Loading...
2006 01-050 Revised 1/5/06 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 5, 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 December 1, 2005 Planning And Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve with Amendments B. Approve Minutes of December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve with Amendments C. Approve Minutes of December 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve with Amendments 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 1 of 4 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 Revised 1/5/06 the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision by JBS Enterprises, LLC — 1845 West Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC — 1845 West Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC — 1845 West Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 2 of 4 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. • ! Revised 1/5/06 14. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 15. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 16. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 17. Public Hearing: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop by Fred Pratt — 1127 North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 18. Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball field & Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 20. Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C -G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C -N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 21. Public Hearing: PP 05-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C -G and C- N zones for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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 Revised 1/5/06 22. Public Hearing: MCU 05-004 Request to modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini -storage use and including attached and detached single- family dwellings for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 23. Public Hearing: 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: Continue Public Hearing to January 19, 2006 24. Public Hearing: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: Approve 25. Public Hearing: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 2, 2006 26. Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C- G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 2, 2006 27. Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 2, 2006 28. Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 2, 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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 Revised 1/5/06 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 5, 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 W David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December1, 2005 Planni g And Zoning Commission Meeting: A�gYOVIC vj i� R MIC'no ffll B. Approve Minutes of December 8, 2005 Planning a d Zoning Commission Special Meeting: P�/z W� cnmtcrit--� C. Approve Minutes of December 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ,fjm(C YVr.ih AMCN6 Mi c- 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Vccommcnd Aw-ow-I % Ci L) CflLLao d 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: VkoojrY mind Aw1'Ovoj ib Ct CUL1AUJ 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —January 5, 2006 Page 1 of 4 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. 11 L I Revised 1/5/06 the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: V. Co Mfywd �0 W� OO Rbj 7. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagl Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: � 'I CO�cnc f; Ppm VfA '-b WIPW 8. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: Q1 0Ci(fiM-CF6 AppmvGJ �t M oatnW 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Sub-d�^ivi_� ion by JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: �e 6 M rm 10. Con inued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: R ffiM �C � Vaj _ (6 0 &Lnb—( 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC—.1845 West Franklin Road: a Co MMCr d jj6\(W1 &C 1 &irl(! �,1 tin'u1S12. Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: PtCOnfjyrY _d ( ib eliq C (fLifAC4 13. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLCM orth Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: k1C0")ff)CR crap L,LI 14. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Developm nt roup, LLC — 3055 North Eagle Road: re(c)lcr M&)dkwai ,j & `6 &P Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —January 5, 2006 Page 2 of 4 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. Revised 1/5/06 15. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3Q55 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Q0 (Mmald A` )Wo `� lA� �c vi I 16. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by andmark D velopment Group, t'�( LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: MVI 46 e i O fJun Cat 17. PublicHearing: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Ree)" Barber Shoby Fred Pratt -1127 North Meridian Road:CO�Y1iY1t? Y� lo6 FN Nuf) A 18. Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue:CM-Crld rTPMV0,A ib 06rXQU 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball field & Technical Centgr by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: CA0()ry)fyyW-Id i V-()rCLI -�6 °( _ OftLabA 20. Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C -G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C -N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview DevelopmentCorporation — orth of U tick Road and west of Eagle Road: C (i�11Y1`� oi�1 C� nV V" +0 6 f 21. Public Hearing: PP 05-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C -G and C- N zones for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation —north of Us ick Road and west of Eagle Road: �0 U'�11(Y�@, VC) A %)4-Uvb, i _� iii C%uLt bJ 22. Public Hearing: MCU 05-004 Request to modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini -storage use and including attached and detached single- family dwellings for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: 900( Y\MC,AX1 �rot�.l +0 Pu is Hearing: 23. CUP 05-055 Request for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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 Revised 1/5/06 Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by race at Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: 06i}i- w -L yLk�1Ic k � I-Iq-6b 24. Public Hearing: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus by Ada County - south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: V,��unMM eine Vw -% &-� �MnW 25. Public Hearing: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: 061+1111AC Pabilo' k&Y1. I(O D -Q.O(p 26. Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Aequest for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C- G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: CMWVL,C- RiAl 1c, kim 27. Public airing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: 0"VAU.1 c. 1-0.0 -0-06 28. Public li�aring: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: C tAAA(Auf- Y1 n M 0-.P -66 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. T�V,4�5� Pic �, t- k CITY OF MEIIIDUN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 5, 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 December 1, 2005 Planning And Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of December 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 1 of 4 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. 11 11 the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision by JBS Enterprises, LLC — 1845 West Franklin Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: 14. Public Hearing: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop by Fred Pratt —1127 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 2 of 4 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. • 15. Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball field & Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: 17. Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C -G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C -N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: 18. Public Hearing: PP 05-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C -G and C- N zones for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: 19. Public Hearing: MCU 05-004 Request to modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini -storage use and including attached and detached single- family dwellings for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: 20. Public Hearing: 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: 21. Public Hearing: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: 22. Public Hearing: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: 23. Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C- G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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. 24. Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: 25. Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. pjfit. .^k•9 % �'+ �� � s` ��"���'� �� �� _ 1� m£j 24 74 } fti vil"�a�' All 24. Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: 25. Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — January 5, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. t ¢ .. # 5 ys.{�t9�x'S'd�.�Fr+IC+ 9 : �� P m .^k•9 % �'+ �� � s` ��"���'� �� �� _ t ¢ ** TX CONFIRMATION® PORT AS OF JAN 06 06 01:42 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 02 DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01/06 00:56 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 03 01/06 00:58 8848723 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 04 01/06 01:00 8841159 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 05 01/06 01:02 2088840744 EC --S 01'33" 004 121 OK 06 01/06 01:04 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 07 01/06 01:06 8985501 EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 08 01/06 01:08 LIBRARY EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 09 01/06 01:11 IDAHO STATESMAN EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 10 01/06 01:13 3886924 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 11 01/06 01:15 P -AND -Z EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 12 01/06 01:17 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 13 01/06 01:19 208 888 2682 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 14 01/06 01:21 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 15 01/06 01:23 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 16 01/06 01:25 2088885052 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 17 01/06 01:28 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00101" 000 121 INC 18 01/06 01:28 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'34" 000 121 INC 19 01/06 01:30 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'34" 000 121 INC 20 01/06 01:31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00101" 000 121 INC 21 01/06 01:32 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 22 01/06 01:34 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 23 01/06 01:40 3810160 EC --S 02'39" 004 121 OK THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY Revised 1/5/06 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 5, 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 _ X David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: COMMUNICATIONS REPORT AS OF JAN 06 '06 05:00 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES TOTAL TIME SEND 0072 SEND 00°29'39" RECEIVE 0000 RECEIVE 00°00'32" DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MINOSEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01 01/05 09:14 G3 --R 00'32" 000 INC 02 01006 00:56 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 03 01006 00:58 8848723 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 04 01006 01:00 8841159 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 05 01006 01:02 2088840744 EC --S 01'33" 004 121 O 06 01006 01:04 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 07 01006 01:06 8985501 EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 08 01006 01:08 LIBRARY EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 09 01006 01:11 IDAHO STATESMAN EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 10 01006 01:13 3886924 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 11 01006 01:15 P -AND -Z EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 12 01006 01:17 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01'30" 004 121 OK 13 01006 01:19 208 888 2682 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 14 01006 01:21 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 15 01006 01:23 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 16 01006 01:25 2088885052 EC --S 01'32" 004 121 OK 17 01006 01:28 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00101" 000 121 INC 18 01/06 01:28 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'34" 000 121 INC 19 01006 01:30 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'34" 000 121 INC 20 01006 01:31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'01" 000 121 INC 21 01006 01:32 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 22 01006 01:34 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'31" 004 121 OK 23 01006 01:40 3810160 EC --S 02'39" 004 121 OK ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT*� �, AS OF JAN 03 06 16.22 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 05 DATE 01/03 TIME 15.42 TO/FROM 3810160 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 06 01/03 15:44 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S EC --S 02'10" 004 103 OK 07 01/03 15:46 8848723 01'16" 004 103 OK 08 01/03 15:48 8841159 EC --S 01'15" 004 103 OKEC--S 09 01/03 15:50 2088840744 EC --S 01'16" 004 103 OK 10 01/03 15:51 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'18" 004 01'16" 103 OK 11 01/03 15:53 8985501 EC --S 004 01'15" 004 103 OK 12 13 01/03 01/03 15:55 LIBRARY EC --S 01917" 004 103 103 OK OK 14 01/03 15:57 15:59 IDAHO STATESMAN 3886924 EC --S 01'15" 004 103 OK 15 01/03 16:00 P -AND -Z EC --S 01'17" 004 103 OK 16 01/03 16:02 ALL AMERICAN INS EC --S EC --S 01'15" 004 01'16" 103 OK 17 01/03 16:04 FIRE DEPT EC --S 004 01'15" 103 OK 18 01/03 16:06 208 888 2682 EC --S 004 01'17" 004 103 OK 19 20 01/03 01/03 16:08 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'15" 004 103 103 OK OK 21 01/03 16:10 16:12 ADA CTY DEVELMT 2088885052 EC --S 01'17" 004 103 OK 22 01/03 16:14 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU EC --S G3 --S 01'17" 004 02'31" 103 OK 23 01/03 16:17 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 004 01'18" 004 103 OK 24 01/03 16:19 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'17" 004 103 OK 25 01/03 16:21 2088886701 EC --S 01'18" 004 103 103 OK ------------------------------------------------- OK r�6LIL Mpat - l kwX5�� CITE" OF M ERIDIA N MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, January 5, 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." • 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 DecemhPr i 2nns. Plar,nir►n COMMUNICATIONS�* .���' AS OF JAN 03"061G:29 PRGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES /U[RL TIME SEND : 0099 RECEIVE : 0000 SEND : 00034"52" RECEIVE : 00000"29"" 01 DATE TIME 01/03 0g:�5 FaxServTO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01/��:31�L��r HMERICAN INS EC --S EC --S 01'22" 003 0111" 099 OK 03 01/83 10:51 003 099 0< 04 01/03 15;07 p_AND_Z G3 --R 08"291" 000 INC 05 01/03 15:42 3810160 EC --S 80"451" 002 101 ON 06 01/03 15:44 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S EC --S 02'1011 804 103 0< 0? 01/03 15:46 8848723 01'16" 004 103 OK 08 01/03 15:48 8841159 EC --S 01"15= 804 103 ON 09 01/03 15:50 2088840744 EC --S 01'16" 804 103 OK 10 01/03 15:51 POLICE DEPT ��--S 01"1B" 004 103 0K 11 81/03 15:53 8985501 ��--S 01"16� 004 103 OK 12 01/03 15:55 LIBRARY EC --S 01"15" 084 103 OK 13 01/03 15:57 IDAHO STATESMAN EC --S �c--� 01"i7" 004 01^i5° 103 OK 14 01/03 15:59 3B86524 EC --S 004 01'17� 004 103 0� 15 16 01/03 16:00 p_AHD_Z 01/03 16:82 EC --S 01"1�= 004 103 103 0< OK 17 ALL AMERICAN INS 01/03 16:04 FIRE DEPT �[--S 01"1G� 084 103 0< 18 01/03 16:06 208 BBB 2682 EC --S EC --S �1"15° 004 103 OK 19 01/03 16:08 208 387 6393 ��--S B1"17° 004 01'15= 004 103 ON 20 01/03 16:10 ADA CTf DEVELMT ��--S 01"17= 004 103 OK 21 22 01/03 16:12 2088885852 01/03 16:14 LANEVlBW ��--� 01"17"" 004 103 103 0K OK 23 GOLFCOU 01/83 16:17 IDAHO ATHLETIC C G3 --S ��"�1= 004 103 ON 24 01/03 16:19 ID PRESS TRIBUNE ��--B ��--S 01'18° 004 01'1711 103 OK 25 01/03 16:21 2088886701 EC --S 004 B1"18," 004 103 OK 26 2? 01/03 16'23 3810i60 01/03 16:24 PUBLIC EC --S 80"32° 001 103 104 0< ON 28 WORKS 01/03 16:25 e848723 ��--S 00"�1 104 0{ 29 81��i6:�GB�i1� EC --S �'���1 1040< OK 01/ �1G:27���0�4 EC --S �"�"0�i 104 OK 01/ 01/03 16:28 �— EC--SEC--S �"�""�1 104 OK 3201/0316:298985501 EC --S oo"22°001 104 OK 00°�1= 001 104 OK 0 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 5, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 5, 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: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 5th, 2006, and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and have got one change that I'd like to propose before we move on and that is Items 14, 15 and 16, Sadie Creek. I'd like to move them to the end of the agenda to be heard just prior to the public hearings for Bienville Square and with that change that's the only change I have. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 1, 2005 Planning And Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of December 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: So, at this time I'd like to hear if there is any changes to the Consent Agenda. Zaremba: The Consent Agenda, yes. I didn't realize you had gone that far. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 2 of 93 Rohm: Yes. Go ahead. Zaremba: If I may? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Very minor things. On the minutes for December 1st, on the very first page, under Item 2, about the third line up from the bottom of that paragraph, I mentioned Karen Doherty and I may have misspoke and said Kathy, but her name is Karen, and I would ask to change that to Karen at that spot. It is said correctly in other places. On page 11, also the December 1 st, near the bottom of the page, I make a statement opening a Public Hearing referencing the file numbers and say all related to Bryce Canyon. Actually, that should be Harks Canyon. Harks, not Bryce. That's my only change -- two changes for December 1st. On December 8th, if we are ready, on page 33, about the fifth time that I speak, Commissioner Borup said something and, then, actually, there was a comment from the audience and my next statement was to the person in the audience, not to Commissioner Borup. So, I would ask that between where Commissioner Borup speaks and where I say you can say something to staff, that we add that there was an unintelligible or un-hearable comment from an unidentified person in the audience. So, it's clear that I was responding to that. That's my only comment on the 8th. On the 15th, on page seven, the third time that I speak, that long paragraph, the same thing happened. Commissioner Moe made a statement and, then, somebody from the audience said something and my next statement was addressed to them. So, I would again ask that it say something like unintelligible comment from an unidentified audience member, on page seven before the third time that I speak. Then one other. On page 21, again, of December 15, about the middle of the page, Mr. Hood is speaking and he says I spoke with Bob Aldridge. Mr. Aldridge's last name begins with an A, not an E, and I'm not sure that the second B should be there, but at least it's Aldridge, not Eldridge. And that also appears one paragraph later. Those are the only comments that I have on the Consent Agenda. Anybody else? Rohm: Yes. Anybody else? Zaremba: I'm sorry. That's your place to ask, not mine. Rohm: There you go. Appreciate that. Hearing no other request for changes, I would entertain a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as modified. Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 3 of 93 Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Zaremba: For the record, I would note that Commissioner Borup has joined us. Rohm: Oh. Yes. Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Borup. Okay. All right. At this time I'd like to speak to the methods that we proceed on these public hearings and as you can see we have got quite a full agenda tonight and a number of projects to be heard and it is our intent to hear as many, if not all, that are on the agenda. The one caveat to that is we will not be opening any public hearings after 11:00 o'clock. So, if, in fact, we were -- get halfway through and we have passed that 11:00 o'clock hour, any project that has not been opened at that point in time will be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. That being said, the procedure for these public hearings is the first thing we do is we ask our staff to give the specifics of a particular project and that's as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance and so that the staff tries to present to us in those lights -- in that light. Once the staff has completed their presentation, we will ask the applicant, then, to give their flavor to the project and that's their opportunity to sell the project to us, the Commission. Once those two presentations have been completed, it is, then, opened up to the public and each public member is given three minutes to give their opinions or comments about the given project and there is one exception that we make to that, is if, in fact, an individual is speaking for a larger group, say the president of a homeowners association, where he's got -- he is speaking specifically for a group of people, then, we will give that person up to ten minutes to speak as well. Tonight, because of the number of projects that we have to hear and the potential for significant testimony, what I'm going to do is ask for a show of hands and take down those names associated that are relinquishing their time to a spokesman, if, in fact, that occurs. So, what we are trying to do is we want everybody to have an opportunity to speak their mind, but we also are in an effort here to keep the process moving. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 4 of 93 Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to open the first Public Hearing and at this time I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046, all referring to Reflection Ridge Subdivision and at this time I'd like to hear the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you may recall, this is the second or third agenda that this application has been on. They have been waiting for ACHD's comments on the application. We did receive those. They have been incorporated into the revised staff report. I do want to apologize for the staff report. It shows some edits and makes the fonts smaller by not cleaning up some of those others in the margins there, so I apologize if you had to bust out the microscope there to see the print. But that being said, I will just touch on a couple of the highlights from the last time. This is a revised preliminary plat. Some of the changes that the applicant has made, again, on Locust Grove Road, we are about a half mile east of Meridian Road, south of Victory, primarily what's changed is -- and I apologize, again, for the scale of this as well -- some roundabouts have been added to the plan, as well as some chokers at some of these intersections internally. This street here used to connect in to this and it kind of made it a long street with a long block. The applicant's have cul-de-sac'd that now. There is a micro -path that leads from the cul-de-sac through open spacing throughout the development. I think I have a landscape plan that may show that a little bit better. These are cul-de-sacs that will tie into the sidewalks and kind of create walk- able areas with the sidewalks to the park areas to have tot lots and there is a half basketball court along Locust Grove Road over there. Those are pretty much -- the only changes were pretty much street related. Again, they were just waiting on ACHD. They still have 250 lots build -able, single family lots. There are a couple of alley -loaded blocks over here, again, on the Locust Grove portion of the site. The only other thing in the staff report, I guess, that I would want to highlight is that I did ask the applicant to clarify the status of the negotiations or aware of where that is with the Ridenbaugh Canal multi -use pathway that's shown on the Comprehensive Plan. A portion of that was shown off site and so I'd just ask the applicant to give a status report on where that is, I guess, in the process with an MID. I know that was brief. We have a lot of things on the agenda tonight and to get to those items before 11:00 p.m. I think I will end my comments there. If you want me to go into anymore detail, but I think we have been over this before, so I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Do we have questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I do have, actually, one comment and one question. As the staff reports evolve in the new format, we find things better and better and my comment is on page three of the staff report, Section G, description of applicant's request, this is the first time 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 5 of 93 I have noticed that you have supplied the information in the two sentences right in the middle of this, 152 of the lots are 8,000 square feet or greater, which is the R-4 minimum, and 103 of the lots are below 8,000 square feet. That's -- having the count of how many are above and how many are below is very helpful and I appreciate the addition of that information. The same subject on page 13, under the number three, the CUP application, the second paragraph that also gives similar detail and greater information and it's very helpful to me and I believe the others to have the actual count, rather than a statement that says they have asked for some reduced properties and I like having that count. So, good work and thank you. Hood: So noted. Thank you. Zaremba: The only other comment is a question, actually. In Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.1, near the top, it talks about the preliminary plat dated September 12, 2005. 1 appear to have not only the current one, which is dated September 12, 2005, but an older one with that same date and I would ask that we add to that statement the clerk's received stamp, which on mine is not readable, but it's December something, 2005. Is it the 16th? December 16th, 2005. When we are referencing that comment, would add the clerk's date stamp. So, that's it, sir. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Would the application like to come forward, please? Koga: My name is David Koga with the Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I think Craig hit the highlights of the reason why we are here. Remember previously when we went through all this project, except for comments from ACHD. As Craig mentioned, after we finally received ACHD's report, we were able to meet with them and made all the changes required for -- regard to traffic calming affects on this project. Craig also asked in regard to explanation of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Halfway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, from the northern section of the Ridenbaugh -- Rohm: Dave? Koga: Thank you, sir. From the Ridenbaugh Canal it -- the owners from right about here on the Ridenbaugh Canal, they own halfway into the Ridenbaugh Canal, but on the southern portion from right here down to there, the ownership goes on the southern portion of the Ridenbaugh Canal and, as a matter of fact, the information on that was kind of vague, so we went through the process in there with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation and our surveyors and we are going through the process right now to go through a quiet title process through that -- after we go through that process that the owners will own to the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal, which is important, because we are also showing the ten foot wide regional pathway system along that Ridenbaugh Canal there. So, we are -- like I said, we are going through this process, we should know that within -- probably within a month when that is completed, going through that process there. know that's a real small item here. We compiled all the site specifics on the preliminary plat. On the Conditional Use Permit was an item 4.1 of the site specifics of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 6 of 93 conditional use. During the -- one of the comments is right here on the corner. We used to have this open space that would continue clear up to the northern point and it made it difficult for a policeman to have surveillance for the open space, so we did -- we have already made -- another portion of the changes we did is we changed this open space, so it's easier for a police officer to survey -- have surveillance of this open space and we opened up this build -able lot up to the northern area, so it works a lot better there. Other than that, we have, basically, made all the changes that were requested and met with your staff and I think we put together a pretty good subdivision. Any questions? Rohm: I don't have a question of you just yet, Dave, but let me ask staff first. Dave's explanation to the Ridenbaugh Canal pathway, if, in fact, they are moving through the process of obtaining the quitclaim or transfer of ownership of that property, is that acceptable to staff or do we need to have that so designated on final plat or what would you like to see? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think the condition right now requires that they construct a multi -use pathway with the final plat. We will require that they, in fact, do construct it, so if they run into a road block and they haven't acquired that property or come to some agreement, they will need to probably come back to this body and get their preliminary plat revised, but there is a condition now, so I don't think we need anything or to modify anything in here right now. The condition stands and if they run into problems down the road complying with that, we will have to deal with it at that time, so -- Koga: Yeah. The condition does state that if we don't bring that pathway in there, we have to bring it in a different route and redesign that. Rohm: That works for me. Any other questions from other Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Moe: Mr. Koga, as far as the developmental agreement, you're not in any -- have any problems with that agreement? Koga: No. They have started that process, so -- Rohm: Any other comment? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 7 of 93 Zaremba: Just to refresh my memory, that part of the issue on the Ridenbaugh Canal and which side the path was going to be on, had something to do with a bridge, I thought. Is there going to be a bridge across this? Koga: No. That was separate. There will be in the future. I got this to work now. Right there. There will be a bridge and we are required to pay for half for that bridge. So, that was not the issue. The issue was on the legal description -- Zaremba: Yeah. Koga: -- it was very vague on that legal description to say exactly where the ownership -- it just says that the ownership is south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Well, does that mean it's south of the edge or south of the ridge, south of their easement? It just doesn't state that. So, after going through the process and doing all the search with Nampa -Meridian and past records in there, we found out that, once again, it's not clear and that's why we are going through this process and going through a quiet title process in there, that makes it clear that the owners do own to the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal. And we had also asked Nampa -Meridian Irrigation and they don't care. As a matter of fact, they prefer that. They still want their easement for sure -- Zaremba: Of course. Koga: -- but they don't care for and really don't like to have -- don't want the ownership also. Zaremba: Okay. But the area that is in question that you're resolving has nothing to do with a bridge? Koga: No, not at all. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Koga: Not at all. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the Commission? Thank you. At this time we will open it up to public testimony and at this time we do not have anybody signed up, but this is your opportunity to speak. So, anybody that would like to speak to this project, please, come forward and state your name. Having not anyone coming forward, I think we will -- does anyone from the Commission have any further questions of staff? Not having any, would somebody like to move to close or -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi n January 5, 2005 Page 8 of 93 Zaremba: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05- 046. Moe: Second. Rohm: We have a motion to close all three of these public hearings. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Cool. All right. Would someone like to make a motion to -- Zaremba: I don't know if we need any discussion. I think we have had kind of a consensus the last time and we are only waiting for a couple of issues to be resolved. I would make the motion if we are ready. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046, relating to Reflection Ridge Subdivision, to include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of 1/5/2006, received by the city clerk December 29, 2005, with one minor modification and that is Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.1, where it says preliminary plat dated September 12, 2005, 1 would add to that also clerk date stamped December 16th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: We have a motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046. All those in favor say aye. All opposed the same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC — 2640 North Meridian Road: Rohm: Thank you very much. If the rest of this evening goes like this first one, we might make it through the agenda. Thanks, Dave. