
area and still maintain that buffer. So, they may need to move a tree out of there, but
don't see much of a conflict there.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward? Before she falls asleep.
Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jennifer
Coleman and I am a representative of Young America Early Care and Education Center
and as Caleb had stated, we are wanting to operate a child care center serving
approximately 100 children. It is my intent to operate Monday through Friday. If I can
take your advice and perhaps extend those hours just to cover our bases. I wanted to
start out with 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. And, then, possibly if somebody needed earlier
care we could change our schedule. I don't know if that's a possibility to change that in
our Conditional Use Permit application. As far as landscape -- or, I'm sorry, the
playground area, I was asked to address that in my staff report. We will be using the
playground area on a rotation schedule. So, the facility will include five classrooms.
Each classroom will have a designated amount of time to use the playground area, go
back into the facility and the next group will go out and, then, use the playground area
for their duration of time. Was there anything else that --
Newton- H u ckabay: That's 20 kids at a time, approximately?
Coleman: Approximately 12 to 20. The degree of sizes are different. The smaller,
younger children are much smaller group sizes.
Newton-Huckabay: It's been awhile. I forget.
Rohm: As far as the time opening and closing, if we were to propose 6:00 until -- 6:00
in the morning, rather than 6:30, as recommended by staff and, then, concluded at 7:00,
as staff recommended, would that cover all bases?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 86 of 92
Coleman: Yes, I believe it would. However, I would like to request the opportunity to
have time available on the evenings and possibly on Saturday for staff development
training. We might want to have the center open from 6:00 to 8:00 for a staff meeting or
from 6:00 to 8:00 for -- or 6:30 to 8:30 for a staff development training. That would be
after hours, the business would be closed, that would just include myself and the staff
and possibly a trainer if we had a training. So, I would like to talk about that before the
permit is considered.
Rohm: Typically -- and maybe I'm speaking a little bit out of turn here -- the hours of
operation that we address are that you have access from the public --
Coleman: Okay.
Rohm: -- that you are working with and I think that there is a lot of businesses that will
have staff meetings outside of the listed hours from the CUP. The CUP lists the hours
open to the public and that's the way I see it, anyway.
Zaremba: I believe we have made that interpretation before that --
Rohm: That's my --
Zaremba: -- we are specifying customer hours, essentially.
Rohm: Right.
Coleman: Okay.
Rohm: And so your staff hours, you know, if you have got internal training are outside
of your customer --
Zaremba: And that's probably a cleaning crew that's going to be there at midnight.
That's okay.
Coleman: Sure. Sure. Okay.
Rohm: And so I don't think that's an issue.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I would just request, rather than leaving that up for a future
interpretation, if that's the intent, is that kids can be there from -- be a certain amount of
hours or whatever that you specify, that the hours of operation aren't to just have the
doors open, but the hours of operation for kids to be present are this and, then, you can
have staff after that until 10:00 or whatever, but just clarify the hours of operation are
intended to be for child care hours or however you want to go about it, but the more
details the better, I guess.
Meridian Planning & Zoning O
January 19, 2006
Page 87 of 92
Rohm: Okay. Okay. And I think we can work around that.
Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Coleman, can I ask you a question? Does this Young
America Early -- do you have other centers?
Coleman: No, ma'am.
Newton-Huckabay: This is your first one?
Coleman: It is.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just -- my -- I am generally not a fan, I think, of assigned
operating hours to businesses and so we'd just like to know why we feel that we need to
-- one, I think it's -- you create administrative -- you have to clarify when the cleaning
people can be there, when the kids can be there, and we don't live in an 8:00 to 5:00
society anymore, we live in a 24 hour society. So, what's the driver behind operating
hours in this instance?
