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,