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings AZ 05-053, PP 05-055, and these are both related to the Windham Place Subdivision and I'd like to start with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 9 of 93 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Windham Place was originally on the December 1st, 2005, agenda. The applicant did fail to post, so it was moved to tonight's agenda, and it was not heard on the 1st of December. The applicant is proposing to construct 23 build -able lots. The application material states 24. It looks like we got 24 on the site, but there is, actually, 23 build -able lots and three common lots on 5.87 acres, located west -- or, I'm sorry, east of Meridian Road and South of Ustick on a parcel that is immediately north that was recently approved, Brian Holt Subdivision, that you saw, I believe, in October or September. The proposed subdivision is marked in purple on the screen. It's bounded by an existing subdivision on the east that is Fothergill Point Subdivision that's zoned R-8 to the north. There is also an existing subdivision bounded by the same applicant a couple years ago, Highgate Subdivision, also zoned R-8. The Brian Holt that was recently approved is also zoned R-8. And, then, to the west across Meridian Road there is the Clearbrook Estates, which is R-4, as you can see on the map there some slightly larger lots. This property is unique in that it has a very small amount of frontage on Meridian Road and other than that is really not visible from anywhere else. It's, actually, a hard property to get a look at. There is the narrow leg there that connects to Meridian Road with an existing residence and there is some out buildings. And, then, the vacant land located in the rear of the property and against the existing subdivision to the east there. The applicant has proposed, like I said, 23 build -able lots. Those consist of 22 attached structures -- and I'm going to ask the applicant to verify this when they do get up. From a phone conversation with her she did indicate that there will be 22 attached properties and one detached property. The detached property being on the corner lot there right where the marker is there. The rest of them are paired in groups of two as attached properties. They will be connecting to an existing street in the Fothergill Point Subdivision. I believe that is Hawk Street. And, then, they will also be -- Brian Holt, when they came through, it's a -- as you can see it's a very narrow piece of property. At this east end of Brian Holt they did bring Ridgemont Avenue through and that will be connecting to this subdivision as well and that's also where this subdivision will be, I believe, hooking into their sewer and water once it's brought through Brian Holt. There are several issues that are highlighted in the staff report. The configuration shown on the screen is -- does differ from what staff recommends that the ultimate configuration be. The original proposal was to -- was to keep Lot 1, Block 1 -- and let me see if I have a plat here. This shows it fairly well. It does at least have the lot and block numbers on it. Lot 1, Block 1, was originally intended to encompass land both on the north side and the south side of the drain that crosses the property here. It's, actually, the North Slough is what that is. It does cross Meridian Road at this location, kind of follows the property line between Brian Holt and this property and, then, it does angle up through and, then, go along the north boundary of this property. What staff had recommended is that the property line for that Lot 1, Block 1, be redrawn to include only lands north of the North Slough and that this open space lot, I believe it's Lot 2, be expanded to encompass those lands south of the North Slough. It's a little bit difficult to describe in words in the staff report, so, hopefully, I can accomplish that to make some sense, but that is what we do propose is that the property line for Lot 1 does follow the North Slough and keep Lot 1, Block 1, north of that North Slough and, then, that south center portion being taken into Lot 2 there as an open space lot for the subdivision. Another 0 a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 10 of 93 item to discuss is the multi -use path. Brian Holt Subdivision -- the North Slough takes a pretty interesting course through here. Once it almost reaches Meridian Road out here it does take a sharp turn to the south before it crosses Meridian Road. Brian Holt Subdivision was required to install a ten foot multi -use pathway on the portion of that that is on their subdivision. We would ask that this application continue the ten foot multi -use pathway through their property to the extent shown on this plan where the roadway curves to the east and becomes Hawk Street there is likely not any opportunity that that pathway will be extended to the north, so we did not feel it was necessary to take that pathway to the northernmost point of the subdivision. There still is opportunity -- if somehow that pathway was taken north from that point, there is still opportunity to connect it. But at this point we did just ask that it be connected to the roadway there to provide the residents access to it and seemed to be the most logical configuration. Also, the applicant is required to have a 25 -foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road and be placed in a common lot for the homeowners association. The Lot 1, Block 1, on Meridian Road is unique in many ways. As I have already discussed, it's a unique configuration and it's narrow as well. Another way it's unique is that it will retain access to Meridian Road. It will not take access internally from the subdivision, which is different from what you usually see on existing homes along arterials. There just really isn't any other way to make this one work. That was approved by ACHD and staff does support that. But there still is the requirement for that 25 -foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road. Some other conditions of approval in the staff report relate to the fencing along the common open spaces. Meridian City Code does restrict the height of fencing adjacent to open spaces. It can be a four foot closed vision or a six foot open vision fence on all property boundaries adjacent to the common open space and that does apply to Lots 4, 9, 10 and 12 of Block 1 that do front on that open space. Another item also related to that open space lot -- we do ask that the applicant connect that open space lot to the terminus of the cul-de-sac. Indian Rocks Court is the name of the cul-de-sac street here. We have asked that they connect -- reconfigure that open space property so that it does -- it does encompass the end of that cul-de-sac and, then, provide a pathway connection to the ten foot multi -use pathway for access to that. I think that's the -- most of the highlights I did want to hit on this. And I think at this point I will take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Thank you, Josh. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Josh, I just want to make sure I understand in regards to the -- to the pathways -- Wilson: Okay. Moe: -- on the southwest as far as Block 1, Lot 1. Wilson: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 11 of 93 Moe: You said that the Brian Holt Subdivision has a pathway at that point? Wilson: Correct. Moe: Are we not going to make a connection there into the -- Wilson: Yeah. That is, actually, a condition in the staff report that they do need to revise that to connect to that pathway. Yeah. Moe: Would that be anticipated to be on the south side? Wilson: It would be on the south side. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. No further questions, at this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Harris: Good evening, Members -- or Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Peter Harris. I'm at 6951 Duncan Lane in Boise. And I guess I just wanted to say we agree with most of the things that staff has recommended for this project. We certainly don't have any problem with the pathway and we have been working hard with the landowner that owns Lot 1, Block 1, to try and work out to keep him in his spot there and he is in kind of a unique situation because of the slough, because the slough is -- there is no way to cross the slough, so that's why he's retaining access to the -- from Meridian Road. So, we fully intend to connect the path and bring it down and tie it into the Brian Holt path there and, then, continue the landscaping as it's shown in that triangular area that's south of the center line of the slough. As the staff mentioned, this is kind of a unique parcel and it's kind of nice to finish a piece of the puzzle here, so to speak, in this little piece. I guess I don't have much else to say. The only question I'd have of staff and -- is that is the 25 -foot buffer that is requested on Meridian Road. There is existing planting and mature planting on that road at this time that is somewhere in the 12 to 15 foot range and is that not adequate to meet what staff is looking for? Wilson: That would be adequate. What we do like to see is that that be in a lot that is owned by the homeowners association and, therefore, that insures the maintenance of that lot. And, yeah, if there is mature landscaping existing on the revised landscape that makes these changes that we have asked for, make sure and denote that and, then, we can take a look at that. But, yes, that would certainly suffice. Harris: Great. Well, we have no problem, then, complying with all the conditions of staff and, you know, we look forward to moving forward with this. Any questions, anybody? Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 12 of 93 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harris? Harris: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Just one thing that was mentioned in the staff report and although you have said you have agreed with everything, I just want to make sure that we saw the same thing. On that lot that is still going to have access to Meridian -- Harris: Yes. Zaremba: -- the condition was that there be some kind of turnaround provided, so nobody would be backing out onto Meridian and you're aware of that? Harris: Yes. I'm aware of that and more than willing to comply with that. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Harris: Uh-huh. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the Commission? Thank you. Harris: Thank you. Rohm: At this time I'd like to hear from the public and we have one person signed up and would Peter Harris like to come forward, please? Borup: That's who just was here. Rohm: Oh. Oh. You are -- excuse me. I apologize. Would anybody else like to testify on this application? Okay. No public testimony. At this point in time I'd like to request any discussion of the Commission before we close the Public Hearing. Anybody have any comments that they'd like to make on this? Moe: Mr. Chairman. Josh, in regards to the point of the 25 -foot landscape buffer, that can all be worked out, we don't need to make any modifications to the report? Wilson: No. That can be worked out, I think, at the next -- what I would like, though, is for the applicant to just quickly address if my interpretation of what is attached and detached product on the property is is correct, that they are all attached houses, other than that one corner lot there. Rohm: Please come forward. Harris: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I missed that in my notes. I tried to look for it and didn't catch that. But, yes, we have no problem with that. Everything will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commist January 5, 2005 Page 13 of 93 be attached, other than the one corner lot, which you can see is a little bit larger than the rest of them, so we don't have any problem with that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moe: I have no other comment. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing AZ 05-053 and PP 05-055. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings AZ 05-053 and PP 05-055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you. At this time is there any discussion amongst the Commission on this project before we make a recommendation to the city? Zaremba: My comment would be I agree with the applicant and the staff that fills in a spot that is kind of a keyhole to a couple of developments around it. It seems pretty straight forward to me and if they have agreed to comply with all the requests of the staff, I'm in favor of it. Moe: I agree. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments? Borup: No. When they agree with all the staff comments, it does make it easier. Rohm: Yeah. Absolutely. At this time I'd like to -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend to City Council approval of AZ 05-053 and PP 05-55, related to Windham Place Subdivision and including all staff comments of the memo for the hearing date of 12/1/2005, received by the City Clerk November 21 st, 2005, with no other changes. End of motion. Moe: Do we want to reference the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District comment that came into the office on the 2nd of December? This was beyond the first comment of December 1st. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 14 of 93 Zaremba: I agree. It would be wise to include this. This is a Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District letter of 17 November 2005, received by the City Clerk December 2, 2005, is included in my motion. Moe: I will second it. Rohm: It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-053 and PP 05-055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-056 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision by JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC —1845 West Franklin Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development within 300' of a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision JBS Enterprises, LLC — 1845 West Franklin Road: Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 05- 056, PP 05-058, CUP 05-051, and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision is a mixed use development approximately near the existing Harks Corner, which has the sports bar, gas station, Arctic Circle -- it's all in there. This is also immediately north of the Ten Mile Creek and also just north of Whitestone Estates. There is several issues that come up with this site. This is saying that this is a six acre site. It's, actually, a ten acre site -- well, there it is. Is says it's 4.07 for the TNR. With that, there is an existing water feature for irrigation and fire protection on site that is a portion of the amenity for the sports bar that is in the Harks Corner Subdivision, I believe, is what it's name was under. With this, the applicant is proposing seven commercial lots, four of them fronting on Franklin Road, as well as two in the corner over here, which would be attached by a commercial cross -access into the Harks Corner Subdivision. And also use the water feature as an amenity. With that, there will be 29 residential lots, which are incorporated as townhouse developments in the central portion. The northern portion and kind of at an angle here is what the commercial C -N district will come through as. The neighborhood commercial district -- or community 0 41 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 15 of 93 commercial C -C district is a little bit more limited type of uses. They are not just as intense as a general commercial district. With that, we do have the requirements for additional landscaping between land use buffers, which would be north of the service drive, which would be the alleyway serving the rear -loaded townhouses, as well as another 25 -foot landscape buffer to the existing residents west of this site. West of this site is projected to change significantly, probably as soon as sewer and water are available to that site, but it is currently a residence and it does require the 25 -foot land use buffer. The applicant is not showing the 25 feet at these two required locations, but they are going to propose to file for alternative compliance and use intensive vegetation at the rear of this alley, as well as to put in a 15 -foot landscape buffer to the west, which staff is supporting if the applicant provides a landscape design that is suitable to the director. The overall site plan is submitted as conditional use due to the fact that this is a mixed use property that is within 300 feet of a residence. As you can see with this -- there, now it's working again. There is the property line about 100 feet north of the Ten Mile Creek. This is an off-site improvement that the applicant will be signing into with the development agreement to install the multi -use pathway on the Ten Mile Creek corridor that would only go to the bridge that is existing. There is a wooden bridge on the Ten Mile Creek that accesses a common lot in Whitestone Estates. Currently the southern portion of this site, which is listed as Lot 19 of the proposal, is shown conceptually in this design as condos, but according to the applicant those potentially could be an additional phase of townhouses. With that, this is utilizing a different type of a design with the traditional neighborhood residential to allow these townhouses in there. There are a mix of four townhouses and as well as two and three in there -- in the traditional neighborhood residential district. The other portion to be aware of is that these legs of these roads are currently shown as Lot 5, which one of the conditions of approval is with ACHD to make these at a minimum a private street with a design of a 42 foot wide roadway. If you look at this design, if they loop this road, that is essential for addressing all of these properties in this location with a named street, as well as to provide unobstructed access. The applicant is currently showing it as a service drive, but they are acceptable to the condition. You should have received a letter dated January 4th with the application tonight. There is one correction. That would be the Lot 22 should be Lot 21, which is the open space lot in approximately the location between the two commercial uses along the eastern property border and along the water feature and the applicant, after -- after we have had the discussions, has also still proposed new language. There is several ways that the applicant can address the private street or public street. They don't need to have these in a separate lot, but it would help in order to facilitate either a dedication or a design of a public or private street for future connection to the south and, then, condition number 2.15, we have had discussions with public works, which is a public works condition, that is going to most likely be addressed by doing phasing of the plats. The applicant can submit for the first seven lots, which would be the commercial lots, so there would be a commercial Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision and a residential Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision phasing. And with each phase those installments and improvements can be addressed in a better manner, so that they don't have to bring all the improvements for the residential development at the same time as they bring all the commercial development, which would be all the roads, services, sewer, water, et cetera. So, I believe that has been resolved as well. And just Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 16 of 93 a point of note. The fire and police have issued a couple of conditions which require all alleyways to be 24 feet and this is a condition that has been discussed at quite length, because the police and fire are not entirely supportive of the traditional neighborhood residential designs. However, with this design they do allow for rear parking, they are required by the TNR district to have photometric cells on the rear of the property, so that all of the alleys will have a minimum of two lights per home on that alley which will be motion censored, as well as would come on at nighttime. So, these will not be dark alleys, they will be reduced sections, but staff feels that the concerns of the fire and police have been met with this type of a design, which was that they can have their clear vision corridors and there is hiding places and such, which should be addressed with the conditioning that is in the staff report and so for the residential districts, the conditions of the applicant as cited which are just 3.9 and 3.23 would not apply to the TNR district and that is written into the staff report as a portion of the analysis. With that I believe I have covered everything I have needed to. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thanks, Joe. Any questions of staff from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. Joe, so is this the final configuration or is it the one with the two legs? Guenther: At this time this is the plat that is being proposed. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Guenther: And it should have just the one lot. It's kind of this half a ladder shape here. These legs right here are 42 foot wide, which would be either -- they would need to be redesigned in order accommodate a private street or for possible dedication to a public street. 1.1, while I have got you, is Lot 19 -- if it comes in with the condominiums, you would see this development again, because multi -family developments would require a Conditional Use Permit. If the applicant decided to do another phase of townhouses, we would need another plat. So, you would see this application again. So, regardless of any design elements of these roadways, we are going to be able to see this applicant again for the rest of the units on the southern portion of this proposal. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I had one other question. Never mind. There were elevations. I'm sorry. Zaremba: I think the last discussion confused me. Go back to the new drawing, if you would. That one. Am I correct that at the moment we are only considering a piece of property -- we are not actually considering this part, we are only considering north of that line? So, the other is just conceptual? Guenther: Yes. Chairman Zaremba, at this time this lot right here, which is listed as Lot 19 in this plat, is not being developed with this application. It is being annexed and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 17 of 93 improvements will be made to the site, but at this time this -- we are not approving condominiums at this site. This is a concept plan with a Conditional Use Permit and this is the overall phasing plan that they have submitted, which we will see that lot again. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: And, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, this is one of the multi -family units. The commercial units. And these will be the traditional neighborhood four-plex -- or four dwelling unit townhouses. Newton-Huckabay: How did you get -- could you go to the first one? That's a four- plex? Is that what you said? Rohm: No. That would be one of the condominium elevations. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Thanks. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Guenther: Our Public Works representative wants a say. Rohm: Yes. Go ahead. Cole: I don't mean to jump in the middle of the elevation discussion, but to the applicant's request on Public Works comment 2.15, if you can just add Exhibit B, page 4. 2.15. If you could just add at the end of development -- all development improvements for each phase of this development, would adequately address your concerns to that condition. Rohm: Thanks, Mike. Cole: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any further questions of staff by the Commission? Okay. Hearing none, at this time I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward, please. Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street, in Boise. And I'm here representing Franklin Center, LLC, and the Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision and I know you have a busy agenda, so I'm going to be a little brief, but I don't get a change to talk to you much and this is a little bit different, because it is part of the TNR. We are pretty excited to be working with the new code and with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential Code, too. The developers of this project are Larry Van Hees, who has been doing some development around the valley here for years, both commercial and residential, and Dave Wilson and Dave is actually -- is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio�r" January 5, 2005 Page 18 of 93 builder in Ketchum, he's a Premier home builder there and he's, actually, the nationwide president of the National Homebuilders -- Association of Homebuilders. So, he couldn't be here tonight, because he's probably lobbying for homebuilders in Washington or something. I think the staff did a really good job. This is a little more complicated. I'm sorry for the confusion about the large parcel that's not being developed at this time. We did submit the conceptual plan, because it is being zoned and it is being annexed and we wanted to show what that could be, using that same TNR zone. The project is on Franklin. We were a little bit constrained with Franklin Road, because it's a busy street and there is some industrial light uses above, so we didn't want to put our residential right on Franklin, so we did put our commercial there. But you can see we have got a lot of interconnectivity. We do bring the commercial down along the east side and kind use it as a buffer -- a nice little buffer with the existing Harks Corner there. And especially opening up that open space, the little pond, and keeping that open, so it can be visible and usable by both the businesses and the residents that live there. The designer was Sharon McKibben. I think she did a great job of putting this together and kind of utilizing that existing amenity. And, then, also one of the things is -- as you look at some of those elevations you will see there is a connection between the architecture to the peak roofs on the commercial buildings, the same type of classic architecture that's being used in the town -homes. We have worked with the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. Larry has met with them personally and they have agreed to allow us to go into not only the 60 -- there is a 60 foot area that they call out as their land for the creek itself, but just above that is another 60 foot swath of land that's their land, but is part of that portion that we are going to develop here. So, just right down here is all the 60 foot additional land that they own. You can see it when they put up the map of the area. They have agreed, they said, just as long as we allow some access to their creek, they are pretty excited about us turning that into sort of a park -like setting that would be beneficial to the residents. And so we think that's pretty exciting that we can utilize that land and kind of make it part of that -- in your Comprehensive Plan you call for some sort of connecting pathway there and we can do that and you can see -- if you will go to the concept plan, the one that confuses everybody? Thanks. You can see how we want to connect that through the entire development, so that people feel like it's a place that they can go -- get to, even if you're in the -- working in the commercial area, it would be a short walk to go back and enjoy a park -like setting with some additional trees there. As I mentioned, the little pond that's already existing, it's heavily landscaped already, it's a really nice amenity, and we do leave that open corridor right here. We are asking to be zoned with two different zones, the commercial zone for the properties here in the L shape. And, then, the residential zone is a TNR residential zone. What happened is we really wanted to do the condos and, then, we even had started talking about how we would build them and who would build them -- well, not exactly who, but how we would envision them. We went to Langston and Associates, Sam Langston, who helped us do a market and found out at that price point, with the quality that we are planning on for the entire development there wasn't a market right now. We think that it won't be long, but we don't want to short change ourselves. We might find that those town -homes that are connected, that they may be the thing that actually is really popular in that area, because you can -- I mean it's still like owning your own little home there, instead of living on top of someone. We will be submitting a plan Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 19 of 93 to you, as Joe said, and that leads me to the only, I guess, condition that I'd say might still be outstanding and that is the one about going ahead and calling these private streets at this point. What I'd like to do is ask you if you would allow that to remain as a lot. They are 42 feet wide here, which will suffice as a public or private street, but right now we'd like to leave it as a lot, so we can determine what type of street it should be, instead of us calling it private now and finding out we might want to make it public, or there is an option still, depending on how this is developed, it could still be a service drive. If it was just to service this one apartment unit, there wouldn't be a reason to be a street around it, because that's not typically how that's done. So, that still could be a service drive. So, we were just asking that you not require us to dedicate that as a public or private street now, that you allow that to remain as a lot and that's the only change that I would ask and, let's see, I will stand for some questions if you want to talk about it some more. Rohm: Okay. Before we do that, I'd like to ask staff to comment on your request to make that a lot, as opposed to a private street. And, Joe, would you like to comment on that, please? Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The condition only says that that section, if it's going to be providing access to homes on the southern portion of it, that it be public or private. How she does that in a lot -- a separate lot by easement, is going to be up to them. If they are going to eventually dedicate that, if you guys -- if this Commission wishes those to be public, then, you probably should request that those be in a separate lot. If you don't mind that they are going to be private, then, the way that they are configured would work. Rohm: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Suggs: So, let me make sure I understand, too. We can make those separate legs separate lots, so they can be anything they want to be, just take the alley service drive out and that would be fine. That would be great. We can turn that -- just means a few more common lots, basically. Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Commission -- any Commissioners have any questions of the applicant? Moe: Yes. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just more or less just a question. I'm somewhat curious that you are aware that the property to the north there on Franklin where Sanitary Services does have a transfer station going in up there right there and you don't have a problem with that being industrial property over on that side of Franklin Road that close to this development? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 20 of 93 Suggs: We think we are one mile from downtown Meridian and we think it's a great place for people to live and there is a great community asset right there at Harks Corner and people would really like to live there. We think that that's really doable. And with the building there along Franklin there is a little bit of a buffer, but I think you're going to find people more and more want to live close to downtown and in some homes like this where the maintenance is taken care of and that's one of the things that we work out later is through the CC&Rs is generally in developments like this all the maintenance for the homes, the town -homes, is taken care of by the homeowners association. So, this is definitely a lock and go kind of place for young professionals, for singles, for people with small families. Rohm: Thank you. Other questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not, actually, a question, but included in our packet among your application materials is a page that shows the neighborhood meeting that you held on June 1st, 2005, and the sign -in sheet and I just wanted to say I appreciate having that. That's -- Suggs: Oh, thanks. Zaremba: It's very helpful to confirm, one, that you had a neighborhood meeting and, two, that people came to it. Suggs: They did. We had it right there at Harks Corner and so people like to come around that was really well attended and we had a good discussion, so -- Rohm: Good. Thank you. Any further questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you. Suggs: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. We do not have anybody signed up to speak to this application, but at this time anyone that feels so inclined you're welcome to come forward and offer testimony. Seeing none, I would turn it back to the Commission for comments prior to closure. It doesn't appear as if anybody has any specific comments, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to make sure I understand -- we reconciled the applicant's letter to the staff report and the only change we are actually going to make is, of course, the correction of Lot 22, 21. And, then, the addition to 2.15; is that correct? Those are the only two? Rohm: I believe so. Newton-Huckabay: So, 1.11 is okay upon clarification. 2.15 we are changing with the comments for each phase. 1.8 we are making -- this is just semantics. Lot 22 should be Lot 21. And that was it; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisTdn January 5, 2005 Page 21 of 93 Rohm: I believe so. Newton-Huckabay: Just one or two? Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other comments of the Commission? At this point I'd like to request a motion for closure. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearings on AZ 05- 056, PP 05-058, CUP 05-051. Rohm: Second. Rohm: It's been recommended that we close AZ 05-056, PP 05-058, and CUP 05-051. All in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I do have a clarification question. Rohm: Yes. Borup: On 2.15. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you stated that it's your understanding we are adopting this new language? Newton-Huckabay: No. We are just adding that 2.15 would read: All development improvements for each phase, including, but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressure irrigation, and landscaping, shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. Borup: Okay. And that was my question. Does that landscaping also include the landscaping buffer on Franklin Road or just the interior landscaping? Cole: If the phase that they weren't platting at that time included up to Franklin Road, then, yes, it would. If they decided to plat the residential phase, the lower portion first, then, no, it would not. Borup: So, we could have the whole residential development built out with weeds and undeveloped land along Franklin Road with that scenario? Guenther: The residential development will have to be secondary to the commercial, because they are going to have to improve those streets and bring the sewer down first. Borup: But the landscaping is tied to a certificate of occupancy I thought. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 22 of 93 Guenther: And one point of clarification. All townhouses receive certificate of zoning compliance application, so they have to come back to staff for landscaping on all these lots as well, as well as for all the commercial buildings. Borup: My question was -- yeah. Let me -- my specific question is are we looking at the possibility of having perhaps all the townhouses built with no landscaping on Franklin Road? Guenther: No. The landscaping on Franklin Road, regardless of which phase is first, is a perimeter landscaping and is required by ordinance to be installed. Borup: All right. That clarifies -- that's what I originally assume, but with this new language I wasn't sure. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Newton-Huckabay: Are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: I'm ready for a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-056, PP 05-058, and CUP 05-051 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated October 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: In Exhibit B, on page four, comment 2.15 will be modified to read all development improvements for each phase, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. And comment 1.8, we will change Lot 22 to Lot 21. So, it's lot 21 that is the open space lot. And that is the end of my motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: We have a motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-056, PP 05-058, and CUP 05-051. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 23 of 93 for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 05-055 and PP 05-057. Both of these projects relate to the Amber Creek Subdivision and I'd like to start off with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications include annexation and zoning of 35.33 acres to R-8 and the preliminary plat includes 175 single family build -able lots and 16 common lots. The applicant is proposing a mix of alley -loaded lots and standard street -loaded family lots. I'll get to the plat here in just one second. The area is located on the south side of McMillan Road and on the west side of Meridian Road. This is a fairly current aerial from 2003. To the west of the property is Cedar Springs North Subdivision. A lot of those lots you can see on there have final platted. I believe there is a phase or two also that isn't showing up here. There is a townhouse phase in what would be their northeast corner along Chinden Boulevard -- or excuse me. McMillan. That has not final platted yet. Across McMillan is a phase in Paramount that includes multi -family and commercial areas. There is an out parcel. It shows up a little bit better maybe on this map. Right at the intersection of Meridian and McMillan that is not part of the subject application. And across Meridian Road is currently agricultural property. Same to the south. All zoned in the county and not annexed into the city yet. Here is the preliminary plat that I spoke of earlier. The average lot size in the development is 5,000 square feet. The gross density of the project is 4.95 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting a step up in density as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. However, this body has recommended that the City Council actually change the designation of this property to be medium density residential. That has not happened yet. The City Council, it's on their agenda for January 17th and they will be evaluating that request and it just didn't make much sense to have a low density corner there when it's medium pretty much around it. So, the applicant and staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission pushed it along. So, I did want to point that out. Nearly 12 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. Six percent of the site is being set aside for usable open space, so that's going to be areas exclusive of your buffers or any other type of otherwise required landscaping. So, this would be your open space parks, your micro -paths, those types of things that count towards your usable open space. They also have in the first plan maybe did a little bit better job, a pretty good size private park located near the main entrance there from McMillan. Within the park there is a tot lot, a picnic area, and pathways that tie into the park from the south. One of the conditions in the staff report is that this stub street be relocated to this general location to the south and that will allow pedestrians from future developments to the south to have a pretty good straight shot to this neighborhood park, as well as it prevents this roadway from becoming a long straight raceway type road. So, that's in the staff report. A couple of other things, I guess, just to touch on. These are the alley -loaded -- Blocks 3 and 4 are alley -loaded blocks and you have got your more traditional detached single family around the perimeter primarily. A couple of the other conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissib'R' January 5, 2005 Page 24 of 93 Some of the things in that development agreement do restrict access -- future access to the arterials. The Lemp Canal runs along the south side of McMillan. It gets pretty costly, anyways, to build bridges and whatnot there, so that one probably isn't too big of a concern. But no direct lot access to Meridian Road, as well as staff is looking to have a stub street from their main entrance onto Meridian Road to this out parcel here. It's about five and a half -- there is, actually, two parcels. I believe it's all under the same ownership. A little over five acres. Five and a half acres here. But that this property provide an access there, so we can limit future access points to McMillan and Meridian Road with the stub streets. Maybe the last comment that I will make -- and this is also in the development agreement, something that is not typical, but just based on some previous discussions with some of the elected officials here at the city. There is a future middle school planned just on the other side of this intersection and staff was -- has included a provision in that development agreement that with the first final plat phase they actually construct all the sidewalk along their street frontage. So, that would be, you know, just -- not all the way to, you know, the out parcels or whatever, but just their portion of the sidewalk. So, with that I think I will stand for any questions. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions noted in Exhibit B of the staff report for the January 5th hearing and I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thanks, Craig. Any questions of staff by the Commission? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Craig, you make comment of issues and concerns in regards to the five acre parcel in regards to a sewering stub. Kind of outline what -- Hood: I'll pass the microphone to Mike. It's, actually, his comment, so he can probably explain that a little better. Moe: Okay. Cole: Commissioner Moe, what was the question again? Moe: Well, I'm just noting that in the report that staff has concerns about the five acre parcel, that all sewer to be stubbed to the north. Cole: Public Works has a comment in there -- I can't remember the number off the top of my head. I could look it up. But the only stub to this five acre parcel is up to the north where this -- to the north and through -- to and through policy, they would put a sewer stub here, as this is reaching the very limits of the drain area for this sewer shed, it's getting pretty shallow up there and the natural topography tends to run down, staff has some concerns that this one sewer stub from the north may not reach all of this. So, we just add a comment that they add a sewer stub to this road, that the planning Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 25 of 93 department has talked with the applicant earlier and he didn't seem to have a problem with it at the time. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Cole: That was comment 2.2 that I had in there. Moe: Okay. Cole: Thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Mike. Any additional questions for staff from the Commission? Seeing none, at this time I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I make one comment? Rohm: You certainly may. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Could somebody, please, go to the lobby and ask the folks to move into that part of the lobby that's blocked off or close the door. Baird: Don't close the door. Newton-Huckabay: The noise is distracting for me. Baird: Mr. Chair, I don't recommend closing the door for public open meeting purposes, but if they would move out, that would be great. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: This is being taken care of as we speak. Thanks for your comments. It needs to be taken care of. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward? Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar. My address is 2364 South Titanium. I have called Mike the hammer before and now I know why. It quieted right down. Tonight we are here for Amber Creek Subdivision. It's a very straight forward project. It's an R-8 designation that we are requesting. We do have 175 residential lots and we appreciate your staffs presentation on that. They presented it very well and did indicate as far as what we are proposing. A couple of the comments I would like to address are with respect to sewering. I think Commissioner Moe you had that question with respect to sewer. We also have a unique situation in this one with respect to the to -and -through policy that the City of Meridian typically has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 26 of 93 and I'll address it also as we are trying to cooperate with them in that also. Quickly for -- could we go back to the area map? As we look at this property, it is one of the last parcels in this square mile that is yet to develop. This portion is now developed and this is under future development. With Paramount being high density, as well as commercial on that corner, a school on this corner, and as I understand it before long there will be another proposal in this area for an R-8 subdivision, this would blend in very well for that area, providing the density, as well as the amenities within the subdivision that would be fitting. If we can go to the next slide, Craig. With respect to the -- thank you. With respect to the subdivision itself, there were a couple comments, one being a road stub here, which we would be more than happy to provide. In that road stub would be sewer and water. So, that will address the concerns from Planning and Zoning. The issue with the off-site water line, there is a portion of water that will be required to build the water along our entire frontage of both McMillan and Meridian Roads, but there is about 260 feet here that is not on our frontage, so we will be cooperating with the City of Meridian to build that while we were -- while we are under construction and will be completed. There is water currently at the corner of McMillan and Meridian. So, we are in compliance with that or in agreement with that condition and have no issues whatsoever. With respect to the subdivision itself, we have got a mix of product type, concentrating the alley lots near the center of the park and actually -- or near the center of the project. We have some single family detached lots around the park area. As you can see in the park, we have got some pathways coming from either side and, then, a common area, a tot lot, as well as a pathway that goes through the addition or the relocation of this stub road down to here will provide a natural break in future access for this park. So, we anticipate with the park being nearly two acres in size it will be a large area for people to recreate and maintain and we are excited about the project. We appreciate staffs support and we would ask for your recommendation of approval. I'll stand for any further questions. Rohm: Thanks, Kevin. Any questions of the applicant? Borup: Mr. Chairman, just a clarification on the water lines. They are not coming through Cedar Springs? You're saying that the water line is in McMillan? Amar: The water line -- there is currently water in Cedar Springs and we will be connecting to that also. Borup: Okay. But there is a separate line on Meridian -- on McMillan also? Amar: Correct. This policy -- the Public Works Department requires that each development provides the frontage water lines also, the main supply. So, we will be required to put it in McMillan. Their concern was this small out parcel. They just wanted to tie in. Borup: All right. Okay. 19 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio'ft" January 5, 2005 Page 27 of 93 Amar: There is one comment and I failed to address it. This sidewalk that was being requested to be -- our first phase will be on the southern portion of this site -- my pointer's dying. The southern portion of the site -- and that has to do with utilities and connection to services. So, the sidewalk on the northern portion, we are requesting that that be constructed at the time of the second phase or during that adjacent phase, that the sidewalk just be constructed with the phase, rather than prior to that phase. That would be the only request. A little different than what staff has indicated. Rohm: Before we leave that, I think I'd like to ask staff to comment on that request. Amar: Sure. Rohm: And we will see where we go from there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason that that condition was put into the development agreement is just other conversations that I have had -- not personally, but overheard -- I guess overheard at the City Council and the safe sidewalks to schools. I know that this school has been talked about specifically in getting those sidewalks on two lane arterials that aren't scheduled for improvements and getting those sidewalks in as soon as possible, so kids can have safe routes to schools. That's really where I'm coming from there in the comment. So, there is nothing in code that says that they have to put it in with the first phase -- all the sidewalks in with the first phase. So, it was really more of a heads up for the applicant that staff believes that it's something that is in the best interest of the city to have happen and would really facilitate the safety and welfare of kids walking to school. So, that's how it got into the staff report. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Craig. And I think we can make that part of the development agreement, but we will move forward from there. Any other questions of the applicant from the Commission? Okay. At this time we will open it to the public. Thanks, Kevin. Amar: Thank you. Rohm: All right. And we don't have anybody signed up for this, but at this time this is an opportunity for anyone to come forward that would like to speak to this issue. Now is the time. This is going very well. This is my first night as chairman, so I -- Zaremba: You're doing an excellent job. I appreciate the speed with which this is happening. Rohm: Yeah. At this time I'd like to request of the Commission any further discussion or recommendation for closure of the Public Hearing? Borup: I guess I still, Mr. Chairman, have some questions on the sidewalk along McMillan. I just noticed that this -- as it stands right now with the staff recommendations, that sidewalk goes in with the first phase. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 28 of 93 Rohm: That's correct. Borup: I notice the staff report also says the school is scheduled to be built in 2007. So, if the school is the main concern for the sidewalks -- I don't know what time frame you have on this. Amar: Our anticipation for the first phase would be this fall. So, the second phase would be the spring of 2007. And one request -- I understand the reason for the sidewalk -- Borup: I do, too, and I agree with that, but I mean is it necessary to have the sidewalk in before the school is built? Amar: Well -- and the question I have -- well, I guess that was my question. If it's a problem we can certainly build the sidewalk. I just always seem to break the sidewalk during the construction phase, so I don't like breaking the sidewalks, because -- Borup: Comment on that, Mr. Hood, if -- Newton-Huckabay: May I make a comment before -- having experienced first hand the fiasco that was Sawtooth Middle School, if you will, I think that constructing the sidewalk, especially on the north side, given the amount of students that are going to be coming from the west, is I think -- I think it would be critical. I think it's important. Borup: But we are 300 feet short of the intersection. Newton-Huckabay: Well, that's better than a thousand feet. Borup: No. I'm saying -- no, I agree it needs to be there by the time the school is there. I wonder if it can be at construction of a phase or prior to the school, whichever comes first. Amar: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I really can go either way. I just -- it's fine. We can build it with the first phase. I'll just break it and fix it. I know how to do that. I have done it before. Moe: I guess it would be my recommendation that we don't change the staff report. Amar: Thats fine. Thank you. Rohm: All right. Any additional questions of either the applicant or staff? Okay. That being said, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 29 of 93 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Sorry. Interrupted you there. I move that we close the public hearings on -- hearings AZ 05-055, PP 05-057. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: We have a motion and a second to close public hearings on AZ 05-055 and PP 05-057. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign? Motion carries. Good. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-055 and PP 05-057 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date January 5th, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: We have a motion and a second to move onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-055 and PP 05-057. All those in favor I say. All those opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks, Kevin. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop by Fred Pratt —1127 North Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 05-020 for Fred's Reel Barbershop. Start with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Sorry, you caught me off guard a little bit there. This application is for rezone of .17 acres from what is currently R-4, which is medium density residential, to Old Town, for the operation of a barbershop by the applicant Fred Pratt. This is located on the west side of Meridian Road and on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Washington. There is currently an existing -- what was an existing house there that has been converted to the barbershop and the applicant has submitted a site plan on how he intends to develop the property as the barbershop. The staff is aware that the barbershop is in operation. The applicant did start it up and put up a sign and, then, realize that there was some process to go through here. So, he is before you tonight for a rezone. As staff we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 30 of 93 always supportive of when people genuinely make a mistake that they continue -- that they are allowed to operate while they are in good faith in the process. So, I believe he has been operating the barbershop while the application was going through the process to get before you tonight. Because it is solely a rezone, we cannot condition rezones. There are some staff comments that there will be some further approvals that are required as part of this, so I think that's, really, what I will highlight on. The main thing being prior to the site improvements, being in the Old Town zone, the Unified Development Code does require administrative design review process on the property and that will be part of this certificate of zoning compliance approval, which is a staff level analysis of how his proposed site improvements meet city code in terms of parking, landscaping, site access, and layout. As I mentioned, he did provide a conceptual site plan, which I think -- we think works very nicely. The parking is proposed to be in the rear. Access off of Washington Street. ACHD will require some roadway improvements along Washington. There is some required landscaping around the parking areas and this plan, as it is shown here conceptually, does meet the dimensional requirements of the UDC. It's important to point out and make sure the applicant is aware that he does have some building department approvals to obtain, you know, make sure he gets his commercial occupancy and takes care of any permitting required to bring this building up to a commercial standard. I don't know where it sits now in that regard and maybe the applicant can address that in his comments. But it will -- he will need to make sure that he does have a commercial occupancy on the property and oftentimes that involves things like handicapped access, bringing bathrooms up to commercial standards, and things such as that. So, I did want to make sure he's aware of that. Really, other than that, I think that's going to be the extent of my comments, other than he will be required to come in for that administrative sign review and certificate of zoning compliance approval prior to the site improving. So, really, that's what we hang our hat on here, since this is a rezone. And I think with that I'll take any questions. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Before any questions are asked, I would like to comment that it's very nice to see a reapplication of a residential area into a commercial development within Old Town that lays out so nicely. Many times we end up with a redevelopment that the parking is nonexistent or we have to count on the existing parking off site to meet the standards of the city and this development here appears to meet all the needs and requirements and it's quite nice to see this. So, I just wanted to comment on that prior to any additional questions. So, at this time any questions of staff by the Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: And it's about the location of this sign. Meridian Road, finally in the process of being officially designated as a future five lane road, are we sure that that sign is outside of the future right of way? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 31 of 93 Wilson: I will let the applicant address what ACHD told him in terms of the right of way that he has, but it's my understanding that, yes, it is. Zaremba: Okay. That's it. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Pratt: Good evening. Fred Pratt. I reside at 3771 West Verbina. Rohm: At this time, basically, you just respond to the staff report or some of your thoughts on the project and maybe your understanding of some of the permit requirements. Pratt: Well, in regards to the permits, I did pull a permit for the plumbing and I did -- I did pull a permit for the plumbing and I am in compliance with the ADA for the bathroom. And my sign is -- it's 13 feet back from the street, which I believe ACHD said they are going to take ten feet. Rohm: And I think it's safe to say that this Commission is not about the permit process. What we are doing here today is just the rezone and that -- so, at some point in time before you are through this whole process, then, you will have to have all your permitting, but that's separate and aside from this application and just wanted you to know that the two don't run concurrently. Pratt: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Any questions of applicant by the Commission? Borup: It sounds like you have already met with ACHD and you know a list of what requirements they are going to have? Pratt: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Let's see. I believe I understood staff to say that you're actually operating already and just in the process of making the paperwork and the ordinances catch up with it and I appreciate your doing those things. Do you have a time frame on when you will be totally in compliance? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 32 of 93 Pratt: I'm just going through the process right now. This is, I guess, the first step. I'm just trying to get all my ducks in a row. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. You're proceeding with that as fast as you can? Pratt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any additional questions for the applicant? Zaremba: I guess while the applicant is here, I would redirect that same question to staff if I could. Would we want to put a time frame on how long he can continue to operate until the paperwork's all in order or -- or let it roll the way it is? Wilson: I guess I wouldn't really know what time frame to put on him. The building department -- I'm just trying to think of how enforcement -wise -- you know, when does it kick -- because if it was not okay with Planning and Zoning, he would, actually, be receiving a violation right now for operating. So, as far as timing -wise, you know, what do we tie it to and how do we figure out how long? Zaremba: I was going to suggest a fairly long time frame, nine months or a year. Something like that. Wilson: I think 12 months is reasonable. You know, once he gets through the rezone process, then, there is the matter of preparing his site drawings. He will have to have some civil drawings by an engineer for the parking lot, get through the Public Works Department and the building department, but I think a year is probably reasonable, if the 12 months was from rezone of the property by ordinance at City Council, then, that doesn't tie him up to the time he's being rezoned. Zaremba: Yeah. A year from City Council approval, if we make that recommendation? Wilson: I think so. I think that's pretty reasonable. Zaremba: Mr. Pratt, can you be comfortable with that? Pratt: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. The issue being that if we find out that this building really can't be used the way you're using it, we need to have some way to tell you to stop, so -- Pratt: I understand. Zaremba: We are all hoping that it will be appropriate, but that was my only -- Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisTd"n" January 5, 2005 Page 33 of 93 Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Pratt: Thank you. Rohm: At this time I would like to open it up to public testimony and we have nobody that is signed up to this, but this is the opportunity to come forward and be heard. Okay. With that, with nobody coming forward, at this time I would like to throw it back to the Commission, if there is any discussion amongst the Commission prior to closure of the Public Hearing or any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that this, to me, seems to be exactly what the purpose of the Old Town designation is. This is an area that's transitioning from formal residential into small businesses and my opinion this is something that complies exactly with what is envisioned and should be Old Town and proceed. Rohm: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Any other comments? With that being said, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-020. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wilson: Mr. Chair, if I could just add one thing. Being that this is a rezone, the requirement -- the 12 month time limit would have to be through a development agreement, so you as a Commission will need to add a requirement for the applicant to enter into a development agreement with the city. I believe that's the only way we can get this done. Rohm: That's a good thing. And if Commissioner Zaremba wanted to make a motion to that effect, it would be perfect. Zaremba: I believe that was the only change we needed to add. So, yes, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-020, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 5, 2006, received by the city clerk December 30, 2005, with one change and that is that the applicant is requested to enter into a development agreement with the city and to contact Mr. Bill Nary to get that initiated and the development agreement to include that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso January 5, 2005 Page 34 of 93 he may continue operating the business that is already there while the paperwork catches up to the legality of that for a period of 12 months from approval by the City Council. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Traditionally, we take a break at 9:00 o'clock, but I think that due to the rapid pace that we have set tonight, I think we will take a break now and we shall reconvene at 9:00 o'clock. (Recess.) Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball field & Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC — 2090 West Pine Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting and let the record be noted that all Commissioners are present. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings for AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. And this is for Meridian High School Ball Field and Technical Center. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Due in part that the company I work for are construction managers for the school district and I'm heavily involved in those projects, I do believe this would be a conflict of interest for me to be involved in this hearing. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this hearing. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. With that being said, I'd like to hear the staff report, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio'p January 5, 2005 Page 35 of 93 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. The application for Meridian High School Technical Center and Ball Field, there is a couple of components to the application. First off, there is the annexation of some additional lands into the City of Meridian. If you will recall -- I'm forgetting a time frame now, but recently the Meridian School District did annex the southern parcel here as R-4, probably new enough that it doesn't show up on our GIS system here as being annexed as R-4. It would be yellow if that was the case. So, this property is annexed into the City of Meridian as an R-4 zone. The proposal -- the request tonight is to annex the property found in purple here as an R-4 zone and, then, a Conditional Use Permit that does encompass both properties for some lighted ball fields requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the new Unified Development Code, as do public school facilities in the R-4 zone. So, if we go to a site map of the property, you can see that the property that is already annexed as R-4, the northern boundary would be hereabouts and, then, encompasses this part. They are annexing the triangular shape to the north that lies between the existing subdivision and some RUT property that does contain one house or two houses. To the south of this property -- this is the recently approved Arnke Subdivision -- was an R-40 subdivision with 18 townhouses in it. And, then, of course, the large Meridian High School existing campus that does encompass the corner of Linder and Pine there. A few items to talk about on this one. The Conditional Use Permit required for the ball field lights, that is a new requirement in the Unified Development Code that anytime a lighted ball field is proposed it is a Conditional Use Permit. And the City of Meridian has adopted lighting standards. The applicant is going to address those standards and how their proposal meets them and perhaps does not meet them. We have adopted some fairly stringent lighting standards that talk about fixtures over 1,800 lumens, which I'll let the applicant address it, but I'm almost certain that ball field lights falls into that category. Do have some fairly tight standards that they have to meet, that is that they are fully shielded and the bulb is not visible and that light from these lights cannot trespass onto adjacent properties. So, they are fairly stringent standards. This is the first ball field we have seen under these new rules and I guess the applicant has to make the case that they can meet those standards. If they cannot, if the bulb cannot be not visible -- and with a ball field light I think it's probably pretty tough for the bulb not to be visible, frankly. Really, the only mechanism we have to approve that is through a variance to the city code, which would be heard by City Council. So, if that -- if the applicant represents that they cannot meet that, that the bulb will be visible, really, the only way to get around that is a variance, which you, as a Commission, could approve this application, but not approve ball field lights that don't meet city code and they would have to get that variance, then, at City Council to put in said lights that don't meet city code. So, that would definitely be a topic of discussion. Another item -- and this came up fairly late in the process. The applicant is proposing a PA system -- was proposed -- had discussed a PA system on the property. That is a specific request that needs to be made with the Conditional Use Permit and notice as such. The Conditional Use Permit before you tonight was for a technical center and the ball fields and was not noticed as a CUP that would allow a PA system. The code says that it cannot be within 100 feet of a residential district. The property to the west here is zoned RUT, but code says that when that is the case that the Comprehensive Plan designation does govern that property and that is residential. So, the 100 foot separation between this residential Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisTn January 5, 2005 Page 36 of 93 property and the PA system can only be approved through code by a Conditional Use Permit. So, the applicant had two options -- and I do apologize that this was kind of late in the process, but I was made aware of it late as well. The two options are we move forward tonight without approval of the PA system, come back for a separate CUP for that PA system before it is installed. Or this hearing is continued until such time that it can be re -noticed, that this Conditional Use Permit also includes a request for PA system. So, that's their two options. They did indicate they would like to move forward tonight without the PA system being approved and, then, come back in for that later, so -- and that's not discussed at all in the staff report. That is a late development. The other issues that I think will be discussed tonight, the Meridian fire department has requested -- they have a standard condition that they need to get within 150 feet of any point on any building on the property. There is a concession stand at the baseball field - - or at the softball field -- to kind of orientate you here real quick -- I probably jumped past this at the beginning. I apologize. The technical center building is located here at the south portion of the site. The varsity baseball field is, then, located above that, with a softball field in the northwest corner, and a practice football field is located on the property, as well as a practice softball field. The softball field does have a concession stand, which the fire department cannot get their 150 feet -- to within 150 feet of. I did talk to the architect for the applicant and they can get some access -- fire department access and meet that standard and they can talk about the changes that they will make to the site plan to accommodate that. There is -- and that will also accommodate the concern of the fire department for emergency ambulance access back to that field. They do like to be able to get back there, it being a sports complex and -- with bleachers and sporting events, you know, there is the possibility of quite a few people being back in there. So, they have indicated that they can meet that requirement by routing an access road through the property that would hold a fire truck and be to the fire truck standards. The second agency concern in the staff report was one of the police and on the technical center there is an enclosed courtyard -- I'm not completely clear on what it will be used for. I think equipment storage and such. Dumpster and things like that. There is a doorway on that that the police department felt they did not have good visibility to. The applicant has stated that they could address that through the use of motion detector lights or other ways of lessening that concern of the police department. So, staff is supportive of that, if they work with them and get some kind of solution there that works for them. So, I think those two agency concerns can be addressed by the applicant. One other thing -- and this -- code does say that this is the decision of City Council, but it's certainly up for discussion tonight as well, that the applicant is proposing to tile a portion of the Rutledge Lateral. The Rutledge Lateral, if -- starting in the northwest corner of the property, it does follow the south boundary here and, then, it would cross right through this varsity baseball field. So, the portion that would cross through there is being rerouted and piped around the field. A portion that, then, starts on the southern boundary and goes to the northwest is proposed to remain open. City code states that you must tile canals and laterals, unless that requirement is waived by City Council. So, they will be making that request to City Council and that is their decision, but that is also up for discussion tonight as well and I think it will be brought up. I think other than that, staff is supportive of the design and the location, certainly, adjacent to the existing Meridian High campus. It does seem that we can make the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis January 5, 2005 Page 37 of 93 finding that it is in the best interest of the city to annex this property as part of the Meridian High School campus and continue on the existing facilities and, then, expand on them. We do recommend approval provided that we can kind of hammer out some of these -- some of these concerns, you know, the lighting -- how the lighting can meet city code and how we address that. And, then, the site plan can be adequately modified to meet the fire and police concerns. And I think with that I will take questions. Rohm: I'm curious about the lighting code. Is there a section in your lighting -- in the city's lighting code that specifically addresses ball field lighting or is it just a general lumination code and trying to fit ball field lighting into a code that's really designed to address another issue? Wilson: I think that's the case. This code was -- this lighting code is written for all outdoor lighting. I don't think that ball field lighting was taken in consideration when that code section was written, because -- I'll let the applicant address this, but I don't think a ball field can meet these standards. I don't think it's possible that bulb cannot be visible. That doesn't seem possible. So, these standards were not written with ball fields in mind, so, therefore, you know, the variance may be entirely appropriate. Rohm: I'm pretty sure we are going to have more ball fields. Borup: How about the other high schools? Rohm: But, in any case, thank you. Any other questions? Any additional questions of staff from the Commission? Wilson: I'd just -- maybe I could add I did hear Commissioner Borup ask about the other ball fields. This is a new section in UDC, so this has only been in effect since September. So, any ball fields completed previously, the city did not have any specific lighting design requirements. So, that's how those were constructed. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Josh, is it safe to say -- I mean we are going to have all the ball fields -- will we see the ball fields that are going in at Settler's Park? Is that going to -- I don't know if any of those are going to have lights, though. Wilson: I think it's specifically called out in the UDC that it's lighted ball fields that accompany a school. I do think that is specifically called out. I will check, though. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wilson: The requirement in the UDC is that if it is a public school with lighted ball fields adjoining -- specifically adjoining a residential district. Rohm: Well, that happens quite frequently. Any other questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisS January 5, 2005 Page 38 of 93 Kennedy: Chairman, Commissioners, thanks for listening to our application. My name is Marge Kennedy. I'm an architect with Hummell Architects representing the Meridian School District. Address 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. I'd just let you know that the Meridian High School is very excited about these applications. The annexation will add much needed acreage to their campus that they have been -- feel that have been short of for a number of years and the addition of this acreage will give them something that they haven't ever had before, that being the varsity baseball fields and stuff. So, they are excited about having a place that they can call their own and not have to go outside for that amenity. In addition, the tech center, a new addition to their building as well. It will encompass a program -- welding, auto tech -- that they have in place right now, but it's very popular, very successful, they are having to turn away kids all the time due to their capacity. So, they are excited about having this extra room and just having a little bit more modern technology that represents today's -- what the kids would be doing out in the field today. So, they are very excited about this happening. I will touch base first about the lighting, since Josh brought that up. It is very similar to the Mountain View High School that was built not too long ago. It's almost exactly the same, other than; actually, technology has come a little bit further than that. So, it would actually be a little bit better. But the code that Josh is referring to talks about how you have to prevent up - lighting, which these fixtures do. You can imagine it's like a cone shape and lamp inside the cone. So, it can, actually, direct the light specifically kind of where you want it to go. My drawing -- I don't know if you can see the outlines, the two ball fields, and we have actually done a photometric plan of it showing how the -- I keep calling it a saucer -- keeps the light direct within the field. We have also spent some time designing the height of these light fixtures such that they are not low and going straight out at you, they are, actually, you know, high and the lights are shining down, so that we keep the glare and the light within the field, not spraying out into the neighborhood. Although I can't tell you there is zero foot candles, which is kind of a measurement of lights. For instance, in the middle of the field it's 50 foot candles, whereas in the middle and to the north it would be less than one foot candle, which is almost nothing, but there is a smidgen of spill. And, then, to our neighbor to the west in his driveway he would like one or two foot candles in his driveway, so -- I mean I'm sure you can imagine the ball field lights. They is a little bit of spill, but it's very minor, very minimized. Also, the way that the sports lightings are -- I have to admit the bulbs are exposed, as they are in almost all sports complexes that you see these days. So, we will have the exposed bulbs within our light fixtures that we do have. But, like I said, these are the best that we can buy as far as technology has come. They are preventing the up lighting, the minimizing the side glow that we have talked about. The saucers or reflectors that try and keep it within the ball field area, though. So, we have tried to come up with the best design and trying to keep them within our campus there, but they are sports complexes and baseball players and all the other practice fields have to have them, so -- and the other comment that I'd make -- and I know it's been a concern -- is once games are over with, there is -- the lights are like nine bulbs that make up the whole pole system and after the games are over, we will have the fixture designed such that all the lights, except for like one bulb, will remain on from maintenance and clean up for after the game. So, I know the neighbors had commented that they would -- you know, games are over, just one light bulb is on. And so we will design the features of the lights Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiso January 5, 2005 Page 39 of 93 fixtures so that they can do that. And you have to remember it's just a seasonal amenity. It's not every night, it's not all the time, but it's just during baseball season that these lights would be on, so -- the other thing I'd just like to comment on as well that Josh touched on on the fire department and I have been working with the Meridian Fire Department in the last few days and we had come up with a solution and, actually, it wasn't too different, because we have also had to accommodate the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District as far as the ditch riders getting from right in the bend in the property line, he's got to be able to get onto our property, come down the west property line, and cut over across the campus and his requirements -- and he's going to be driving a truck across there, so it was pretty natural for us to run the fire truck -- let's see. It would be -- Zaremba: There is a hand-held microphone right here, if you'd use that, please. Kennedy: The fire access would be right along here. There is a road that loops around the school -- there is an access road that loops around the school presently that will be wide enough for fire access as well. But this road will go across to here and, then, there is a 20 foot wide road that heads straight up to that corner -- there you go. And it will continue up right about there and, then, there will be a hammerhead. So, there is plenty of room to get the fire truck, the little hammerhead right there and we just have to make sure -- the only extra thing that we really have to do is make sure that the sidewalks and the pavement can withstand the weight of a fire truck. So, we won't have any problem with that. And they seem to be happy with that, too. So, we are not too concerned about that right now. And, then, working with the police department on the comment about the security for the door that's kind of tucked back in the corner, we had proposed to put in a motion sensor light, so that if there is any activity or movement around, the light will come on. The school district also will be having security cameras around the building, so -- I mean they have that now, so there will be those type of cameras around the building. That little courtyard, as he referred to, is fenced and gated and locked. So, it's not like somebody will just be wondering around going back there. They have to make an attempt to jump the fence and get back there. So, it will be secure back there. Borup: What type of fence? An open chain link or -- Kennedy: Yeah. It's an open chain link fence. Just kind of continuing on, we -- although we do know that you are not the approval body for the Rutledge Canal that was brought up by Josh, we will be going forward with them to not the that portion of the Rutledge that's along our south property line headed up there by the softball fields, due to that we still have to maintain access for Nampa -Meridian Irrigation, their ditch riders. Even if it's tiled they still have to have access along there and so if we keep them an access road, our fence would probably be in the same position -- location that it's in right now and we kind of don't feel like spending a lot of the taxpayers dollars to spend for tiling that, just wasn't real justifiable in our mind, so -- but we will take that to City Council. Josh also touched base on the PA system and we will address that further. We are about right now 65 feet from the property line of just the one west neighbor and so we know we will have to come back and address that and work with our neighbor and see what we can come up with there and workout a good solution. Let's see. Have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 40 of 93 been working with Public Works a lot on the utilities, water lines, sewer lines. I think we are all in agreement with everything, all of their conditions that are in the staff report, we are in agreement with and we don't really have any problems with that. We -- well, actually, even improving some of the drainage right now, there is -- the school has been there forever. There has been some off-site drainage from the front parking lot there and we are doing improvements that will keep all of our drainage on site from that parking lot. So, we are improving things as we go along there, so -- with seepage beds and swales we will contain all of our drainage. So, just to let you know that Meridian High is excited and would like to go forward and they haven't had any improvements out there for several years, so they are excited about the expansion. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. I have a question. On this Conditional Use Permit that's associated with the PA -- and I know that it's not been part of this application, but it seems kind of tied together and it seems logical to me that maybe the Conditional Use Permit for all the conditions that you're to be applying for should run concurrently and I'm wondering if maybe to -- I don't know if you continue and amend the Conditional Use Permit application to include applications for the PA system would be in order, but it seems like it would be better to keep all the issues associated with the project together from my perspective. How do you feel about that? Kennedy: Well, I guess our feeling is that -- I mean there is different PA systems out there and there is probably other maybe possible locations that we could look at as far as the PA system, so I think we'd like the opportunity to work with our neighbors and continue forward with the CU and -- Rohm: Yeah. I guess if we process or complete the process for this CUP and, then, we -- you still have the issue of completing the project until that portion of it could be addressed and it just seems like if you're not going to be able to have a green light as a whole, it seems it would be more appropriate to keep everything together, but -- and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your project, but it just seems like it would work along those lines and that's just my comments on that. Thank you. Any other Commissioners have any questions of this applicant? Borup: One, Mr. Chairman. That's pertaining to the lighting. Do you have any idea how close -- and it sounds like the lighting you're talking about is a lot different than what you usually visualize in a ball field, but how close it comes to complying with the UDC? Have you tried to look at the requirements? Kennedy: The UDC, they do have the requirements, if you're over the 1,800 lumens, which we are -- ball fields are. We are over that. You have to have reflectors and we do have reflectors that help contain the light. Borup: And it looks to me like it would be impossible to comply with everything, if it will do any good, but it sounds like it -- from what you were saying it would go a long way to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio January 5, 2005 Page 41 of 93 Kennedy: You know, we can't -- ball fields, I mean you have probably seen them, it's hard to not have an exposed lamp on the ball field and that's kind of the nature of sports light fixtures and so -- Rohm: Yeah. I think that that was just something that was overlooked at the time that the code was written and if, in fact, you're going to have 50 foot candles of light on the ball field, some of that is going to spill over to the adjacent property and so it sounds to me like something that a variance request is -- that's what variance requests are specifically designed to address is when compliance is not possible. So, that doesn't seem to me to be a major concern. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to ask about the building. Kennedy: Okay. The main focus, the main project. Zaremba: Yeah. The main construction focus. It's stated that it's going to be used as an auto tech, welding, and horticulture building and -- Kennedy: Correct. Zaremba: -- I certainly appreciate the expansion of those services by the school district. But those are the kind of facilities that would necessitate having toxic materials around, I would think, or hazardous materials, any fertilizer for the horticulture or gas and oil for the cars, things like that, are -- Kennedy: The UDC limits us to the amount that we are able to contain and store within the building. So, we are not considered a hazardous occupancy that repair shops, auto shops, are these days. We are -- they kind of limit us and so we do have to stay within those limitations. So, I mean, yeah, there is some antifreeze and oils and stuff, but the way that the building officials look at it, they don't consider us as hazardous or anything like that. Yeah, there will probably be a little bit of fertilizers in there, but, again, we are not allowed to exceed or be anywhere near what a retail store or nursery is. So, we do have building codes that restrict us. Zaremba: Okay. And you'd work with the sanitary company for any waste disposal issues? Kennedy: Yeah. I mean we have sand and grease traps that will capture the oils and keep them out of our storm drain systems and stuff like that and paint we have to have a specific paint mixing room for mixing paints and stuff like that. So, there are codes that keep us within our limits. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 42 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. Around the automotive tech portion of it do you envision defunct vehicles or work in process to be around the outside of the building or would most of that be interior? Kennedy: That's kind of what that courtyard is for. We kind of -- we call it the bull pen. We kind of kept it sandwiched in there for that reason and that's probably what's going to be in there is if you had a car that was being worked on that wasn't the prettiest looking thing, that's the area that they would store it in. So, that right now is our chain link fenced area and they have to keep that under security as well. So, that's what that's for. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. Kennedy: Okay. Rohm: Any questions of staff before we move onto public testimony? Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Paul Geile if he would like to come forward. Geile: My name is Paul Geile and I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise, Idaho. And my father owns the 28 acre vacant area to the west of this and south of this proposed project and he asks me to just kind of ride herd on the future development interests of his property and I have several that -- first, I'm not opposed at all to the annexation or the rezone. I'd like to address an issue that might go into the Conditional Use Permit, however. The tiling of the ditch is probably the biggest issue that -- I have personally seen kids throw other kids into that ditch and it has been a constant source of trespassers down our property, which is where this service road appears on that map. But the -- if they are going to fence off their area with what I think is proposed to be slatted chain link, which would go -- at some point they would start way down here at the seminary and fence this entire area, there will be a stretch between the canal and the fence that's, I don't know, ten, fifteen feet wide, probably, that will be inaccessible to the high school supervision, because they won't be able to see it and it won't be available for the police department to see either, even if they were successful in driving up the service road. So, we have had kids in -- when the water is there it's a risk for both of our properties. When the water is not there, they get down in the ditch and smoke and the problem we have had in the past, which is going to be gone now, is in this area right here, they would be down in the ditch and smoke and as soon as they stepped onto our property they were out of the jurisdiction of the high school and we are going to have similar jurisdictional problems if kids get anywhere in between those two spaces, because they could jump the ditch and be outside of the jurisdiction. They could walk over the tiled portion and be outside the jurisdiction. But it would certainly be safer for the public's interest to have that ditch tiled and I realize there is some financial costs to doing that, but if the rule says do it, then, let's go ahead and do it and I will discuss that with the City Council when it comes to that. But if you would forward a recommendation to have it tiled, I have seen a lot of developers come forth and ask for variances and not be able to get them for that sort of thing. The noise spillage -- it's not the distance away from our property, it's the volume of the sound. The noise ordinance Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi8ff January 5, 2005 Page 43 of 93 in Meridian is relatively weak. I can hear announcements inside my father's basement from the existing high school and it's probably 800 feet away. The light spillage, I don't expect a perfect limitation on light spillage, but I do expect a really good faith effort to limit it as best as possible. I didn't see fencing on the drawings or the specifications. would like clarification on that. There aren't any elevations for other buildings that are being built there. There appear to be three -- three of the buildings. The other kind of interesting point is most businesses have a limitation on hours of operation. I don't want lights running until all hours of the morning. I am the victim of poorly designed baseball lights in Boise where I live. I can read the Wallstreet Journal at 11:00 o'clock at night 800 feet away from the nearest pole. But a reasonable limitation on the hours of operation in Boise, it's absolute lights out at 11:00. And one very small question. If there is a road inside their -- their property line there, is that -- is there a setback and is the road outside of that setback? And those were the issues I had. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: We don't have anybody else that has signed up for this application, but at this time it's open. If anyone would like to step forward, you're certainly more than welcome. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, representing Joint School District No. 2 as the applicant. I want to provide just a little bit of clarification to a couple items and I will be as forthright and as brief as I can. The first question, Commissioner Rohm, you asked why we don't roll all of these into one CUP application. One is the late hour at which we realized that we needed to do a second CUP. But the bigger answer is the jurisdictions approve our drawings sequentially, not consecutively. So, by moving our primary building design forward, we can go on with our approval processes to the city and through the highway district and ultimately to the state of Idaho. So, there is a sequencing of things. In a perfect world, had we known it, you bet, we would have preferred to put all the eggs in one basket and just dealt with them in one fell swoop. But we believe the PA intercom issue can be resolved as a separate issue and it does allow the rest of our things to move forward, it's doesn't delay the start of our construction and the ultimate completion. We are all about getting school open in September or we have missed our primary charge. To go back to a couple of the comments that were made, the site is entirely fenced. We have worked diligently initially -- if I have a pointer -- to have a pedestrian walking path within the campus just north of our property line within the fence down to this point. We are still willing to do that. We are desirous to do that. It's just that we can't get from there to any public street through the private property ownership. If we can solve that problem, we, the district, would be advocating that we give a way for those kids to walk within our property. We do not encourage the kids to walk on the canal in any way, shape, or form. Our desire is to have a fence there that discourages those. We understand the Gieles' concern, but the school district can't be everywhere. So, our best chance is to make it very difficult. I believe Mr. Nesbitt, the school principal is here. If you want he can speak to those operational issues. But we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi3TT' January 5, 2005 Page 44 of 93 will try very diligently to keep the kids out of that area. So, help us find a way out there, please. The second item -- Mr. Giele has talked about the ditch. The property line basically follows the center of the flow line of the ditch and the ditch's elevation is slightly higher -- this thing runs downhill south to north, if you will. So, tiling of the ditch - - the school district or the taxpayers, if you will, have no enjoyment of that investment. It doesn't give us anything, except a hillside with which to mow. And because the ditch is the property line, at the neighborhood community meeting I approached the Gieles and said if we work a deal with Nampa -Meridian and we are in a situation here with Nampa - Meridian whereby if the school district simply acquires the material and Nampa -Meridian uses their forces at no expense to the taxpayers to install it, that's a very good deal. We offered that deal to the Gieles that said if they were willing to share in 50 percent of the cost of that material, we would share in the 50 percent cost of the material and we could probably get Nampa -Meridian to tile the whole thing. They declined that joint venture. So, because the public doesn't get any benefit from that investment, our position still stands that when that property is developed, we would entertain stepping up on half of our cost to do that. It's just that we would like to be partners, not simply the banker for that development improvement activity. The roadway that Mr. Giele was talking about - - getting to the ball fields. Okay. I can understand it. It will be burnt down before the fire trucks get there. It's a 10 by 12 concession box. But the roadway is probably a good thing to get over there. I'd like to point out that this is a driveway. The house that used to exist back here, it was an access easement to this house for sole residential use. Because it's no longer residential, this easement has gone away. Nampa - Meridian needs a way to get their ditch rider down the ditch. This ditch is our ditch. It is also Gieles ditch. We approached the Gieles to say can we keep this driveway open and provide access to this point for the ditch rider. The response was, no, thank you. We, then, said, okay, can we shift the driveway so that the 20 foot access easement for the ditch rider, which is a benefit that accrues to both Gieles and the school district, can go ten foot on each side of the property line dedicated easement and we can get them down to this point and out through our property. The Gieles declined to participate in that. So, the ditch rider access, which is driven by the fact that we are closing this off, although the ditch rider I don't think has driven down this in the last 20 years. He simply comes to this point and comes down the driveway -- is now entirely on school district property. So, we were able to take advantage of that serpentining road, if you will, through there to provide access for the fire department, the ditch rider access, and, ultimately, for us to get maintenance vehicles to and through and around. So, we believe we have addressed that issue. Lastly, we are concerned about the slats that we would be proposing in that fence as an obstruction to visibility from the Gieles to see what's going on, we would gladly remove those slats from the fence. We took the initiative to put those in there to screen, quite frankly, whatever future development potential this has beyond the RUT zoning. We thought fencing would be the first right neighborly thing to do. I think those were the issues I wanted to address. I will stand for questions on any of the issues I have talked about or the bigger issues as you see relating to the school district. Rohm: Wendell, would you care to address the comment about the light hours as in when the ball fields -- you would intend to have them shut down? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi5n January 5, 2005 Page 45 of 93 Bigham: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm absolutely mouthing for Mr. Don Nesbitt, the school principal, to come up here. I will simply say at the district level and, hopefully, it's mirrored by Mr. Nesbitt at the school level, that first is these are seasonal and hours of operation are really great, but if the game goes into overtime, somebody may be pretty unhappy if we pull the plug on the lights. Our intent is to be a good neighbor and from the district's standpoint, the good neighbor policy, first and foremost, is conducted through the neighborhood to and through the school administrator and since Don has to answer to the baseball patrons and the parents of those kids, I will let Mr. Nesbitt -- Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Before -- in all fairness to the public, was that applicant response or public testimony that Mr. Bigham was just giving? Rohm: I, actually, think it was applicant response, to tell you the truth. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Which is fine. Borup: If it wasn't, I would have asked him for additional comments anyway. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Just wanted to -- Rohm: And this is a continuance of that applicant response, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Nesbitt: And, Commissioners, like all sports, you know, I'm really happy -- Rohm: Give your name and -- Nesbitt: Oh. Don Nesbitt and I'm principal at Meridian High School. And like all sports we have -- I'm really happy when they are over before 10:00 o'clock, then, I get to go home and usually I'm back at 6:00. So, like Mr. Bigham said, we like to shut the lights off as soon as we can. There have been instances in the past, for instance, where the football stadium lights have been on and I think we have dealt with that. We turned, for instance, suggestions from the neighborhood was to turn one bank of lights off, you know, and so we do that right after the game. It still allows one bank and that's the lights from shining in. We do all those things, but -- also, like in baseball, the time limit isn't set. They play nine innings, sometimes they go extra innings. Most of baseball is when it's starting to get lighter anyway, so, hopefully, you know, we -- you know, I can't say that the lights would be off at 11:00 o'clock every time, you know, because if we go extra innings and we have lights on, then, everybody's mad. But I do say that we try to shut things down as soon as possible. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 46 of 93 Rohm: And just in response to that, I think that all of the comments made associated with lighting demonstrates that the school district is cognizant of the desires of the neighborhood as a whole and have always strived to meet their goals and objectives. Nesbitt: The other thing I would add, Mr. Chairman, is that we had two extra inning games last year, one was at Borah and one was a home game. Rohm: Who won? Nesbitt: I don't remember. Hope we did. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, just -- what is the high school baseball season? It starts when and ends when? Nesbitt: High school baseball starts -- well, they are throwing now, but the actual games -- Newton-Huckabay: The game. Nesbitt: Yeah. The games are going to start, you know, sometime in March and, then, the state baseball is finished before that. So, if you go through all the playoffs and make it to the state playoff game, that's finished before school is out. So, June. Rohm: Is it the intent to use these ball fields for public recreational leagues during the summer? Nesbitt: We are -- you know, it's our goal at Meridian High School and with the district that we are part of the community. If the community wants to use our fields, you know -- folks right now are using the fields, the one that we have, and it seems like folks are always looking for baseball fields and we would be happy to do that. I mean that's -- it was paid for by the taxpayers, so as long as they don't tear it apart, you know, we will pretty much let anybody use it. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Josh if you could comment on the -- on the tiling of the ditch. That seems to be still kind of an open issue here. And the staff report indicates that they'd like to see a tiled ditch and just -- 1'd like further comment on that. Wilson: Yes. Currently the staff report does contain our standard condition, which says that all ditches must be tiled, unless otherwise approved by City Council. So, as it stands right now, City Council -- according to code, City Council must find that it is in the public's -- I believe it says that public safety can be preserved and also that best public interest can be preserved or something along those lines. They have to make that finding at their hearing and, then, they would remove that condition that states that it must be tiled. But as it stands, as it moves forward from this body, it does have to be tiled and City Council has the authority to remove that condition. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 47 of 93 Rohm: Do you have a recommendation for a change in verbiage to address the fact that that's been a -- an item of discussion, so that we could say we want to move this forward, but there seems to be some gray area there on that tiling and leave that specific issue to the Council for their action? Wilson: When applications go forward from your body to City Council, the staff report is modified to add a section at the beginning that talks about what happened at your hearing. It talks about who testified in favor and opposition, it talks about the major topics of discussion, it talks about any changes of the staff report and, then, it also talks about outstanding issues for City Council. So, the tiling of the ditch would show up under -- Rohm: Outstanding? Wilson: -- outstanding issues and topics of -- discussion items of interest at the hearing, a special notice that this was a topic of discussion and it is still an outstanding issue for City Council. So, that's -- I guess that's really your -- that's really your mechanism that let's City Council know that you discussed it and you're concerned about it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Josh. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify on that same subject, is this the same ditch that continues on and crosses Ten Mile right on the border of Albertson's -- and the reason I'm asking that, that's a pretty large ditch. Isn't there an over 48 inch waiver for a pipe? Wilson: I'm not specifically familiar, but maybe Mike could address this. The Rutledge think he said flows into the Nine Mile. The Nine Mile Creek is, actually, on the top of this property, which is a much more major facility and this Rutledge Lateral may flow into it. Cole: Public Works concurs with that assessment. Zaremba: That this would be smaller than a 48 inch pipe? Cole: Yes. The Nine Mile Drain to the northern portion of this is the -- would be much larger than the 48 inch that we just -- that City Council generally waives that on. The Rutledge could be piped with a smaller facility than that. I believe they have plans now that -- on 24 inch, I believe, is what it's being piped at. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 48 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest since the two outstanding items we don't have the authority to address, that we close the Public Hearing and move on. Zaremba: If that's a motion, I will second it. Newton-Huckabay: Consider it a motion. Rohm: That was a motion. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I would just continue my statement to say that I believe most of the questions from public testimony will also have to be addressed at the City Council level. So, with that said, I would move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated October 13, 2005, and believe we have no modifications, other than make note that there will be the lighting discussion and the tiling of the ditch discussion at City Council. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: In discussion, I would just clarify that since it's been mentioned and discussed, that the public address system is not approved along with this CUP. It's not a part of this CUP. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Newton- H u ckabay: Add that to the motion. Rohm: Okay. We have a motion before us and motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C -G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C -N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 49 of 93 Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 05-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C -G and C- N zones for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 22: Public Hearing: MCU 05-004 Request to modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini -storage use and including attached and detached single- family dwellings for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation — north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Rohm: Thank you, everybody. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061, and MCU 05-004. All three of these hearings are related to Champion Park Addition. Like to start with -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, there is a fourth issue related to this that is not on the agenda and that is MI 05-015 and I would like to put our attorney on the spot to ask if we can discuss that without it being on the agenda. There, actually, are four parts to this and this one is not on the agenda. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the modified development agreement. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, legal staff -- I'm not quite sure if this came from Ted or Bill, but the understanding that we have is that these miscellaneous applications are an agreement between a developer, property owner, and the city, that they do require to be at a public hearing, but that the City Council is the body that actually approves them. We do not require -- just some more background information -- we do not require a neighborhood meeting before submitting a miscellaneous application to amend a development agreement. They do have to post the site, though, and we -- the city does notice people within 300 feet. So, it's a little bit of a hybrid process. It is not addressed in the UDC anywhere. So, this is something that, again, the legal department has said this is how you proceed with these agreements and modification thereof. So, just so you know. I don't know if it needs to be on the agenda or not. I think you guys can sure -- depending on how the other applications go, it's kind of the last in the line, it just needs to be cleaned up, if, in fact, you're going to allow this Conditional Use Permit and preliminary plat and, then, clean up the development agreement to reflect the new modification, so -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission and Mr. Hood, thank you for directing me back to that. In fact, that is Mr. Nary's position, that it is a matter currently to be addressed by the City Council. We do intend to codify the process and put it into the code, but this is the way we have been following it and it's been working quite nicely. So, if you have any suggestions as we move through to make recommendation to the Council you can, but it doesn't -- we don't need a specific motion from you, therefore, it doesn't need to be on the agenda. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 50 of 93 Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I will get the staff report, please. Hood: So, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there are four applications that have been submitted, as you are well aware. I will try to keep my comments pertinent to the three applications before you. This site is currently zoned R-8, medium density residential, and was approved as part of the Champion Park, previously known as Parkstone Subdivision. It is located on the north side of Ustick Road about 1,300 feet west of Eagle Road. This is an aerial. Again, aerials were flow I think in 2003. A large majority, even more than the lots that are shown there in Champion Park, has been constructed. The city park is pretty much complete. They have a restroom I think still to complete, some of the tot lots, a little bit more of the infrastructure, the parking lots and things like that. So, this doesn't do the overall Champion Park Addition justice, it is the people living out there and so that's just west. I guess I should probably point out Champion Park Addition is just this -- roughly this section of the overall Champion Park Parkstone development. There is a road -- and I'll show on the next preliminary plat -- Leslie Way that aligns with Leslie to the south, coming north through this subdivision that's exists and was platted I think with phase four, I believe, of Champion Park. To the east is the Center Point -- what's been marketed as Center Point, the Kohl's -- just last month reviewed the Kohl's development that will go in approximately this location on that site. This property was annexed into the city and zoned C -G. The city has not seen a conceptual -- or they did not submit a conceptual plan with annexation. All the buildings that go in the Center Point are required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval and will be back before this body. Just another bit of reference on the properties to the east. There is a little RUT out parcel here currently zoned RUT in Ada County. W.H. Moore Company I believe has acquired it. If they haven't acquired it, they have an option. They have actually submitted for -- to also annex and zone this property to C -G. That application is scheduled for February 2nd, I believe. So, that will be coming before you. But I note that just because there is a small portion -- well, it's a residence right now. Staff did not require any land use buffer between the commercial area that's being rezoned tonight here, two lots, and that residence, because we do anticipate that this area, which is in a mixed use area, will also be zoned commercial, so -- to the south Carol Subdivision, some other county zoned, large acre properties. Some of the lots in the subdivision you may or may not know are being annexed into the city once their septic fails and they need sewer and water. So, I think the last time I looked it was almost like a 50-50 split, some of them are zoned R-2, some of them are still zoned in the county. You also have a couple of other applications tonight on your agenda that are in the area, so I can orient you a little bit on Eagle Road, Ustick. Here is the plat that, again, is on the east side of that overall larger development. Again, Leslie Way has been constructed, is in, accepted by ACHD. The applicant is proposing -- I'll call it a loop road, I guess. It connects, anyways, at both ends to Leslie. On this side -- on the east side of the north -south road are the attached units. They have two Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* January 5, 2005 Page 51 of 93 attached units apiece. There are 48 single family lots total, so there are 24 attached lots on this side and, then, they have 24 detached lots on the north side of the project and so internally. Fifty lots total for 48 residential and the two other buildable lots are the commercial lots along Ustick Road and Leslie right at the intersection there. The first lot -- they are both about the same size. One's just .09 acres and the other -- or just under one acre each. C -G, general retail service commercial and this one is C -N, neighborhood commercial business district. Now, both of those properties were previously approved with the Parkstone Conditional Use Permit as commercial uses. Staff did request that the applicant clean that up, if you will, and get the zoning on the map, so we can -- it better reflects what the land use is that's been approved there. The remainder portion of Champion Park Addition was previously approved with that same Parkstone Conditional Use Permit for a mini storage development. So, that's the other application, besides the plat, is to modify that previous CUP and put in residential where previously a mini storage lot was proposed. Parkstone, by the way, was approved in 2003, just to let you know that -- that they have been working on this project and it was approved by the City Council in 2003. A couple of things in the staff report. Maybe I'll give you a couple of the specs just real quick. The average lot size in this development is 6,887 square feet. The gross density of this phase is 4.77 dwelling units per acre. There is not very much open space proposed with this phase. Primarily there is a micropath that will feed into that Center Point development. There is some land use buffers or some street buffers, excuse me, that do count as open space. Primarily there is a city park and I guess I should jump back to that. Here is the city park. It's just to the west of the subject site. Because the application is -- the applicant is modifying the entire CU, we can count the open space and meet the minimum -- minimum open space requirement for the development and that's why you have the CUP modification, as well as to include this residential. There wasn't any open space required with the storage units before and so they haven't reduced it any, but if you looked at it on its own, they are only about two percent open space. And, then, again, a couple of the conditions, just to -- just for discussion purposes, possibly, or maybe look at the staff report, there is a couple of odd ball conditions. One of them has to do with the lots that are right at the neck of these cul-de-sacs here. I am concerned with primarily these two lots right here that are corner lots and the way that the garage is going to be oriented has a significant affect on their neighbors. We did recommend that they orient their garages towards the neck, if you will, of these streets, so that their yards matched -- the backyard of this person matched the backyard of that person's lot. It also matches up to the side -- it gets the side yard of this guy matching up with the side yard of that guy. If they have their garage access here, then, he's looking at the back of this house and just -- it makes it consistent to have it that way. So just -- I wanted to point that out. There is a condition that those two be oriented that way. This lot right here we did request that it be oriented towards the street due to the right of way configuration and setbacks. If you have 20 feet on the other side for the street and a 15 foot rear, your buildable area within that lot becomes pretty small. So, it makes it easier to fit a house on there if you can have this be your front setback and your rear there and it gives you a buildable pad area. At least that's what I found when planning the lot size a little bit. You may have noticed, too, in the staff report the applicant did not originally submit a revised site plan that basically took off the mini storage and showed what -- how the overall development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis3T6n January 5, 2005 Page 52 of 93 looks with the residential in it. I did request that. That was in the staff report. I do have that revised site plan. I will scan that in for City Council. I do appreciate the applicant giving me the ten copies I requested in the staff report. And I just wanted to give you the overall -- the overall look of the development and, finally, I think there was a letter submitted to the city on January 3rd by W.H. Moore regarding the change of use on this property. So, I did -- I wanted, first of all, just to make sure that everyone did get a copy of that. It primarily -- and I think Jonathan was here just a minute ago, so I think he will speak to it. But primarily the concerns are the landscape buffer or a land use buffer, what used to be commercial now going to residential, they don't think it's fair for them to have to put in that land use buffer and, then, having additional residential nearby here, disclosing to those people that, in fact, we have a commercial zone, don't complain about out future uses. We are commercial first and, then, this gets modified. Just to paraphrase -- and he'll do a better job than I did, but that's, basically, what the letter said. Staff is recommending approval of all four of the applications with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thanks, Craig. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I would just answer the question. I do have the letter from W.H. Moore, January 3rd, 2006, and I assume all of us do. Rohm: Good. Okay. With no questions for staff, at this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward, please. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. We are representing Hillview Development on this application. If I could just put the boards up here. As Craig indicated, this was part of a larger planned development that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council approved two or three years -- two years ago, I guess. It seems like longer, but time flies. In this particular project we went under planned development, which allowed for 20 percent exception, even though this was designated medium density residential, it did allow us for some deviation of the residential use and allowing some different use components as a planned development. We have some -- an office component here. We have a commercial component here. And, then, more of a neighborhood commercial component here. and, then, we had approximately 7.45 acres of mini storage located here along this east boundary. We also had this neighborhood park located in the middle. Everything else was detached single family dwellings, with the exception of this pod, these are attached patio homes. So, we had a real good mixture within this development. We had the Discovery Elementary School over here to the west of us and as Craig indicated, that is mixed use regional, so that will be the new Kohl's department store, plus we assume it will be other retail uses along the eastern boundary. Now, one of the things that my clients looked at -- they met with a couple of architects, they talked to some different mini storage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss n 0 January 5, 2005 Page 53 of 93 developers, and they came to the conclusion that they felt we needed to come back with this application and convert this back to a residential use. They wanted us to go on the record stating that in their -- all their purchase agreements in their CC&Rs, they will be putting clauses in there stipulating that every buyer, purchaser, builder, whomever, recognizes the fact that the retail use or commercial use along the eastern boundary will take place. So, no one could ever say that, you know, nobody told me that was going to happen. Also, Mr. Moore's representative has indicated that they are going to put a sign up which will face the subdivision stating that, you know, this is just notification that this is a commercial use in the future. So, by utilizing those, we feel that, you know, people will be informed if they purchase a lot or purchase a home in that -- this pod right here. We have got a mix in here. Our access point is the same as we would have had for the mini storage. These -- there is 24 attached units. These are zero lot lines that you see here. And, then, the rest of these are detached. The attached range from about four to -- 4,000 to 5,500 square feet. These detached ones are around 7,000 and something and I think they are all the way up to 12,000. We have got a good mix of lot sizes. This is a loop through that comes in right here in alignment with this existing street. This was a platted lot -- or planned to be a platted lot in one of these future or other phases and the developers kept that and, then, that's where we punched the street through. We have got a buffer on both sides of this future street to protect, obviously, these lot owners giving us a landscape buffering where that street intersects. Sewer and water are available. Pressure irrigation. There is a big pressure irrigation pond located there. We worked with the parks department in conjunction with this neighborhood park to install their improvements in lieu of getting some reimbursement and, then, getting some credits for some of the other improvements that we made at the site. The parks department was wonderful to work with. They were very pleased as far as information that I have had that, obviously, they got a turn key type situation and it was done substantially less cost than had it been a public -type project, because the developers just basically piggy backed that onto their improvements with their contractors. We think that this is probably a better fit with the neighborhood park being there. ACHD has reviewed it. It's just staff level, since all of our collector roadway is already in and we are just making a connection to existing streets. I don't have any additional curb cuts to Ustick. They had indicated in the staff report that it will generate approximately 72 additional vehicle trips per day, changing from the mini storage use to this residential use. Staff has asked us to request rezone of these two lots. That's consistent with what they have done in other projects. They claim that there is confusion when we have say a residential zone, like an R-8 that we have here and, then, someone comes in to build say a Starbucks and they are told by the realtor, well, that lot's a commercial lot, but all the zoning that they see on the map is residential, but it's approved for a commercial use under the planned development. So, they have been asking us if we come back with any subsequent applications on any of these old planned development projects, that we rezone to the appropriate use that was approved under the planned development. Do you have any questions? Rohm: The buffer along the west line, where your mini storage was, the Winston Moore letter asked about you providing some buffer there, as opposed to their development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 54 of 93 McKay: The burden upon them? Yes. My developer has spoken with one of their representatives. I did receive a copy of the letter. Jonathan and I had a discussion earlier. My client is in agreement that they will install vinyl fence consistent with what they have got throughout their whole project and consistent with what they have got here. Mr. Moore's property comes clear up to this point. So, we already have some existing residential lots -- larger residential lots that will back up to it. So, that fencing would be a continuation down here. My client will not be requesting and wants to go on the record that the city should not require any additional landscape buffering of the Winston Moore project in order to accommodate this project. You know, everyone will be informed that that is a particular use that will take place there and, you know, they will go in with their eyes wide open. But he will not be asking -- if they come through with a conditional use, gee, we need a buffer now. So, I don't know how you put that in the record, but that's what we would prefer. Maybe Mr. Seal has some ideas. I think he wanted to chat about that also. Rohm: I think when that application comes in we will discuss that at that time. McKay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Seal: Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I want to thank Becky and the developer for their cooperation on this and their willingness to put the fence in and also put the language within the documents to acknowledge that, in fact, there will be some type of commercial developed into the west, as she says, so people's eyes are wide open when they come in. So, whether they come here or not, they certainly are not, I wouldn't think, justified in saying, gees, we wouldn't have bought this home if we had known what was going on there. I guess I would like to say, though, think in Mr. Moore's letter -- and I won't go through it, but I think we have really addressed it here this evening, he does talk about the buffer and I think, personally, it's important that we do talk about the 25 feet. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable tonight saying that, fine, when we come with our conditional use permits at that point we will talk about the 25 feet. Again, we acknowledge that there is residential. The residential, as everyone has discussed, is coming in after the fact. So, granted, it not be the burden of us to be able to put the buffer in there. I think part of the buffer -- the intent of that is, typically, in my opinion, your retail typically -- or commercial comes in after your residential. As a result of that, you need that protection. We found that in EI Dorado Business Campus and we found that in other projects we work with. In this case, we had the residential, whether it's built before or after our project, they know up front that there will be commercial development there. As a result of that, I don't think that we should be able to carry the burden and I think the developer, as Becky said, is willing to forego that also. So, I would like to go on the record and at least suggest or ask that we get the approval tonight where we will not have to come back and fight for the 25 feet later. People change on the Commission, people's memory's do, and I really -- whether it's a year or two years, six months down the road, really don't want to come back on every CU and have to -- have to argue the fact that we don't need the 25 feet, because Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 55 of 93 of what's happened in here. So, I would really ask that and Mr. Moore -- it's not maybe explicit in his letter, but I think it's implicit in his that that's also what he's asking for. Rohm: And I think that makes perfect sense to make that a request, but, you know, can't speak for the balance of the Commission, but from my perspective, I think the only time that we can specifically address that in an answer format is at such time that your application comes before us. It's all well and good that your adjacent property has offered up their willingness to forego that buffer, but their willingness and your desire is not the same as addressing our Comprehensive Plan and code and I can't speak for the balance and/or for staff, but it just seems to me that the time for that response is at such time that your application comes before the Commission and I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that the answer to that question comes at that time, not now. Seal: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if I can -- and I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not up here to try to argue, but I would ask if it is possible to do it now, because, again, I appreciate that, but it makes me very nervous. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, unfortunately, we cannot do that now. Seal: Okay. Baird: As I understand it, each use as you bring it forward on the commercial property was going to require its own CUP. Seal: Yes. Baird: And that's the time to address what's necessary to buffer, for lack of a better word, or to make those uses compatible with adjacent uses. Certainly what's on the record today will be reiterated at such time that your company brings forth those CUPs and we will certainly -- I can't speak for the Commission, but I think they will be sympathetic to your position at that time. But we don't have anything noticed tonight, the matter is not before the Commission. Seal: Sure. Baird: So, I would advise them that we can't go there tonight. Seal: Just a suggestion and just to throw this out, can we -- is there the opportunity to modify the development agreement to reflect that there will not be required 25 feet of landscape buffer along the west property line? And I know that that's not addressed tonight, I'm not looking for that to be addressed, but is that another option, too, where we can do that as a blanket adjustment versus, again, coming back for every CUP? Rohm: And, again, as counsel has suggested, that at the time that that application comes forth, that's probably the exact route we will go, but we can't at this time respond Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 56 of 93 to an application that's not been made and I think that that's where we really need to leave that. Seal: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chair, may I comment just a moment? Rohm: Yes, you may. Zaremba: Okay. And it's to the last question that you asked, which I was going to ask. I agree that we cannot make any statement about your property at this time, because it's not the issue in front of us. Seal: Sure. Zaremba: We may be able to give you a consensus that we agree with you, that we understand your neighbor, who is this applicant, is cooperating and agrees with you, but to expand the question you just asked a little farther, this applicant is asking for a miscellaneous modification of their development agreement. Can we, along with that modification, change this applicant's development agreement to say that this applicant agrees to waive any request that they would make for a buffer. Is that possible? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think there would have to be a separate application made, miscellaneous application, on behalf of the commercial development to change their development agreement and it may be possible to have them -- both MI's heard at the same time -- I don't know if one can be delayed for the other one to catch up. I see Craig jumping up and down. He might want to add something to that. Hood: Well, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to jump in or anything, just a little achy or something. But I think that that is something -- I mean you have a Conditional Use Permit and you do have a miscellaneous application that they have proposed to amend the subject site's development agreement. I don't know what provision is in there now talking about land use buffers between this property and that property. I'm going to guess there is probably nothing. It's probably silent as far as the development agreement. You could -- you being the City Council, because, really, that MI is not before you tonight. The City Council could amend it to say that the Council recognizes the fact that the subject applicant -- the subject applicant being Hillview -- does not desire a land use buffer along their western property line. I mean there is no condition there, it's just an acknowledgment that they don't necessarily want one. It still leaves the question -- and it really is on their property. There is code -- I mean our code requires it, so with that miscellaneous application, an alternative compliance request is going to have to be there. I mean if it's not 20 foot as required and if we are going down to five or ten or whatever it is, that there be some nice landscaping in there and we get the intent of the ordinance met. I mean even if the two sides agree, we are looking out for future people that live there, because the developer is out of the picture and people Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 57 of 93 are living there and they are calling the city to complain about the noise of the commercial. Even if we disclose this to everyone, they are still going to maybe want to complain. So, to get the intent of that landscape buffer -- I'm kind of going down another track now, but -- but I think what we could do, Mr. Seal, is you have an application before the City Council to do just that, amend your development agreement on February 2nd. Seal: Yes. Hood: And I think that is a great opportunity to bring up this other point to them and I think we could probably modify that section at that time and propose some additional -- whatever you're going to want to see along there and not deal with each CUP. I think that is something that we would want to have spelled out, rather than doing a lot -by -lot, case-by-case basis, let's spell it out for the entire -- Seal: I think that's very fair. Moe: I would just like to add one more thing, based upon your project and the Kohl's project, and that is is that on that side of the property you still have not aligned your roadway through that portion there and I'm a little bit concerned on -- as far as buffer between this applicant and where your road alignment is going to end up out there, just how close is it going to be to the property line and I guess I'm going to ask the applicant tonight are they aware of that as well, that the -- that your project's roadway on that side of the property has not been aligned yet as to where exactly it's going to line up with that property line. Seal: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and Becky can certainly speak if she disagrees with what I'm saying, but we talked, I explained to her at this point we are committed on the back -age road to the north property line of the Kohl's project. Beyond that as we develop it, I have got the agreement from ACHD as it's in the language in there, that we can modify the location of that back -age road, so long as it ultimately ends up at the north property line at a certain point. In other words, our back -age road will start here. Right now we have to take it up to here. We can take it anywhere we want in here, so long as we end up here. And I believe I explained to Becky and if she didn't, she can certainly speak, that that road could alter this way or could very well come up along here, but it will depend as we develop the -- as we develop it. I would think, personally, if it was me, I would rather have the road here and the properties over here, so that to me would be the best case scenario, most realistic one is it will come up here and there will be some type of commercial development along there. So, I don't -- in my own personal opinion don't see either one as a terrible detriment, whether it goes either way, but, again, I believe that's where everybody is -- Moe: I guess I bring that up just, again, because as I heard you talk earlier, you're speaking of vinyl fencing on that property line, vinyl fencing and a roadway right next to it, it seems a little loud to me, but I just want to make sure we are all aware what's going on in that area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissiiirf • January 5, 2005 Page 58 of 93 Seal: Yeah. Anyways, otherwise, I think, you know, we certainly don't oppose this project. We think it's a good use and we are certainly in favor of that, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I hope you understand. Seal: I do. And I wasn't sure how -- how it would be handled, but if you don't ask, you don't get. Rohm: Okay. And thank you very much, sir. Seal: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there a Tom Davis that would like to step forward? Davis: Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, my name is Tom Davis. I live at 2740 East Ustick Road, Meridian, and I am just west of the two commercial lots and I have a question that, all right, if you go from an R-8 to a C -G and, then, from an R-8 to a C -N, what type of businesses can be put in there and what would be their operating times and their business hours. I am just to the west -- just to the west of that road that goes in there and if there is a neighbor -- if it's going to be residential behind me and