Borup: Residential. This is close to residential use, isn't that the --
Zaremba: Yeah. Typically, when it's right next to a residential use, we include that for
the benefit of the neighboring residences.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the UDC, actually, requires you set
hours. So, if you want to set them for 24 hours I mean that's your prerogative. I
wouldn't recommend that being residential there, but we do need to have some
provision in here that sets the hours of operation that are allowable by code. You have
to set something, so -- and that's why these hours were picked. One is because the
applicant proposed them. Modifying them is fine. But, yeah, there are residents that
are going to be there pretty soon as that plat recorded recently, so --
Zaremba: I would comment that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's question about
whether you have other facilities is probably driven by the fact that you seem to really
have it together, know what needs to go on, and know about having staff meetings and
stuff like that. So, we appreciate you appearing to be knowledgeable about this.
guess my other question would be do you ever envision going all seven days or do you
care?
Coleman: No. I would possibly envision maybe some events occurring on a Saturday,
whether it be a family fair, a family, you know, gathering, possibly, again, some staff
development, utilizing the facility on a Saturday. But I would see that being on a rare
occasion. I would not include Saturday as my business hours, no.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 88 of 92
Rohm: I think it might be easier to include Saturday in your normal operating conditions
and that way if you have staff meetings or family fun days or otherwise, then, you would
already be covered and if you don't use it, you're certainly not obligated to be there.
Coleman: Right.
Rohm: Okay. That being said --thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: What are the operating hours that we have set for some of the
other conditional use permits that weren't -- they weren't day care centers, but they
were in some of these neighborhood areas?
Borup: 10:00 or 11:00 at night, some of them.
Rohm: Exactly.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I know for the L -O properties that we
allowed with the recent Comp Plan amendment, our standard that we -- based on what
you guys did on a couple of them in a row, restrict that from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as a
standard, that we just insert in all of them and if you so choose to modify them -- I think
there have been a couple that have been allowed to go to 11:00 p.m, but that's pretty
standard for those office -- office zones.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be my preference is to kind of get more towards a
standard, rather than try to start defining a use, because, then, pretty soon we are going
to, well, day cares can only go 6:30 to 7:00 and a dentist office can only go, you know,
8:00 to 10:00 or --
Borup: See, I think the marketplace is going to take care of most of that. Just slave
driver companies require them to come to work at 6:00, so you're not going to have very
many of those. But if you have a few families that do, you know, you have to have one
staff person that can handle that and, then, the majority of them would come at another
time and -- and they may want to eventually have -- you know, they may have a few
families on Saturdays, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well, I guess I would just prefer to see us as a
Commission --
Borup: 6:00 to 10:00.
Newton-Huckabay: -- go with something that's more to a standard that's easy to
remember.
Rohm: And I think those comments are well taken. Before we move forward, is there
anybody else from the audience that would like to speak to this issue? Okay. Thank
you very much. Are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 89 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: I would make one comment first, if I may.
Rohm: You may.
Zaremba: I appreciate a comment that's made in the staff report -- this is on page five.
Staff finds that day cares are one of the sample uses called for within neighborhood
centers. This project is part of a larger development that is applying the neighborhood
concept -- neighborhood center concept. I appreciate that statement and very much
agree with it.
Rohm: And appreciate the fact they are proposing to put one in a neighborhood center.
You may come back forward if you'd like.
Coleman: Mr. Chairman, with the advice of Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I would
like to change the verbiage of the permit to say 6:00 to 10:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, to include that Saturday at your advice.
Rohm: I think that that's the motion that's coming.
Coleman: Great. Wonderful. Thank you.
Borup: Go seven days.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on
CUP 05-056.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
056. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I move to approve File No. CUP 05-056 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th, 2006, and the site
plan labeled SP -1, dated May 2nd, 2005, with the following modifications to the
condition of approval. On Exhibit B, page one, the statement 1.5, the hours of operation
for this business shall be limited from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m --
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
January 19, 2006
Page 90 of 92
Zaremba: 6:00 a.m.
Newton-Huckabay: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sorry.
Borup: It's up to you.
Rohm: Monday through Saturday?
Newton-Huckabay: Was it Monday through Saturday? With child -- what?
Borup: Well, I don't think we need to worry about that. That was saying that the
definition of day care hours would be when pay children are on the premise, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike my last statement. Okay.
Borup: Do we need to worry about that with those hours?
Rohm: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Yeah. I don't think I'd specify.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what -- let me restate this into the microphone. The
hours of operation for this business shall be limited from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday.
Zaremba: Again, I would say 6:00 a.m.
Newton-Huckabay: 6:00 a.m. Sorry. On Exhibit B, page three, a fire sprinkler system
may be required for this occupancy. And, then, the rest of the statement will remain as
stated. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
-- no. That we approve CUP 05-056 with the proposed changes. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. My mind drifted. Did we include the request that staff prepare the
-- that was included? Thank you. I thought you were reading it off the page, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 91 of 92
Newton-Huckabay: I did, but I don't remember saying that. Did I?
Zaremba: Mr. Caleb Hood is nodding his head yes.
Borup: Whether you said it or not, he's saying yes.
Rohm: All right. Okay.
Borup: Are you going to open that?
Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11
acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables,
LLC — 2445 North Wingate Lane:
Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC —
2445 North Wingate Lane:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062 for
Sharp Estates Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the
February 2nd, 2006, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Zaremba: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue these items to the February
2nd meeting. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hood: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Hood: I have one thing to add maybe before we close the record. Just an update.
Pinebridge Subdivision was tabled by this body some four months ago. This was
supposed to be their --
Borup: Today.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2006
Page 92 of 92
Hood: -- their hearing night tonight. They withdrew their application a couple of weeks
ago -- a couple three weeks ago and I just thought I'd give you that update, that they are
planning on resubmitting and we should be seeing that here in another month or so.
They were saying it would be back before you sometime early spring. So, I just thought
I'd give you that update.
Newton-Huckabay: That's the Eagle Road one; right?
Hood: Pinebridge, it, actually, is Locust Grove and Pine. It would connect Pine Avenue
from Eagle Road to Locust Grove, but I just thought I'd let you know that they did
withdraw that application and are going to be resubmitting hopefully here soon.
Borup: Good. I had that and I was wondering what happened to it.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded we adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: We are out of here.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:21 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED:
,
--A 1 0 L
DATE APPROVER��<<<���""!!!!!l�,��
&
LIAM G. BERG JR.,�ITV
�CLERK� -J,�
+� pF J �
s y D
�O
�srr• ,
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Grace at Fairview Lakes. LLC
0
CUP 05-055
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006 - Modification to existing CUP for a
40 -unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for Grace at
Fairview Lakes - 824 E. Fairview Ave.
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
See attached Staff Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
3
44
q�*. t � „ a .r x.4, t•s.'. f�'`
ar�a
�
S � b
� r, � �y"+�z sl '�"X sir �
3
44
ns
41
t 1
' � •� F p9
y.
. t tri A 22
a . � . s, x, �
.� -. J -
U
AZ 05-050
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning
of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove
Road and south of Chinden Blvd
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 / Minutes
See attached Revised Staff Report
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
}
1
=}4sa':'
gR
,.
""V
P
,ry
s
IV
f
U
AZ 05-050
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning
of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove
Road and south of Chinden Blvd
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 / Minutes
See attached Revised Staff Report
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
t
=}4sa':'
,.
""V
P
IV
f
t
&�}4'
9
yy'
�-
0 o
PP 05-051
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005 -Preliminary Plat approval
of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Blvd
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 / Minutes In AZ Packet
See Revised Staff Report In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
4
x'
a
A,
ak
T:r
14
3 A
�g
3
r �r
A
C�
0
AZ 05-051
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 16, 2006
APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. %
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Annexation & Zoning of
12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision - northwest corner of North
Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See previous Item packet
See attached Staff Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone: _
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
4
.., .. ., ,,
c
x,
5
r.
.4,
a
w r
„ r
r �t
�
a
S:
4..
r
i i
tz
}
11
Y
PP 05-052
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. S
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots
& 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision - northwest
comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue.