across the road at Carol Subdivision, it looks like to me that both of those lots should be neighborhood businesses and not commercial right there, because on the backside there will be all those -- this is proposed with more residential and straight across is Carol Subdivision and, then, of course, to the west it's all residential. But my concern is if the lots are going to be commercial, what businesses they can put in there and what would be the operating hours of those businesses. Newton-Huckabay: We will get an answer for you. Rohm: That's a question we will ask the applicant to come forward and try and respond. Thank you. Becky, you're on. McKay: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to answer Commissioner Moe's question, Jonathan and I did discuss that roadway. I knew it was going to go up north. He said they don't have an exact alignment. Obviously, in looking at all the projects that Mr. Moore's company has done in the valley, you know, they always do it very nicely. I would not anticipate that they'd stick the asphalt right up against the vinyl. I think that was the picture you were getting in your mind and, then, cars, you know, possibly running into it and so forth. I'm sure that they would take far, you know, greater care to — esthetic -wise to make it look good. I also think that Mr. Hood's suggestion that, you know, maybe there is a statement that, you know, we recognize the fact, you know, in our -- one of these documents and that we -- the developer is basically stating that he does not require the standard 25 foot buffer and, then, if they come through, you know, with some application and the Commission thinks five foot is appropriate, then, so be it. You know, I don't know. But, like he said, the application that they have is not before you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commist January 5, 2005 Page 59 of 93 tonight, so you can't make a determination. Secondly, Mr. Davis -- Mr. and Mrs. Davis still reside in the existing home on the property there. They are located right here. The original -- right there. And they were planned for -- at some point in time for redevelopment as office. So, that's the long term, but they still do reside in the home and it's a very nice home. In the original development agreement the uses on these two commercial lots required a Conditional Use Permit. The staff, I think, in their conditions of approval is still recommending a Conditional Use Permit be required on the one I believe adjoining Ustick, but that a Conditional Use Permit would not be required on the one north of that, which is the C -N or the neighborhood commercial and to explain to Mr. Davis, the C -N is like a less intensive commercial, whereas C -G is, obviously, more highway -type commercial. So, C -G could be like a convenience store or something like that. Now, if the commission deems that in order to protect Mr. Davis and, obviously, allow for future input on operating hours and intensity of uses, that a conditional use is still appropriate for those two lots, then -- I mean I'll leave that up to you and to staff. We have reviewed the staff report, we are in agreement with all of staffs conditions. We don't have any users at this time. I think they will probably be more neighbor -type commercial uses, you know, maybe a little deli or something like that, but we just -- we just don't know. I don't have any idea. And since I don't have a user, I can't tell you what their operating hours are going to be. Rohm: Becky, is there a development agreement attached to this application? McKay: Yes, sir. There was a development agreement entered into with -- yes, sir. Rohm: When it came through the first time? McKay: Yes, sir. With required conditional use permits for any commercial use. Right, Craig? Is that correct? Hood: Yes. McKay: Yes. Rohm: And if we were to just tack on a CUP for the development of either one of these lots, even though they are in the C -N or whatever, we could do that as part of that development agreement? Hood: Actually, what you would need to do, Mr. Chair, is remove the condition that I have placed on there, because I actually, like Becky mentioned, let the C -N lot out of the requirement for the CUP, but still required this C -G lot to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Rohm: And don't get me wrong, I'm not big on CUPs. I don't think that every single property that's developed needs to have a CUP, but just to keep the flow of this project and address the neighbors' concerns, it may be in keeping. But I, actually, look for your input in response to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio"Fi January 5, 2005 Page 60 of 93 McKay: Commissioner Rohm, if you left that condition intact that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for either the C -N or the C -G lots, that would just be consistent with your original development agreement and not consistent with what staff has written as a modification. Now, I don't know if Mr. Davis understands that no use could take place unless application was made to the city and a Public Hearing was held and which they would address the use, the landscaping, the operational hours. That's what they are getting. I just thought I better clarify that. Rohm: And thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, I would add additional clarification that we aren't, actually, being asked to approve a commercial use on these properties; they were approved for commercial use to begin with. We are cleaning up the paperwork to specifically identify them as the zone that's called commercial use, because there was a time when the director of the Planning and Zoning Department and this Commission took a whole project and zoned it to one zone and, then, said there were exceptions and as Mrs. McKay alluded to, when people that wanted to build a commercial property as part of a use exception to a residential zone; they had difficulty getting loans, because the underlying zone was not satisfactory to the loan companies. So, this was already identified as being commercial property. We are just cleaning up the paperwork, essentially, so -- but I would comment, you -- when this application originally came you very strongly defended the mini storage and I think most of us agreed that at the time it was a good buffer to what was anticipated in the Winston Moore property. I'm still of the opinion that they would be heavily used, but I'm certain you have done the financials to determine that housing is more important, but I hate to lose that. McKay: I think, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I think one of the detractions from it is that it's tucked in there. Some of the mini storage developers that kind of took a look at it wanted Eagle Road exposure, but they didn't want to pay Eagle Road prices. So, you know, it makes it difficult. Mini storage does not bring a premium per square foot dollar and so that's kind of one of the problem that they had and it is about 7.45 acres. So, it's small compared to some of the ones that are say ten between 12 acres that we have seen in the valley. At the time I did defend it, I thought it was a good buffer and a good use, but in driving out there and looking at that beautiful park and trying to picture mini storage buildings that aren't as esthetically pleasing as residential dwellings, I kind of changed my mind. We are not always right. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify before -- on this application? Okay. Does the Commission have any additional questions of staff and/or applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 61 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions, Mr. Chair, but I would I like to make one comment if I could. Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Very quickly. Regarding the buffer between uses, I'm of the general opinion that the buffers between uses isn't at the -- what's the word I'm looking for -- convenience of the developers, I think it's part of the city code that if there should be a buffer between land uses, there should be a buffer between land uses. So, I'm hesitant to be part of these that says, well, we just agreed, because it works best for you guys not to have a buffer between land uses, because the order of what you're going to put there didn't turn out the way you originally thought. So, I just want to make sure that I'm not giving the indication that I'm in agreement that we don't want to have a buffer between land uses, because I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a buffer between land uses, whether the person purchasing the property is aware that there is commercial development next to it or not. So, I just don't want to have that blanket idea that this entire Commission is in favor of eliminating that land use when those properties come through for development, because I do think down the road that's going to be one of those situations where why don't we have a buffer between land uses. So, I had not put my opinion out there on that and I think there was a lot of time spent discussing it, so that's the end of my comment. Rohm: And thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Borup: The only comment I had to that, it was brought out, but I don't think it was mentioned specifically, but this property was originally zoned C -G. When the Winston Moore property was approved, it was approved C -G, so there was like zoning next to each other. Now, this -- the application before us tonight is going back and asking for a reduction to the R-8. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: But at the time that the C -G was approved it was -- they were, obviously, compatible. Newton-Huckabay: That's assuming you're talking about applying ordinances that suit your -- you know, suit your desire, rather than the intention of the ordinance. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Or is that not right? Hood: I just wanted to -- yeah. I just wanted to clarify. That's been zoned R-8 and the mini storage was approved as a use exception as well. So, they did have a residential Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss3Tf January 5, 2005 Page 62 of 93 zone. It's been residential next to C -G the whole time, as far as zoning goes. It's the uses that are changing, so I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: All right. We pretty thoroughly discussed this. At this point in time I would entertain a motion to possibly close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, and we don't make comments to that fourth -- correct? Rohm: Right. Let's just deal with the three that are open before us. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, all referring to Champion Park Addition. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Now, discussion. Does anybody want to add to Commissioner Newton- Huckabay's comments of a moment ago before we entertain a motion? Zaremba: I would only comment that, in general, I support the land use buffers between changes of use, particularly along residential zones, but in this specific case I'm also sensitive to the fact that there was no difference in the use along this border. If we approve a change to that use, I certainly can be swayed that the property to the east should not suddenly be burdened with the requirement that they did not previously have, because it was C -G to C -G use before. So, as I say, while I generally support the idea of the land use buffers, I can support in the future considering an exception because of how this case has developed. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And I'm glad we share all opinions. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask one more question? Zaremba: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Given the fact that we can't -- we can't make any adjustments to this application speaking to the land use buffer, is that -- am I correct in saying that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 63 of 93 We are just expressing our opinions, I think we should move forward with a motion. Rohm: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: But I'm looking at Craig for validation on that, because I don't want to -- but we can't -- we are not -- we can't attach any land buffer statements to this application officially. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I should probably explain that a little bit more, maybe, what the actual ordinance requires. It requires the land use buffer to be installed by the higher intense use. That would be the C -G -- the Center Point property, not the residential putting in the land use buffer. It is a Conditional Use Permit. I mean you could require a lot of things on this applicant with their MCU. I don't think that's where you're going, but you can address something off site. So, I don't know if that answers your question or not. But, again, the ordinance requires it to be installed by a higher intense use when they are adjacent to a residential use. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any comment? Borup: No. It makes sense. Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: No, I do not. Rohm: Okay. The only additional comment that I would make is the changing of the zoning for the two commercial lots on the front of this property are in keeping with the direction we, as a zoning commission and city, want to go, so that when they are developed, the properties can be marketed as a commercial development. That being said, attaching a CUP to those specific lots, so that there would be opportunity for public input at the time that those lots develop won't hurt the fact that they are being developed commercially and so even though the staff report does not specifically say that a Conditional Use Permit be required for both of those lots, I think just because of the testimony heard tonight and the agreement of the applicant that there is no objection, think that it would be in keeping to add that to the motion to require a CUP for both those lots at such time they are developed. That's just my thoughts on that. Okay. Go ahead. Hood: Mr. Chair, that's all I was going to say, is I was going to reference that -- that's the fourth bullet on page nine of the staff report talks just about that, so there was discussion, if you wanted to change that, what you're doing, essentially, if you remove that bullet is you're changing it back to what the DA requires now and that's that both those lots come in for CUPs in the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio January 5, 2005 Page 64 of 93 Rohm: Okay. So, just the removal of that bullet item? Okay. All right. End of my comments. Anybody else have any final thoughts before we call for a motion? Having none, I would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 05-021, PP 05-061, MCU 05-044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing dated January 5th with the following modifications and that would be on page nine of the staff report, removing the fourth bullet which starts with the applicant is also requesting that pages four, five, et cetera, et cetera, be removed from the staff report, which would, again, then, require CUPs both of the commercial zones on the south portion of the property. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just a discussion for a second. I agree with removing that fourth bullet, but is that -- is that subject repeated as a condition? I'm not finding it. I just want to make sure it doesn't appear in two places and we fail to remove it from both places. I don't see it as a condition, but I could be missing it. Rohm: Okay. Well, I think it's suffice to say that it is the intent of the motion to remove that from the staff report -- Zaremba: Where ever it appears. Rohm: -- where ever it appears and we will just leave it at that. Zaremba: That works for me. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, it's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, to include the staff report with the modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you very much. Let's see -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: We have two more hearings before we get to the subject I think most of the public is here for this evening. You mentioned we won't be opening any public hearings after 11:00 o'clock, which gives us ten minutes to make it to those last Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisst • January 5, 2005 Page 65 of 93 subjects. Do we want to acknowledge that we won't be hearing those or do you want to amend your earlier comments and keep me here until tomorrow? Guenther: Commissioner Newton- H ucka bay, we can get both those items done before 11:00 o'clock. Newton-Huckabay: We can? Guenther: Grace at Fairview Lakes we don't have a staff report. This was a technology glitch. The operator actually entered a 2005 number and so when I reran all of our reports it did not show up. This operator actually entered it in wrong and before I -- Item 23: Public Hearing: 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: Just to keep the ball rolling here, I'm going to go ahead and open up CUP 05- 055, referring to Grace at Fairview Lakes, and open up with the staff report. Guenther: Please continue this item to the 19th where you will have a staff report. Rohm: Okay. Could we get a motion to that effect? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to continue CUP 05-055 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of January 19th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 24: Public Hearing: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus by Ada County — south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 66 of 93 Rohm: All right. Next one. Public Hearing CUP 05-054. It's a request by the Weed and Pest Control Campus by Ada County. I'd like to open this up for Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a use for the public -quasi public use of their campus facilities, which is on the future Lot 3. This hasn't been final platted yet. This conditional use was subject to all of the conditions of approval for the final plat, which would be for -- again, back to the use buffers between residents and industrial uses. The overall campus plan is consistent with the presentation for the preliminary plat that was recently approved and all of the conditions of approval are listed in the staff report. I have not heard from the applicant saying that they were in opposition to any of these, so staff will stand for questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Does the Commission have any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: No. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, if there is an applicant before us, this is the time to come forward, please. Wendell: Yes, Members of the Commission and Chairman. I'm Scott Wendell of Lombard -Conrad Architects, 1221 Shoreline Drive, Boise. And I'll just make this really short. We don't have any problems with the staff report. We have been over them and we have tried to comply with every single one of them and if there are any questions, I stand for those at the moment. Rohm: Okay. Wendell: Just to get this off the docket. Rohm: Okay. Typically, the questions rise when the applicant is not in agreement with the staff report. So, at this time does anybody on the Commission have a question of either applicant or staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. Leave it to me to think of toxic spills and so forth, but, again, this is a property that may have hazardous materials on it. I would assume weed and pest control things are toxic and I just wonder if there is a plan for containment or clean up or -- Wendell: Right. And there is. We are working with Richard Green of the building department and the fire department with those issues. The two buildings that are shown as -- on the right-hand side of that, the two -- actually, there is three buildings. Those are the containment buildings for those types of chemicals. Those are H occupancies and setback from the property line the appropriate amount and we are complying with all -- all the code issues with those containment problems. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 67 of 93 Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Wendell: There is quite a few of them and we are dealing with them, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Wendell: -- quite aware of them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like testify before the Commission on this application? Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close CUP 05-054. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close CUP 05-054. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file No. CUP 05-054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, a site and landscape plan dated November 14th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the Council recommending approval of CUP 05-054. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 North Eagle Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis January 5, 2005 Page 68 of 93 and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Rohm: All right, folks. I didn't think we were going to do it, but I think we are going to hear this last one that many of you are here for and the other, too, actually. And, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you're going to get a short night's sleep tonight. That being said -- Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to hear them all. Rohm: That being said, okay, before I open up any -- or either of these two, I want to make a comment, that we are only going to open up Sadie Creek at this time, but the staff report that we are to hear and comments ultimately affect both projects, but just due to the process, I would prefer to just open up one project at a time. So, with that being said at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049 and could we have the staff report? Guenther: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. For some reason I'm missing one of my files here. I believe there was a problem with the agenda today and it looks like our assistant did not place the Sadie Creek file in the application. However, I have other options, we just don't have a presentation up there. Rohm: Well, it looks like we are going to have one. Guenther: We are going to have a presentation. If these people waited this long and I'm still here, we are going to have a presentation tonight. All right. To get started, the Sadie Creek Promenade presentation is, essentially, going to be for 24 commercial lots on 15.3 acres in the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick. Obviously, we have had a lot of discussion on this area in the last couple hours. This site is most -- one of the two. Like I said, we are going to look at two of these tonight, Bienville and Sadie Creek, with the Commission's direction from the last hearing that both these be looked at together, so that we can take a look at how they interact with each other and some of the problems that are arising, specifically for the -- which is why Bienville has made their request tonight for a continuance, which is for -- the reason they stated was for the cross -access issues and the lack of compatibility between the two projects. In this site you can see that the Sadie Creek Promenade project is located in this intersection here. This is from the Bienville. Mike, freeze that up and we are going to take a look at this. Craig's going to load up the other project, so we get a better view of the Sadie Creek site. But I'll bring up the main points that we are looking at here from staff and that is that they have limited office uses proposed down closest to the Carol Subdivision. You can see Leslie Way on that site. The L -O is -- or not L -O. This is a C -G district, but they are proposing office uses for here. There would be a 25 foot landscape buffer and a 35 foot landscape buffer on Ustick and Eagle. As well as they are proposing to put in the additional landscape buffer to the residences, which would be in Carol Subdivision. There is a lateral that runs through this site, which you can see in this project. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 69 of 93 applicant has designed their site in order to have an access point taken to Eagle Road. Currently staff is receiving inclinations from ITD that no access points to Eagle would be allowed. The applicant has submitted a variance with this application in order to make a petition to the City Council for that -- for that access point right here, which would be a right -in, right -out. With this application staff is with the understanding that City Council would deny this application and that this portion of the site would be redesigned to have a better facility to access Ustick Road. With the design on this, they are proposing large store fronts that would be on their multi -tenant buildings in that location, as well as in the center location. There would be a drive-thru facility with the project up in the intersection of Ustick and Eagle. They are not proposing detailed conditional approval at this time. The Conditional Use Permit that has been submitted is because this is a mixed use regional project within 300 feet of a residence and there was also an application from the development agreement that was presented. I want to go back to this site plan that's kind of shown here. The two properties that were closest to Eagle Road are, apparently, annexed into the City of Meridian as C -G district. The other portion which starts here and runs all the way up to the edge of the Carol Subdivision is the request for the annexation. We are presenting the entire site as one annexation, a conditional use, a preliminary plat, a variance application, and I think that's all of them for this one. The Bienville project is also requesting an Eagle access point, which would -- try and flip back. This access point to Eagle would be in this location, as well this is public street would be looped around here. The staff report for Sadie Creek Promenade does show that we are looking for a cross -access on a commercial project in Sadie Creek Promenade and, then, the proposed commercial C -G district, which would be in the Bienville project. This private street here does not align with the proposed access point in Sadie Creek Promenade as staff would like to see. This would be -- it would be right in this location. This is one of the points of -- I guess the sticking points between the two projects that needs to be resolved between the two projects prior to a final plat condition being applied. Again, this is a public street in the Sadie Creek. I'm going to try and stay more with the Sadie Creek than the Bienville. The proposed access point to Bienville would be in this location and the private street that they are showing would come into, essentially, the back of this building as shown. And, again, this would be in its own individual lot and a lot of this is dependent on if the City Council does grant that variance to this location. If this does go away, as staff is anticipating, then, this connection as being a more thoroughfare private street designed access point between this project and the Sadie Creek project becomes very essential for any type of commercial access from this project to reach Ustick Road, especially considering the portions that would be to the south in this location. This is proposed for R-8 single family residential. This would be an alley -loaded product that are two private streets that would connect these multi -family dwellings, which would be a future condominium type of a design. Currently they are shown as townhouse design, because they have several units on one lot, but, yet, they are -- these would be all individual lots in here in an R-15, as well as the C -G district closest to Ustick or to Eagle. But, again, that is -- that is the reason why we are opening these both together, is because the designs don't match up and we would -- and if this -- there is a lot of ifs with this project that are addressed in the conditioning that the redesign of the front portion of Sadie Creek would need to be done due to this access point being eliminated to Eagle. With that, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 70 of 93 overall concept plan from the development agreement is also what ties both of these projects together. Currently, this area is -- you can see it says not a part, because this is not a part of the current -- the original annexation and you're looking at general commercial, a -- I think that was a multi -family residential designation here, as well as RU would be residential transitional type of uses in this area and so this -- the project that we are looking at tonight, Sadie Creek, would be consistent with what they are looking at for this area, which would be more of the mixed use development for nonresidential uses. I think I want to stand for questions. I'm pretty sure that several of them are going to come up and I think I can better present this by fielding questions from the Commission at this point, so at this point I'll stand for Commission questions. Rohm: Sounds good tome. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Would you go to -- I think it was called dimensioned plan. And what I'm trying to orient is what's happening across the street, a property that we were talking about earlier tonight. Is this the driveway that would be the front of Kohl's? Kohl's here and this would be the back? Guenther: Yes, Mr. -- Commissioner Zaremba. This would be the signalized intersection, which would have a private -- the public street access that you so diligently redesigned an hour ago, with the landscape buffers. This would be the full access point to Ustick and Eagle. This would be able to take a right access to Ustick, as well as a westerly access point. The closest one to the intersection would be right -in, right -out. The ACHD staff report for this site is exactly the same staff report as what was submitted for the Kohl's project and the Winston Moore development immediately north of this site. Ustick Road has been improved in this area and these access points are already planned into that. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, my comment along Eagle is that we do have in our packet a letter from ITD saying that they don't want any access there, even right -in, right -out, which agrees with what we anticipate the City Council will want is no access. Guenther: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. This is a very unique site due to the fact that ITD's policy says that access points to half mile only. We do have Leslie Way, which comes in just south of the site, the proposal for a right -in, right -out access to the Bienville development, then, a proposal for a right -in, right -out access to the Sadie Creek development. If I could look into a crystal ball and know what the City Council is going to do, then, I could better condition these in order to figure out how things are going to be developed. The Winston Moore project did receive three access points all the way down to the quarter mile, which were against ACHD's policy -- or ITD's policy. However, the Winston Moore site had their access permits in long before we actually had our UDC and I believe that was the direction that the City Council used in order to grant their variance. However, each variance will be taken on a case-by-case basis and so we are not entirely sure how this would eventually get an access point or if it would get an access point, due to the fact that the Eagle Road corridor study says that the only access point should be at River -- I think it's River View. Whatever it is at -- just by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 71 of 93 the school site, which is the half mile. And so, obviously, none of these roads are supposed to be here. However, due to the fact that the Carol Subdivision and existing residences in there, there was no way for this side of the road to actually provide the frontage road as what ITD's policy also states. So, there is no way for the policy to actually be compliant. So, again, this is why staff is finding that the private street and the facilitation of traffic to Ustick is most important for this site and that more of the uses should be directed to Ustick than to Eagle. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I suspect I'm going to state the obvious, but it seems silly to me that we would have these two projects going through the system at virtually the same time and they could be no more coordinated than this when they get here. Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, one point to keep -- Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Huckabay. Guenther: My accent sometimes gets in the way when I get tired. This is a conceptual design with the preliminary plat. The platted lines in commercial development can change without coming back to the Commissioner or Council and so when you grant them -- or if you grant them the 22 commercial lots that they are proposing for the Sadie Creek development, all of those lot lines can change. We are only seeing a conceptual development, which is why we are still recommending approval of this site, because we know that either the Sadie Creek developers or the Bienville developers in the commercial lots can redesign those lots to meet our conditions for that access point. How they do it, really, for the commercial type of developments -- and the user said they can market to, staff just wants to insure that the goals and policies of the ordinance and Comp Plan are met. So, I'm sorry, I didn't -- if I can't really answer that, but we -- Newton-Huckabay: But you are making a comment, then -- Guenther: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I mean I understand that -- it just seems to me that we could have been through this by now -- not by action by you, but I would have -- what I'm saying is I would have liked to have seen the developers work a little closer, since they were working in concert as far as the time line goes. Moe: Are they going to Council in regards to the variance for the entry? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 72 of 93 Guenther: We won't schedule the variance until the bulk of the applications reach -- because the City Council wants to see developments proposed before they grant variances. They want to know what they are granting a variance to. At least that's been our understanding. So, this variance request -- or these two variance requests -- the Sadie Creek variance request will go with the bulk of this application and this variance request would go to City Council with the Bienville applications. If this one gets scheduled to be heard on the same night, that's probably going happen, too, if these projects are close enough to each other. Moe: Well, I just -- I question that, because I find it hard to believe that Council would actually approve both. Possibly one, but both I rather doubt it and I guess if I was a betting person I would anticipate the farther one south would be the one that might possibly be approved and, basically, just looking at the plan as it is right now, I would anticipate that the property to the north should be able to make some connectivity to the south property, you know, as staff -- as you guys had requested to get out to Ustick Road. Guenther: We have put in conditions of approval that that be done. Moe: Well, I guess we will listen to the applicant and we will get an understanding. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I just would like to comment -- and I think this is along the lines of what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was thinking about that coordinated effort. If I can, I'd like to read a sentence from a letter that is actually in the public record for Bienville, but not in this public record. This is from Redcliff Development, signed by Robert C. Unger. His first sentence is: We have recently met with the developers of the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade to coordinate street alignments and cross -access. It appears that both projects will require changes to accomplish a coordinated development within the combined properties. And, then, he goes on to say that's the reason he is requesting a 30 day continuance and not hearing Bienville tonight. But I wanted to comment that those two sentences give me a great deal of hope that some coordination can come out of this and I just wanted that to be part of this record as well. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Borup: Mr. Chairman? I still have another -- or one more question for Joe and I think that was on the slide labeled the concept plan. This was -- was this part of when the annexation took place? Isn't that what you said? Guenther: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 73 of 93 Borup: So, what are -- at that time I mean were any of these zone designations approved or were they required or what's the status of that concept as far as -- as far as what was approved and what would be expected to be followed. Guenther: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Borup. This concept plan was developed without zoning codes in mind. Everything that was annexed was annexed as C -G. There is no other zoning designations on any of these properties. This was one of the first annexations that City Council tied to a development agreement to a concept plan. The history of it I guess goes very deep and I guess they were really tentative in accepting these, which caused some of these -- some of these other applicants to back out of this development and, essentially, that's why we have holes in this development. Some of the original land owners did not -- they did not want to sign into this type of a development concept plan. Again, this is also a portion which is on the southeast portion of Ustick and Eagle, but the CO and the multi -family that were projected in there are consistent with the Bienville site that is tied to this development agreement, as well as the more intense commercial at the corner. With this application, though, you will note that we are requiring a development agreement, which will overwrite this development agreement and that would be for both projects as individual projects, so that they would no longer be tied to the same development agreement. Borup: One of the reasons I bring that up -- I don't know that this came before this Commission. Is this something that came out in -- so this was before City Council? Guenther: This was only before City Council. Borup: That's why I didn't recognize it. Guenther: Yeah. Back in -- I believe it was 2003. Borup: Yeah. I mean I remember when the annexation first came forth, but I don't believe we had a concept plan. So, this was brought out at a Public Hearing that the multi -family was proposed for this area? Guenther: Yes. This was brought before the City Council as what could happen to this site. Since then concept plans have gotten much more detailed, obviously. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, at the time that we forwarded it to City Council our request was that the concept plan would show the accesses to both Ustick and Eagle and internally, either backage or frontage roads and, again, I say this is the project is the example we use as a bad example of how this Commission was burned by forwarding something that we didn't see the final issue on. This is not, to me, a complete concept plan. Borup: And what is this designation right here. I can't quite make that out. Can anybody read that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisslafi January 5, 2005 Page 74 of 93 Guenther: TU. Transitional use. Borup: Okay. Transitional use. That's a new zoning term in our ordinance. Rohm: Maybe at this time it's best to just ask the applicant to come forward and maybe she can shed some light on the subject. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group, and, I'm sorry, my address is 1882 Tobic Way in Boise. As you know the site is located at the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick and we are proposing to develop approximately 15 acres with three different -- three different parcels and just so you know our history on this. We have -- my client purchased the 11 acres from Mr. Egee, the one that did not get annexed with the development agreement in 2004. They purchased that this last summer and they haven't quite closed on the corner yet, but that's going to happen this month in January. So, they are still acquiring the property. Currently we are processing applications for an annex and rezone of approximately 7.7 acres, a preliminary -- or a preliminary parcel map for the entire 15 acres and Conditional Use Permit, which is required of the original development agreement of April 2004, and because we are adjacent to residential -- existing residential uses. We have read the staff report and we agree with all the conditions as they relate to the agenda items tonight. We are still processing a variance, though, with the -- with City Council for the accesses. I want to -- I will just shed some light on -- as far as -- can you go back to the site plan that shows the two properties? We have met several times with the Bienville folks and, in fact, originally, we wanted to submit these together and, then, they kind of went back and forth. If you notice right here, that is a very very close connection. I mean it's off by just a little bit and it has a lot to do with these are conceptual drawings. But that is -- that is a location that could connect. And, then, we also have another location down there. With our discussions with ACHD, they do not want it to be another situation where it's a road coming through, because they do not want to promote, necessarily, traffic going to that access, because it is a right -in, right -out and it's so close to the intersection. So, they want the access points that we have between the two properties to be convenient for customers -- you know, commercial customers going in this area, but not necessarily for a thoroughfare for this road just to come all the way through and connect to Ustick. So, they want us to make that purposely so you meander through the parking lot, so it's not this thoroughfare. So, I guess it does look a little bad, because it doesn't line up exactly, but the intent is that it does line up. And we have worked closely with Bienville that -- and we will comply with the condition that we will have cross -accesses. But, again, as Joe said, this is a conceptual plan. It could end up where this building is here, it could end up at more of these small retail build -- I'm sorry, office buildings. We plan on developing this project as the tenant interest comes. So, with the way development is right now, you can't get tenants to look at a site until you, actually, have it titled and ready to pull building permits, because there is just so much activity going on that tenants don't have the resources to -- to give their real estate committee to get out here to look at things, to have their attorneys put together leases and purchase agreements Meridian Planning & Zoning CommISS1T771 January 5, 2005 Page 75 of 93 and stuff like that until we actually have a viable site, they don't -- they don't commit the resources to that. So, today I can't tell you what the tenants would be, so that's why it is conceptual in nature and for a tentative map we are asking for a certain number of lots, but those could move around slightly and -- but we will comply with the conditions for cross -access. You all look more confused now than you did before. A little bit onto the neighbors. We met twice with the neighbors and due to the sensitivity of the neighbors down here to our west -- I'm sorry -- yeah, to our west, we have agreed to limit these two buildings to single story. So, anything between the property line and where this road is coming in, that those buildings be single story. They will have their entrances oriented away from the west -- or east property line. I'm sorry. Our west property line, their east property line. So, they will be looking more south and east, instead of west, as far as the front building -- the front facades of the buildings. And the neighbors have asked us -- and on the staff report it states that we didn't have anything in there yet about fencing and the neighbors have asked us for a six foot concrete block fence and we have committed to them that that's what we will put in on our property line. I forgot to mention I have our civil engineer with me tonight if you guys have specific questions about how different things work and I did want to point out also -- if you will go to the dimension plan. I think it's -- yeah. Can't read those -- the red writing very well, but we have complied with all the landscape setbacks. We have a 35 -foot buffer all along here and I believe Joe said this was only required to be a 25 -foot buffer, but we have -- on our plan right now we have a 35 -foot buffer shown. And, then, adjacent to the residential uses is -- by code it's only 25 feet and we have put 30 feet here. And, then, again, this is a public right of way. This will be dedicated as a public street coming through and, then, again, we have several cross -access points that we can do in these areas, but ACHD asked us specifically not to have a thoroughfare straight through. I guess in conclusion I'd just like to reiterate that the proposed development is consistent with the development agreement that was approved in April 2004, which was -- we are inheriting that development agreement, but we have complied with it. But, you know, can we go to that? I'm sorry. The concept plan. The concept plan does show the accesses -- if you could read this down here, A note there says ACHD approved accesses. And, then, B has ITD approved accesses. And this is a B and that is a B and, then, we have A's here and here. So, with our site plan, it had that that was an approved access with ITD, so that's why we were showing the access on our site plan. But we will -- we have applied for a right of way permit with ITD and we will comply with -- you know, if they come back with a no, then, we will comply with that. So, anyway, in conclusion, our proposed development is consistent with the development agreement, the City of Meridian development code, and the Comprehensive Plan, including complying with all of the landscape setbacks and easements. So, I thank you for your time and consideration and for staying extra late to hear us, because I really didn't want to come back again. Rohm: You might be. Thompson: So, I would respectfully request a recommend from you, so we can get onto Council. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss n January 5, 2005 Page 76 of 93 Rohm: Any questions of the applicant before she sits down? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Probably for you. And I don't know if I'm clear, but I'm anticipating a lot of the testimony is probably going to be pertaining to the Bienville project. How do you want to handle that? Rohm: Well -- Borup: Take testimony without opening that? Rohm: Actually, I think that I'm just going to go ahead and take the names in order on this application and, then, see how that testimony goes and, then, I will try and figure something out from there. But I'm going to take testimony on the open application at this time. Borup: Sadie Creek only? Rohm: At this time I have got a list of names and all of this may come much clearer to us after hearing testimony on the application that's before us. So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to ask Betty Rosso if she'd like to come forward. Okay. Sam Chambers. We'll get through this list pretty quickly. Baird: Mr. Chair? I'd recommend that you reiterate the comments that you have heard for the record, since they are not near the microphone. Just for the record, Mrs. Rosso did submit a letter for AZ 05-057, which we have not opened yet. And the gentleman that spoke indicated that he just wanted to let people know he was here. Rohm: Okay. All right. And thank you. I appreciate that. Ady Chambers. From the audience she said she didn't intend to speak. Candy Seeley. Candy does not intend to speak. Jeannine Helms. Does not intend to speak. Bill Knorpp. Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp, I own one of the lots on Leslie Way. Actually, I border onto the -- Rohm: Need an address, too, please, sir. Knorpp: 2972 Leslie Drive. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissTisn January 5, 2005 Page 77 of 93 Knorpp: My only comment about the one that's open is that I don't think you have jurisdiction over it, but I would prefer that they not have access to Eagle Road. The reason being is that it -- well, if they do, if will funnel traffic right down our road. So, most of my comments are about what's in back of me, which you don't have open yet. But that one comment is that I would prefer that we -- that they not have access to Eagle Road. Either one of the two have access to Eagle Road for that reason, because it will funnel traffic. Anybody who is trying to go north, come out, go around through our subdivision and go out left, north, at Eagle and Ustick. Borup: It would be quicker going to Ustick. Knorpp: You look puzzled, like you didn't understand what I just said. Newton-Huckabay: Could you use a pointer and show the traffic flow that you're envisioning here? Knorpp: Yes. I can try. If the pointer works. So, if they go out of this side here, if they go out here, if they want to go left, but they can't, so what are they going to do? They are going to come out here, go over to our road, go down our road, go out this way, come out here, and turn left. Newton-Huckabay: You don't think they will just exit to the north of the property? Borup: Wouldn't it be easier just to go out here? Knorpp: Well, it would if they are -- if they are there and they can do it, but it's more probably a comment from this side over here, but these people here would probably just go north, because they will have access there. The ones that are most likely to do it are the ones over here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: I think for me -- one of the hard things for me to imagine is the maps turned 90 degrees from what you typically view and so I have to adjust my thinking. But thank you for your comments tonight. Okay. Next Jim Hatmaker. From the audience he said that Billy has spoken to the same issues. Jim Lott. Okay. And Joan Lott as well. Joann. Joann Lott. Presumably she's gone home, too. Steve Grant. Grant: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way and my property is on the western boundary of this proposed development and I just want to make a couple comments. First of all, we appreciate the developer's effort to communicate with the homeowners. They have done a nice job with getting us together and explaining things in their proposals. I think that the planned development will be attractive and a plus for the area. I'd like the Commission to note that the developer committed, has she's already stated, to making the buildings on that western boundary single story and not facing west. I think the staff report also noted that, that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 78 of 93 they also committed to a masonry fence that's also been mentioned. And in previous applications for the zoning development of these parcels, the Commission supported the residents request for a transition development from our residential to be some kind of a light office commercial and this plan addresses that concern for at least their portion. Bienville, of course, is a different issue. The -- a couple items to keep in mind, as Billy Knorpp has mentioned, that the residents of our subdivision are very concerned about the traffic issues with regard to -- and I think they have been outlined. The question remains as to how much traffic would actually go down Leslie Way. I think it's reasonable to assume that there would be an increase. How much of an increase is -- would be determined by what's built there. But I also would like to call your attention to a letter I received and I made a comment to the ITD after this Sadie Creek, the one that we dealt with last year, and they sent me a letter saying that they would grant temporary access to Eagle Road, but when access was established to Ustick that that access should be closed. I have that letter if you'd like to make a copy. Maybe you already have the information, I don't know. And I recognize that those variances are still pending and the outcome of those is undetermined, but we certainly -- as Billy Knorpp has suggested, do not support either one of those accesses, because of the traffic issue. Rohm: To Eagle Road. Grant: To Eagle Road. Yes. Moe: Sir, if I could ask one question? Grant: Sure, Moe: Based on his testimony earlier, he was concerned about people wanting to go north. But if you had people traveling Eagle Road and wanted to get into this end of this development and the closest access point, turning right, then, is onto Leslie to go all the way around, you guys aren't that concerned about traffic going that route, as opposed to -- Newton-Huckabay: Or turning west off Eagle Road. Grant: Turning west off of Eagle Road. Well, the same issue. It's right -in and right -out. Those wanting to go north are going to go through there. Some of them are. And those that are traveling south -- I guess I have said that backwards, but you have -- you know, if you're leaving, you're fine. If you wanted to go south on Eagle Road and you leave there, you're right -in and right -out, you're fine. If you -- when you're coming home, you're going to do the exact opposite, you're going to go all the way to Ustick, take a left, go back through, and, then, come back to that way, because there is no other way to get there. Meridian Planning & Zoning COMM S, January 5, 2005 Page 79 of 93 Moe: Just hadn't heard anyone discuss that. I just -- I just foresee people driving south on Eagle and wanting to get in there, already passing Ustick and the closest access point to try and get back around to it is going to be right through your subdivision. Grant: And that's also, you know, a concern. Borup: So, you're saying maybe less traffic through there for people heading south if there is at least one access is what you're trying to say? Grant: I mean that's problematic. Again, no one really knows, but -- Moe: Only time will tell. Grant: Only time will tell and those are -- but, again, it underscores our concern as residents what's going on. We would like to -- one of the issues we have is that whatever is decided with this development in terms of fencing and landscaping, we want to have that be consistent with the Bienville project. So, if the masonry wall is anticipated, that only carries -- or covers a couple of lots and wouldn't be the greatest idea to have a masonry wall for about 300 feet and, then, chain link the rest of the way. And so we hope that you will consider that whatever one does it would be -- you know, with berms and landscaping, et cetera, would be done with the others. I would like to request that we increase the density of normal landscaping 50 percent, so that that's adequately taken care of. In the early stages when plant vegetation is always pretty sparse and ten years later you got to cut it way back, it's just too much. But we'd like you to consider that as another transitional issue. The street lights in that subdivision in that development, we hope it would have the residential shields on them, so that light would be directed towards the ground and I believe those are the issues that I have concerns about, so unless there are any questions, I would conclude my remarks. Moe: Just one question regarding -- let's go back to the landscape. Can you go back over that one more time? You're already going to have a CMU wall that's between your property line -- you know, in this development. Are you speaking in general of the landscaping along Ustick? Grant: No. I'm speaking of the land -- it's anticipated there would be a wall and, then, there would be in that 30 -foot buffer that there be a berm, that that berm would be landscaped with trees, evergreens, deciduous trees, et cetera. Just asking to consider increasing the density to create an additional barrier. Also, it's anticipated, as you can see, that the -- there would be residential properties, if any of those are second story, we would like to request that none of them have windows facing west. Newton-Huckabay: Those are offices. Grant: Not as you see there. I mean on the Bienville. Newton-Huckabay: We are not talking -- okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 80 of 93 Grant: I'm trying to handle all at once. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We can't do that, though. Grant: Well, I'm just saying if they were residential, we ought to consider that and we can -- when that comes forward we will come back and make the same comment, but just so you're aware. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Yes. Grant: Be thinking about that. Anything else? Rohm: Thank you. Grant: Thank you for your time. Rohm: That's the end of the list of people that have signed up for this, but at this time -- come forward. Thurston: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 North Leslie Way. My house is bordering the planned development here on the west side. The list was gone when I came here, so that's why my name is not there. wanted to testify and get my name in the record, so it's known that I'm here and I'm very much interested in this. I'd like to just reiterate what already has been said about the concerns for the traffic. I think Billy Knorpp and Steve Grant have already talked about it to an extent and I think that's one of the major concerns. The other one is the barrier around the west part of the property, that the barrier starts in this Sadie Creek Promenade, that barrier needs to continue on, the fence, the berm, the distance that barrier needs to carry all the way through not only on the west, but also on the south. So, it wraps around so it's consistent and it's esthetic to everybody that sees it. So, that's, basically, all I'm saying. I think the developer has done a good job on this. It's more consistent I think what Planning and Zoning was looking for initially when this was first annexed and the development plan was approved, they were looking for something light office and I think this meets that requirement. So, I'll close that and thank you for the time. Rohm: Thank you. Does any other Commissioner have any questions of either staff or the applicant at this time? Doesn't appear that there are any questions, so at this time I would request a motion to -- Baird: Mr. Chair, it might be appropriate at this time to see if the applicant has some specific rebuttal. Rohm: Oh. Good. I apologize. Would the applicant like to come back up? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commist January 5, 2005 Page 81 of 93 Thompson: Tamara Thompson again. Just a couple of things to Mr. Grant's later request. As far as the streetlights, I'm not sure if the city has a requirement for residential shields or not, but that's not a problem. Anything adjacent to the residential uses we can definitely put residential shields on. I'd have to look at denser landscape. I'm not sure what -- it seems like all that would do is block the wall and kind of what I'm envisioning is a nice, integral color, split faced block wall that kind of has some texture to it. So, I'm thinking -- you know, I'll talk to Mr. Grant, but maybe we can work on maybe some height of trees, if we can get some taller trees in there or something that will help block the view over the six feet, instead of just making it really dense to where you can't see the wall, but, you know, I think I know what his concerns are and I'll talk to him and we will see if we can work something out there. I could go into a lot of things on the traffic, but I know that this -- it's going before City Council for the variance, so will just leave it for that time if that's okay with you guys. Rohm: Works for me. Moe: I do have one question. I guess I'm just curious. Have you had conversations with the other developer as of late in regards to their project and yours, based on the letter that Mr. Zaremba spoke of earlier? Thompson: I just found out today that they were asking for a continuance on theirs. But we -- we were in discussions prior, but I think with the holidays we kind of -- you know, you kind of lose track of a couple of weeks and all of a sudden today was here. So, we did talk earlier today and we are discussing some other issues and we have made plans to get together early next week. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Thompson, I do have a question. Actually, a couple. Do you -- let me back up and -- the generic general concept plan that you showed and you had approved access, actually showed it almost right at the property line, not in the middle of the property. Thompson: If you will go to that plan, please, Joe. This is where it has it and right here is the property line. Zaremba: I see. On the -- Thompson: Yeah. So that's the -- it's confusing. Zaremba: I appreciate that. And the other question is if your variance request is denied, what other -- what's plan B? Thompson: Well, we have three accesses onto -- onto Ustick. The problem is that tenants in their real estate committees, their -- one of the main things that they look at is access and so that could be a hindrance for us for obtaining approval for, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis3R6n January 5, 2005 Page 82 of 93 some desirable tenants. We are hoping -- Redcliff and us are working closely with ITD and, you know, if we can't have the two, then, you know, we are hoping for a combined one. But the issue there is timing for both projects really have to go at around the same time for that to work and, you know, I don't know their timing and I, actually, don't know our timing, because once we have this approval, then, you know, we will really have the tenants starting to look at the project. So, we are really hoping that by next summer we will be able to start construction on this. But I can't tell you that for sure. But it will be problematic as far as obtaining quality tenants for here without access. And, you know, that does look relatively close, but to put it in perspective, that's longer than a football field right there. It's close to 400 feet. Thank you. Since it was bowl week last week. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: I guess my only comment to parcels is at this point in time it's still known specific cross -access point, it's access. Thompson: And we both want that, too. the cross -access agreement between the two conceptual, so even though it -- there is not a known that it's desirous to have that cross - Rohm: And I think that -- that is the meat of the issue, is that as long as both parcels are acknowledged that cross -access is desirous and this project moves forward tonight and gains approval, at such point in time that you actually develop that relationship between you and the property to the south, it has to cement it, you have to come up with something that will work for both. Thompson: Right. Right. And we are both very -- well, I don't want to speak for Mr. Unger, but I'm definitely aware of that and I would like cross -access. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Rohm: Any additional questions of the Commission of either applicant or staff? Comments? Zaremba: I would ask staff -- and probably I need to see a larger area plan. The one that was sideways would work. That one. Again, it's the access issue and realize we are not talking about the neighboring property, but the logic to me is since this is signalized, they are not proposing that it go anywhere. It would make sense to me that there be a total back -age road that comes out approximately here and I think ITD could be talked into making that a full access signalized. It would be probably a third of a mile from the Ustick interchange, that an internal road would loop like this to connect to it. To me, that would get everybody pretty much all the access they need, without all of the extra driveways and now my question to staff is what's the likelihood that the City Council is going to approve the variance for this access? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissl3n January 5, 2005 Page 83 of 93 Guenther: I got my crystal ball at Wal-Mart, so let me see what it says. It's fairly likely that one access point to Ustick will be -- or not Ustick -- Eagle will be approved by City Council. Most likely the access point here will also be tied in with the project across the street. There is commercial development that has been applied for this location. Due to constraints on the property, other issues, this one most likely could be the most probable for the south, but at this time I believe Mr. Unger has an ITD application for access in -- that was in prior to our ordinance being adopted and so he -- from staffs standpoint he has a good case for having that access. That would be up to ITD. Rohm: Really, all that speaks to, though, is the -- the need for that cross -access between the two parcels, is if, in fact, ITD or ACHD, either one, only grant one single access out onto Eagle Road from the combined developments of both parcels, that just says that you got to have that cross -access between the two for either of them to be totally viable. So, anyway, that's as I see it. Borup: Question on Eagle Road. Is ITD still talking about a raised landscape median? Guenther: That's the long-term plan. Borup: Okay. Guenther: Which is why this access point in the Bienville project, even though it appears to be a full road section, is still only a right -in, right -out. Borup: Right. That's why I was wondering why it was coordinated with the one across the street. If it's a raised median there it really doesn't make any difference, does it? Rohm: Unless it's signalized. Newton-Huckabay: Can we move on? Rohm: I was going to say, let's -- Newton-Huckabay: I asked if we could move on. Rohm: I think that's a good idea. Let's -- I think that we have kicked this around quite a bit. Let's close the Public Hearing and go from there. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: My comments would be to make this decision after we have seen Bienville and given them a chance to talk to each other and do any realignments they need to do. My preference would be to continue this. Meridian Planning & Zoning COMMA January 5, 2005 Page 84 of 93 Rohm: I'm not opposed to that either, so -- if that's the motion you want to make. Newton-Huckabay: That isn't my preference. Could we see what everybody else's is? Borup: That was my original one, but -- Rohm: Let's do that. Let's get the Public Hearing closed and, then, we -- Baird: I'd recommend you take that poll before you close the Public Hearing, in case you decide to continue it. Zaremba: Let's do it this way: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049 to align with Bienville, which I believe we will probably continue to February 2nd for the purpose of coordinating the two projects and allowing both applicants to work out some of the issues together. End of motion. Rohm: Do we have a second? Zaremba: The answer would be that the motion dies for lack of a second. Guenther: May I make a suggestion that if you want to make a decision tonight, it would be easiest to just move this item to the end of the agenda, hear the Bienville, ask your questions of the applicant, and that one, since it is -- there is no conditions for anything in there, that that would be continued on and, then, you would have more information on the coordination and cooperation between the two projects before coming back to Sadie Creek Promenade. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? Wasn't the point that was made at the beginning of this, is this is a conceptual plan, so the actual location of the cross - access, which is the only real point we are talking to, is irrelevant to Bienville project and we could make a decision now and -- there is no new information that we are going to get, other than -- is that the only outstanding issue was the cross -access? Whether they get their access to Eagle Road is independent of the other project, is it not? Guenther: That is correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Before the hearing I was of the same feeling as Commissioner Zaremba. I was not feeling to continue this on without having a cross -access decided, but I do feel different. I don't think -- it's, one, likely not going to stay where it's talked about anyway. They are going to have to work the design out, as long as it's not that straight thoroughfare. The preliminary design they have now kind of handled that. They have got buildings blocking the straight access anyway. I think that is something that can be worked out later. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission M January 5, 2005 Page 85 of 93 Rohm: The point being is that cross -access has to -- Borup: Well, it's probably more important to Sadie than it is to Bienville. Rohm: Well, but at the end of the day cross -access has to take place and whether or not this conceptual layout changes or remains as it is -- and the adjacent property layout changes, the point is is that cross -access is going to be part of a motion to forward this onto City Council recommending approval. So, with that being said, I would be willing to entertain a motion to that effect. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, If that's the direction this is going, the first thing would be to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05- 052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Rohm: Okay. Four close and one against. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Okay. Now, before we move forward with a motion, I would -- any commissioner that has final thoughts on where this all washed out, this is the best opportunity to speak your -- speak your position. Borup: Just one clarification. I don't know if it makes any difference on the file number. We have a discrepancy on whether it's 52 or 53. Rohm: It's 41. Borup: No. No. No. On the file number. Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me. Borup: Your agenda says 52. The application says 53. Rohm: Boy, you got me. Baird: Mr. Chair, for the record, we would default to the one that's on the staff report. It's likely that the agenda is a misprint. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm' January 5, 2005 Page 86 of 93 Borup: The motion was in correct, too, then, if that's the case. Baird: And we could just clear the record now by saying that number as stated on the staff report would be the correct number. Is that correct, staff? Guenther: Can I ask Commissioner Borup. Which application? Is it the annexation or the preliminary plat that's got the wrong numbering on it? Borup: The preliminary plat. Newton-Huckabay: No. No. It was the annexation. Borup: Oh, then, they are all wrong. Two of them. Guenther: The annexation is 52 and the preliminary plat is 53. Borup: Okay. So, the annexation is 50 on the staff report? Newton-Huckabay: On this staff report. Guenther: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, the staff report is wrong. Guenther: I'll have to verify that, since my assistant didn't leave me the file. Baird: We need to clear that up right now, that -- Guenther: The application on the staff report should be correct and that's the way it was advertised. We need some new numbers here and I'll -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's been AZ 05-050 on all of the old reports from the continuance. Guenther: I believe it's 50. Oh five oh. Newton-Huckabay: I'll look on the original transmittal. Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the current plat is 05-028, stated in the application. Rohm: Okay. What is the -- Newton-Huckabay: The annexation. Rohm: The annexation. So got one right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss3n January 5, 2005 Page 87 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just the annexation that's wrong. Borup: Oh, this one says 52. Zaremba: The staff report is pretty consistent throughout in using 050. Rohm: Except for on the cover sheet. Green: The annexation is 052. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, for the record, these are the only files that we have for Sadie Creek Promenade. If there is any further discrepancy, we can correct that through a ministerial action to correct any further errors, but I think it's clear the actions that you're taking and the property that you're taking it on, if there is further discrepancies, the numbers will clear it up. But, like I say, your actions will, in fact, be on the record and will be forwarded to Council. Borup: I shouldn't have brought it up, then. Rohm: I had forgotten that we voted. Okay. We are going to do this again. All right. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council -- okay. Newton-Huckabay: No. We just closed the Public Hearing. Rohm: Do we want to go ahead and close it again? Borup: No. It's closed. Rohm: Okay. It's closed. Okay. At this point, then, I'd entertain a motion for -- Newton-Huckabay: There were no changes to the staff report that we -- is that correct? Rohm: Commissioner Newton Huckabay, you have got the mike. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval of File Nos. PP 05-053, AZ 05-050 or 52, to be clarified later, CUP 05-049 as presented in staff report for the original hearing date of November 17th -- do I amend that to today's date or yesterday's date? Borup: Just say the final hearing day of January. Newton-Huckabay: For final hearing of January 5th, 2006, with the site plan dated September 15th, 2005, with no modifications. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissl'dfi January 5, 2005 Page 88 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. All three of these applications pertaining to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Zaremba: No. And I would like to state for the record that my objection focuses mainly on the access to Eagle Road. Most of the rest of the project is what you would expect, but if the access to Eagle Road goes away, then, there would need to be some redesign. That's the whole purpose of my objection. Rohm: Okay. Motion carries and objection noted. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 25: Public Hearing: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 26: Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C- G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 27: Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi -family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 28: Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC — 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Because everybody has taken the time and effort to stick it out with us until this hour, I would not be opposed to opening the last item on our agenda and at least hearing it out and given the people that have taken the time to come before us to speak to that. Does anybody on the Commission have a significant objection to it? Borup: I don't. I think -- Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of that. I don't know that we, necessarily, vote on it tonight, but I think in my mind it's important to get the testimony from those here, in case it would require any redesign, it would be important to have that tonight, rather to continue it on any longer. I don't know that it necessarily would, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi n January5, 2005 Page 89 of 93 Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'm confused. We received a letter from the applicant and they are actually requesting -- and Commissioner Zaremba brought it up earlier. They are requesting, you know, a deferral for one month in regard to this project, so I don't know what we are all going to hear tonight that's going to do us any good, because they want the - Newton-Huckabay: Do it again in a month. Rohm: I guess the reason I want to open it, more than anything else, is because I want to give the audience an opportunity to speak that has stayed here until ten minutes after 12:00 and if there is testimony that any of them want to make, we can open it, take testimony, and continue it to a later meeting, but they will have an opportunity to speak tonight if that can still -- Guenther: Commissioner Rohm? That -- we don't have an analysis or conditions of approval and staff wouldn't be able to assist this at all on any type of rebuttal or answering of any questions, so I'm not sure if testimony is appropriate. Baird: Mr. Chairman? And, furthermore, one, we don't have a full staff report, evidently, you don't have a full application, complete application, so the comments from the public, although useful, would be incomplete and they would probably want to come back and comment again later. So, my suggestion would be is that you open it to hear from applicant regarding his motion to continue and take action on that first. Just one step at a time. Rohm: I think that's an excellent idea. Borup: I still wonder if it would be appropriate, maybe, just to hear from one representative from the -- Guenther: Mr. Chairman, again, the applicant has told me that his reason is that his application changes that he wants to make are so substantial that it affects all testimony for tonight and he's here to explain that to you. If we open it, allow him the explanation for why he is going to continue it, what he's probably projecting -- you can ask him questions and the audience would be able to understand why they sat here so long, hopefully. Rohm: Okay. That's --I'm -- Borup: Makes sense now. Rohm: Fair enough. Okay. With that being said, I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052, and due to the fact that we do not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 90 of 93 have a complete staff report, we are going to forego the staff report and go straight to applicant's shortened presentation. Unger: Mr. Chair and Commission Members, my name is Bob Unger, I'm with Redcliff Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle. 83616. We have requested deferment for a month for a redesign of the project. I'm going to make this very very short. First of all, it was to work with the developers of the Sadie Creek Promenade project on the cross -accesses, et cetera. But in addition -- and one of the main reasons we submitted this request, was that we have been approached by a user who is extremely interested in the project, but the combined projects, and as such we are working on a redesign with them right now for not solely our part, but even, possibly, a portion of the Sadie Creek Promenade properties. One of the first things that we are going to do is all of the residential that we have proposed here will go away, which I think all of these neighbors are going to love that. And, then, the -- and we do anticipate having this resolved within the next week. Once those revisions -- once we have made those revisions and they are complete, we would get together with your staff to review those revisions, to make a determination as to whether our change is substantial enough that a new application needs to be submitted and our current application withdrawn and we will work with your staff to make that determination and that is primarily where we stand right now. I think, you know, we understand cross -access agreements and certainly the developers over here on Sadie Creek Promenade, we have discussed this back and forth, we are all aware of it. And there were never any real issues there. I think that it's huge that we are going to make these changes and, to be perfectly honest with you, it appears that we will have to withdraw and resubmit. And it very well could be -- and I don't know this at this point, but it may include more than just our portion, it may also include some area over here, too, in theirs also. So, that's why we are requesting this -- this postponement for one month. And also we want to let the neighbors know and you know that once we get these changes done, we will notify neighbors and have a new neighborhood meeting to review the revised plan with them. I think they are going to -- I have spoken with a couple of their representatives here this evening prior to getting to this point this evening and kind of explained where we were going and what we were going to do with the project. They seemed to be very interested and much happier than what we have shown up to this point. So, at that point that's -- that's where we are at, why we are asking for this postponement. Borup: You're right. That explanation helps a lot. Rohm: And your explanation, in my mind, kind of leans me towards withdrawal and a new application, if the residential portion is going away and the reason why I state this -- Borup: Let's let staff decide that. Rohm: Well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi6n January 5, 2005 Page 91 of 93 Guenther: We will go through it probably next week when they have a better understanding -- that if they are going to change it or not. Rohm: If you're going to drop the residential or -- Unger: Yes. Rohm: I guess that that's just a big if, but it sounds like that's more than likely the -- I guess the reason why I even bring this up is if you were to withdraw it, is it a complete different process for them to ask for a continuance? I guess we can do the continuance and, then, if they need to withdraw -- Borup: We just won't put it on the agenda. Rohm: We just won't hear evidence at the time that it's scheduled for. Baird: Mr. Chair, the continuance just allows them to keep a place in case they choose to go forward and, then, you're correct, it would go away and you would get a new application rescheduled, so -- Rohm: All right. So, with that being said, what's the date that you would like to see this continued to? Unger: We'd like to see it continued for one month or whatever hearing date coordinates with -- Zaremba: That would be February 2nd. Rohm: February 2nd. Unger: That would be sufficient to suggest. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Unger: Thank you. Zaremba: Just a personal comment that I'd like to make. I would encourage you -- I don't know if anybody else feels this way -- to try and move your access to Eagle a little farther south on the property if you're redesigning it anyhow. And go for full access with a signal, if ITD might go for that. Unger: Could I comment on that? Rohm: Absolutely. Exactly. Unger: We are receiving the same thing you are. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit January 5, 2005 Page 92 of 93 Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I have a -- Mr. Chair, I have a question or a comment. Borup: Which is it? Newton-Huckabay: It was probably a little bit of both. Joe, if -- you, obviously, knew this was what they wanted to say earlier when you made your comment. If their project is going to impact the Sadie Creek project, which we just recommended for approval and you knew full well we were going to recommend it for approval, if that's where we were going, why did you not make comment to that fact, so that we won't have sent onto City Council something that likely is an incomplete project? Guenther: Because there is no guarantee that this is going to be withdrawn. There is no guarantee that the Sadie Creek project won't be developed as it's discussed and if the Sadie Creek project final plats their 22 lots, they have all rights to sell two or three or four or five or all 22 to this developer. So, it's still an active project. Newton-Huckabay: We talked about it, that, eventually, why -- I mean at that point I likely would have been more likely to vote with Commissioner Zaremba. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Councilwoman Newton-Huckabay, in deference to the applicant, you're required to act on the application that's before you. They have asked you to act on it and you did and you did it appropriately. So, I would just call it a day. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. A good day at work. Rohm: I'd also like to say that it's kind of like that buffer on the previous application, they are two separate issues and we acted appropriately on the first one and we are addressing this one and we still got an open set of hearings here, so I would entertain a motion to continue. Zaremba: So moved. Borup: To February 2nd. Rohm: To February 2nd. Zaremba: To February 2nd, 2006. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis January 5, 2005 Page 93 of 93 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052, all relating to Bienville Square Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of February 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:23 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) MIC AEL R HM - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED,,,,.,,,, ATTESTE : LIAM G. BERG 3R., I y d �OdAf AAA ea olQAe��,. 4 E MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of December 1, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-C. REQUEST Approve Minutes of December 15, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 0 AZ 05-045 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See previous item packet / attached minutes See attached Staff Comments Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. °II 3 }t .a� ,� .x ;e . ; H= r .k g pOPU � + k 'F fi. wA I b ro } a 0 0 AZ 05-045 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See previous item packet / attached minutes See attached Staff Comments Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 3 }t .a� ,� .x .iy5 fS V ,51*11141� . 4,95g ' a H= r .k g pOPU � + ✓ f �0 "r "fa T 14W J 0 �x a V RT e r ``>t � r fi?§ w. dF Y = 5 }X..4i'�g� .�• �, a S �xk f: ry u - �F, a t r� k Y n o t^ ;" : 4rV #a d r 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 0 PP 05-048 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item packet / minutes In AZ Packet See attached Staff Comments In AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ``>t � r fi?§ w. dF Y = 5 }X..4i'�g� .�• �, a S ti ry '� y - �F, a � E r� k 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 0 PP 05-048 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item packet / minutes In AZ Packet See attached Staff Comments In AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ``>t � r fi?§ w. dF Y = 5 }X..4i'�g� .�• �, a S , p3 kfi�}y Y' #. ry '� y - � E �f t^ ;" : 4rV d r 4"°' r 7. ry d a o C UP 05-046 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17,2005: Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwellingunits with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 S. Locust Grove 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 previous item packet / minutes in AZ Packet See attached Staff Comments in AZ Packet Date: MM-Uritirol l Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. � �,q 2.ia ..F •.: ..-r ,." •j;.s _K �'� et , G S+',41e} a '; y, .'S x M. -�-:4 [2: Aga' o C UP 05-046 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 17,2005: Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwellingunits with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 S. Locust Grove 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 previous item packet / minutes in AZ Packet See attached Staff Comments in AZ Packet Date: MM-Uritirol l Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f* � �,q 2.ia ..F •.: ..-r ,." •j;.s _K �'� et , G S+',41e} a '; y, .'S x M. 4W,`ka J t T t. x 44, f* � �,q `, `�) 4 ..F •.: ..-r ,." •j;.s _K �'� et , G S+',41e} a '; y, .'S x M. Wk H 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Eciale Springs Investments, LLC �J AZ 05-053 January 5, 2006 ITEM NO. % REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone forWindham Place Subdivision - 2640 North Meridian 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 Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet See attached Comments Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a '"tf {t^. d ,� 5'-3'a*3`{"sc� N F h;g���...���°,,, t.R s 44 o 0 f PP 05-055 1�,Jk'�.��'��"5 5 ` MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 T APPLICANT Eagle Springs Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 8 ` - ' REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham a r2�{�' Place Subdivision - 2640 North Meridian Road �b x` �} AGENCY COMMENTS Sa: f 3 CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: 'n t G}+t4i,' ;.,.3 -�i µ ... CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ` �a CITY ATTORNEY �x '1F' •t'<" 3'�'•`Fiz.VA CITY POLICE DEPT: m+�" ' CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: . CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ¢.. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments In AZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: k� IDAHO POWER: ff INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: h;g���...���°,,, t.R s 44 1�,Jk'�.��'��"5 T - ' a r2�{�' } j $. Y Sa: f !i. 4 '✓ 'n t G}+t4i,' ;.,.3 -�i -5, l "fr ,»'i.Rd �x '1F' •t'<" 3'�'•`Fiz.VA *ftr 4t: m+�" r� . N. eat 3 0 E AZ 05-056 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterprises, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision - 1845 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Comments No Comment Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A, ft ++ 5 . Y. M1 •. .. ry 6kx di,'F Sn,. -f:,}Y 5.� f s� Jf f t A„ E ��ri>rAt pi 'kd 0 E AZ 05-056 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterprises, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 6.08 acres from RUT to TN -R and 4.07 acres from RUT to C -C zone for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision - 1845 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Comments No Comment Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A, ft ++ 5 ++ 5 . Y. M1 •. .. ry 6kx di,'F Sn,. -f:,}Y 5.� f Jf f t A„ E F a { s . loaf 6 ;#�,% 4� t, y 3 ,dt '�i i'+x�=��i h yy'ON`»� 4'K>... #c..,'�'�,i.• d� .(v � � � � Sv'$?� '�`'��A d,�a ^�}N ++ .. .. .. . Y. M1 •. .. 5.� f Jf f t A„ E a { 4� MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterrarises. LLC PP 05-058 ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon CreekSubdivision - 1845 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 / minutes In AZ packet See Staff Comments In AZ Packet See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. { 0 �. it F� k , ' y "k n MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterrarises. LLC PP 05-058 ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon CreekSubdivision - 1845 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 / minutes In AZ packet See Staff Comments In AZ Packet See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. } F� 2 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterrarises. LLC PP 05-058 ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots, 7 commercial lots and 7 common lots on 10.15 acres in proposed TN -R and C -C zones for Harks Canyon CreekSubdivision - 1845 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 / minutes In AZ packet See Staff Comments In AZ Packet See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. E e CUP 05-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterprises, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use development within 300'6f a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision - 1845 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: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous item packet / minutes In AZ Packet See staff comments In AZ Packet See Comments In PP Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C w'.tR AZ $t� f " a 5^`C >p T .5 r-,➢aswA i I S 11 �001f, A1fy E e CUP 05-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT JBS Enterprises, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use development within 300'6f a residence for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision - 1845 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: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous item packet / minutes In AZ Packet See staff comments In AZ Packet See Comments In PP Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C w'.tR " a 5^`C >p T .5 r-,➢aswA i I S i AZ 05-055 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision - North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item packet / minutes See attached Staff Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ",7 s � I 1 x F z 4Y, S i rt. r AZ 05-055 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision - North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item packet / minutes See attached Staff Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ",7 PP 05-057 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision - North Meridian Rd & West McMillan Rd 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 previous Item packet / minutes In AZ Packet See Staff Comments In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. sµ x p M u. 0,11 1- Mi S� M t„ t"xwv u. Mi S� M tr t1 "a z64,., P a�R �WIN ff �t 4�}N{'n9'k§*'i u 3� 9 i s w :.:u. y x X� R„63 4i`R! l M f X ko9 T. n { �n -,Mtn �r ' MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING O AZ 05-052 APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from=- e , 2005- Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 North Eagle 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. y x r� R„63 4i`R! l M '4 X ko9 T. n { �n -,Mtn MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING O AZ 05-052 APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from=- e , 2005- Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 North Eagle 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. y x R„63 4i`R! l M '4 w �� 0 PP 05-053 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING.MEETING APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. IS REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from ,'2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots on 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 and 3085 North Eagle 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 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x "•i a SRN, �� 0 PP 05-053 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING.MEETING APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. IS REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from ,'2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots on 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 and 3085 North Eagle 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 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x "•i a 1 y t 3' W b - p i ay t �4 �� 0 PP 05-053 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING.MEETING APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. IS REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from ,'2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots on 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 and 3085 North Eagle 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 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x "•i 1 y t 3' W b - p i ay t lj� 0 J'O a.ry 1�- ebb �, CUP 05-049 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING , APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. Vr, CeREQUEST Continued Public Hearing from "', :�c: '.?, 2005 - Conditional Use for retail, restauarant, drive thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle 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 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r a s'. i • V", 9 -15 .. ^ . } x Y 1 . ygt' 4 s T i tt,^13£.� a { �14 M ; , pyo,, e5 9 fA x4 �" � � y s 4rei . Y ji yet 4g rx p i V �r. �y. M ; , u 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Fred Pratt ITEM NO. REQUEST Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop - 11727 North Meridian 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 No Comment 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. a. x4 �" u 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Fred Pratt ITEM NO. REQUEST Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to O -T zone for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop - 11727 North Meridian 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 No Comment 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. 1swel i� x4 �" � � y 4rei . Y �5 4g rx 1swel 9 0 AZ 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Hummel Architects, PLLC ITEM NO. �F REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center - 2090 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments No Comment See attached Comments See attached Comments Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 7644 `w n � � ' a z ;., , p d; `4 x ]££,}.: ".x. 9 0 AZ 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Hummel Architects, PLLC ITEM NO. �F REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School ball fields and Technical Center - 2090 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments No Comment See attached Comments See attached Comments Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 7644 `w n � � ' a ;., , p d; ]££,}.: ".x. � � � � T �'�MS - �3a"ctq �'4 �` y ,;' t�,� �.� A y J's ? ;: s�✓t�'G +�1'^?���i.,s��A"'p'd,.i. � x y ", All a CUP 05-053 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 A APPLICANT Hummel Architects, PLLC ITEM NO. .'r REQUEST Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian High School ball fields & Technical Center - $° ` 2090 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS k CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Comments in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY ` CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: All, � x MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Comments in AZ Packet x SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Al, Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. h �'rytx.sex 'MHi`.Ria •. �, y5r z �:( t i i"';E'ttF $`t6 `St r' .. ,. �';Nbry^*5r{Y�'�R t _ �${���"S ads i p�"„� �• P f ro 1 y S �4TQiq sa ` f > f !Mi , f # • O RZ 05-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 3 APPLICANT Hillview Development Corporation ITEM NO. REQUEST Rezone of acres from R-8 to C-G zone and Rezone of acres from R-8 w M .94 .95 to C-N zone for Champion Park Addition - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road >' Ohl AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: iA CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: n. SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: amu: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting k Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A. § t . air ✓� }� �€�, �. F . i ,� Ja �t dt x':ad. is?,•e'r`r' x#� P xri , y ,�L d r V a+ 4 na .,�N r T K { ,wn(� wi.Mf"A'.ah >. .... • o PP 05-061 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Hillview Development Corporation ITEM NO. REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C -G and C -N zones for Champion Park Addition - north of Ustick Rd. & west of Eagle Rd. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Comments In RZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See comments In RZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See comments In RZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: t 4w` - r, s .. J d i'?�3� k k' } Y ` • S c i, .;.',+ V2 'i �m ,t. y s, fi 3`FY:,il S is }k 144'4"t y'Vf 1 '.R H "`y}y C� MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 0 MCU 05-004 APPLICANT Hillview Development Corporation ITEM NO. II% • oi021 REQUEST Modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini -storage use and including attached and detached single-family dwellings for Champion Park Addition - north of Ustick Rd & west of Eagle Rd. 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 Staff Comments in RZ Packet See Comments in RZ Packet See Comments in RZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. � V r —f z=F 7 (, s 2 rp- MYY 'y'» g "' d Aq C $ S 1 K { athv,`jt. r[ wp 1� S,, d to �3 f z=F 7 (, s 2 rp- MYY 'y'» g "' d Aq C $ S 1 K mp .fie ".. .. £ }} ,19- Ir wt 7A xy.k✓f , c K 001, # t 4 t r k, f`=;h t w # s y �g a -W 10,16 f �+ mp .fie ".. .. £ }} ,19- Ir wt 7A xy.k✓f , c K 001, 4 t a k, f`=;h t w # mp .fie ".. .. £ ,19- Ir wt 7A xy.k✓f , c K .gig, f 4 t a k, f`=;h t w t • CUP 05-055 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. 0?3 REQUEST Public Hearing - 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: COMMENTS No Comment See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. £ ,19- Ir wt 7A xy.k✓f , c K .gig, f 4 t a k, f`=;h 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 0 CUP 05-054 APPLICANT Ada County ITEM NO. O� v REQUEST Public Hearing - CUP for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abate- ment Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I -L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus - s/o E. Pine Ave & w/o Locust Grove Rd 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 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 4 i1♦ 7 � u3 k. 4 } L ri v pp k 5• 5 y � t �{ a X r� U AZ 05-057 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. gc�,5- REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-15, R-8 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle 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 Memo for Continuance See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. r RZ 05-019 WWI n MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. 2 al REQUEST Rezone of 10.05 acres from C -G to R-8, R-15 and C -G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See memo for Continuance in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: S SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ,max: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 7777, > g .i fr -1,441, "A", 111,4•`i��,»i CAI _ sr „ x . a = 2f.::. z u k f -s t x 1 �.. itVj h {1 �.»� S,r�+3'th ^5kxs 3r '� •.r V" ..':� v&r a� 5 s e fee PP 05-059 N Fqr R,'2i#4 AE° #y','�"Y''Axib ` t MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 ' F, A APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. W;i7 x;4:1 kl, 7, k 3s ;¢ i{§ q ' PTK l d �, k 4 A REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi family ,f, g6c� ,� residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 51, C MC,,y5�i it Al 2935 North Eagle Road - AGENCY COMMENTS s a CITY CLERK: a_=, � isi s CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See memo for continuance In AZ packet s CITY ATTORNEY AV CITY POLICE DEPT: t. Ls r< S.r .. 4Far"�s !S CITY FIRE DEPT: 4 CITY BUILDING DEPT: y CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: w ' CITY PARKS DEPT: s MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See comments In AZ packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See comments In AZ packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: �Y x OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f r �.»� S,r�+3'th ^5kxs 3r '� •.r V" ..':� v&r a� 5 s N Fqr R,'2i#4 AE° #y','�"Y''Axib t ',�s' F, A t O 7, k 3s ;¢ i{§ q ' PTK l d �, k 4 A ,f, g6c� ,� 51, C MC,,y5�i it Al s a a_=, � isi s x AV t. Ls r< S.r .. 4Far"�s !S ,5�',NJ}'�S�tA 4 U u CUP 05-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. pZ REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle 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: See memo from ITD Contacted: COMMENTS See memo for continuance In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. �� E{e x 43H?kT��h` �� 4 A, f - if L r k .7- ��" a U u CUP 05-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. pZ REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle 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: See memo from ITD Contacted: COMMENTS See memo for continuance In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. �� E{e x 43H?kT��h` �� ta� , i A, - if L r k .7- ��" a U u CUP 05-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 5, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. pZ REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle 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: See memo from ITD Contacted: COMMENTS See memo for continuance In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet See comments In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • � yr F; �,v� 1 �� E{e x 43H?kT��h` �� ta� , i A, - if L r k .7- ��" q 2 h • � yr F; �,v� 1 �� E{e x 43H?kT��h` �� ta� , i A,