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See previous item packet
See Staff Comments in AZ Packet
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
E
i
4
E
0 0
CUP 05-047
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: Conditional Use Permit for a PD for multi-
family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements
for Ellensburg Subdivision - northwest comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Ave
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
See staff comments In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
w
r
t:J yr
{
�k
l
}
it ,q
�`x 1
"sfix itf
T
"!
$•
y _
k'
Xa
x&
n?
i�
Le
is
Ll
9
AZ 05-054
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of
which 49.27 acres is RUT proposed R-8 zone and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN -R zone for
Bryce Canyon Subdivision - 3935 West Frankln Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
See previous Item packet
See memo for withdrawl
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
trx
t�
a '
4
r
ft
f'
io
a
r
J i
.�
r`
9
t
i
0
0
PP 05-056
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005 -Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family
residential building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed R$ and TN -R
zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision - 3935 West Franklin 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 previous item packet
See memo for withdrawl In AZ packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
� 3 k
f
�MIMI]
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Ada County Highway District Road Property - 3595 East 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:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
No Objections
No Comment
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
..a t ,.'i i
Y�
say.
�3
3 y
f4
�a
&
A
w�. -.
*W';+:r�
�MIMI]
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C -G zone for
Ada County Highway District Road Property - 3595 East 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:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
No Objections
No Comment
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
..a t ,.'i i
�3
3 y
f4
w�. -.
t
. `.::, " „ . ,'•".. .g .r �:. ,,.. s, Y ., g.�=','c+ R 12r,� 'sey.� A,
rt 'F
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Una Mas, LLC
0
AZ 05-061
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Una Mas -
3475 East 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:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Report
No Comment
No Objections
No Comment
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
�M
� .b }" # "�..
Lrw.E. "w �' ,�. /'a�P i+N #Y'%aa5•`�s k'�Tnf`4''}�*v�rr.7 ;
a
.
4
Npa
+
�.sxh
as
#Y r
i
rE�
u
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
0
AZ 05-063
January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Brighton Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North
Subdivision - north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
No Comment
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
F
i
Y
t-
y
�
I
}r X
X
F
i
t-
y
�
I
#
X
O
•
PP 05-063
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Brighton Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 15
REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision - north of East Ustick Road and
west of North Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
See Comments In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
?� �,illlali>
t .•� % d s2 6. � „t'S �� x x z,.,q �,r. f:
1 @t�
wrh�
f
V
I
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 16
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Bear
Creek West Subdivision - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard
0
AZ 05-064
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 Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
OTHER: See attgched Comments from ITD; affidavit of Posting; letter from Armstrong
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
I
gk6
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 17
REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision -
south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road
PP 05-064
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Staff Comments In AZ Packet
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
Nig
t
X
:
t'
q
„
C5
rS !
c3
Y2
jq
w�
14W
;i
a
4
f
!p4
¢ ra
x
l
z
�
0
0
CUP 05-056
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Young American Early Care & Education Center, Inc. ITEM NO. is
REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on .58 acres in the C -N zone
for Young American Early Care and Education Center - 1525 Leigh Field Dr.
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 Comments
No Comment
See attached Comments
No Comment
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See affidavit of Posifng
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
T :
F
eb�i
y
5
V
epg
�
0 0
AZ 05-062
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 19, 2006
APPLICANT The Gables, Inc. ITEM NO. 19
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Sharp Estates
Subdivision - 2445 North Wingate 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:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See attached Staff Comments / Memo to Continue
No Comment
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
e
i
a
F
4
"t
5
2
t`
e
i
0
PP 05-062
January 19, 2006
ITEM NO. 20
REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common
lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision - 2445 North
Wingate 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 Staff Comments / memo to Continue In AZ Packet
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
a
z`
9 t
ay
3
a5
�i
y
t
t
F.
t'
1 5 * z 3 } t
�kP ^t'
r S