The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 03-16-~„ ~T i 1 ~, V ~~- • CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING .AGENDA `~~ Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. ,,_ ~_;,-- City Council Chambers r;~ " "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, }~.:_ all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be 1 ~~ truthful and honest to besf of the ability of the presenter." 5.. 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X_ Keith Borup Y~~' David Zaremba X David Moe -Vice Chairman X `" _ _ _ _ _X_ Michael Rohm -Chairman # ~ ~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning ;~:~~; Commission Special Meeting: Approve f; °'~`~ a~= B. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning k` ' ~~.: ,: Commission Meeting: Approve ` C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning ,1~~~ Commission Meeting: Approve o--~<: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-005 ' Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line ~,~` ~ setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block .:- ~ 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by `i Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and ~; ~:; south of East McMillan Road: Approve ~.. ~.<<:~11 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for `: Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 "" ~ Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight ~,, Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request Y`` `' for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-family development in a ~~= proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa t.~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~: t iry.'' 41''' { 6 5 ,5 h t . $~' . ~~~~~~ S~~ S ~ ~ 1.' %~/ ~ ~.C [ ~,y~Y y f . - A ~_^ l }~'~3 r rr~r~ ,~ .sr ~ ~ ` 1 ~ & H {t~ Y 2~. t F~:t ~. ~ ~~, ~; ti ~;p ~ ~~~y,~~ F t a'~~t r .~~~, ~ 4 ~r ~ .E A ~'~~~ t, . a ~f ~u,~r'Fy~. ~y tit J Y ~ P , ;r ~ f { + ~'~y~~, x`t~ ~'a Y { „~ 7~., 4r1 r. , _ .. RtY _. ~,r ~_ , Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council <~~: ~~: ~: r~,H ~i 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 483 East Franklin Road: Approve 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: Continue Public Hearing to L April 20, 2006 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 :: , ~~~ ',r. : 1.. a;: ~~ ~_~,~~ ,~~.; 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~J 4 ~ .,'ksty~t,°i~ ~~ ' Y^ ~' ~ ~~Y `~- . Y ~y ~ trx ~ ~~~# tRP!PJ{ti .- P ,_/ - (~~ J ( 3 p's ~: i~ ~ ~ fih. ~ r Z 7e~ t{t _ _ ~~ p..1ia y.~.,.. ~~ Y~ ~i S d c > ~ ~; i ~ c ~ ~~ ~ ~.h ,;s.~ ;~~~iP h~.,~ •~ i ~ l.i t Jny, } t L Jr<. ~ ty~ ' '1e` µ - { ] ~ LJ 14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 ;.,~ single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 f' ~',~ ~: ": ,. ~?.S,1G ;, ;~ , 7, . ,. `: "~. ,~ ,,;.,~: +: = s 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 19. Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 20, 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r, .. ,_ .._ r` s~+ ~~~: t F `7~ y T ~1~ #V ~i k~ - ~,~~ ~ ~~ 4v~~ ~ s ~,. _~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~k 1 r , i -F1#1. s ~. scs F ~_ : ~t ~gG[ r` ~ ~~ w^. CYf f'Y~~ yy . 'htl f i a~;,~xr r ~ ~X',~'t mt ^~: a ,~l'`r M ~nl42'~fC' ~~~ ~~, . r n- .r~ P E~µF~~ t 'r ~ iv~F.. iJ-'°'c ~ >_9~' i Y9f i~~- n~a~i J "~~ G~ 3 ~: y . ~, r ~, N"~a ~x "d rra ~'+ R. ~~- ~ , s k ~~~ T ,: . _. ~» x ~'- ~~1=:. , r ;~ ,: ~- w ,, :~;:~~< i ,,;jM;. ,. :~: :.-ufY CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 16, 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 Bor~p ~_ David Moe -Vice Chairman ~_ David Zaremba ~ Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. 3. 4. 5. Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Q~®~ c. B. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: ~pwvveo C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: A>Pp~° D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: ~~~'~ Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridians by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: I~C~'C~f~nelr~ -lv ~ ~~ Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-family development in a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. `. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ,x, ;a ,. ,. "~"~„ i` 4 '^ S F S ~'#d ~a~4 fl• '. ,ti ,, k. 'I _` ~~4, ,_. ~ 4 ~ k1~y i P '~c „ ~~ ~ o;~u i ~j ,- ';:fir . L'rd+ ~ ~ ak~~ x r Y k '. `' P .~la'~r7 y_~-"pit /~}` ~~.. t't a +~¢ .. ~ ~~~ _,~ ,~ -. i trt3 l ' ~ 1 ' ~~ ', rA µ ~ J f ~~'/. . ate,, ~ ,' ~ _}}, 3 *q~ ~' r s.a . , ~ - ,+ n 1 s~~ .«.. ~; _:~ M~f '; ~ }~~ a s~. V ~' ~F'- , ~s. proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects,- 1777 Victory Road: ~,~p~~~r~ ~. t'~ V~ ~ ~; 6. Continued Public eating from February 16, 2006: PP 06-002 ~'_ Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 °~ ~ ~~` ~~ acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark R d d E l d C®fY d oa : ag e an Development - sout east corner of Ustick Roa l~ ~,~~c~~~ ", 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 06-002 ~~ Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 483 East Franklin Road: P' o `vim ~£ 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 ,~,x acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big °~ River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: ct~rt~-1 sue ~.t1c~li c H~CO-n~ ~ ' ; `~ ~~rv ~®~ ~®®Is~ ~~ ~ 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 °'~ building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 ~ ~~. . Larkspur Way: Cort+-~nu~. ~.~,blic l~~'~ ~D ~~~1 2®~ 2,f101.' ~.S a' y' 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific ~> Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: COrt~M r~„ ° _ 11. Public Hearing: l~`P 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone ~ ~ ~' for Basin Creek Subdivision b Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 ~ `~' il nu.~¢, ~1.~6 Lt,.~2 HLO~rtrv~- ~ A~P~.I 4.2.dv~p North Locust Grove Road: ('1~- ~° ~ ~~ 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 ~~' I acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: (`onfi-nue ~c~b1~ e Htgn,r~ 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson ~~ Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: ~~-h~tt P~,bllc. Heanr~A ~ i~r~1 ~,20~ ~, 14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-00 Reques for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 ~' ' acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial a `~ Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: C~~~ F'~.1.bli ~, ~ < ~ 15. Public eating: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 .~:~,~ :~~ single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek _ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~i`i- ~S' ~'' " a x= ;' z f~ 7~'{;:i 1C F 1 ,F ftiY:. ~ ~7 ~KSt~? ~~~~ rF t~~ ~ i 'y ~., ~ t. 6i _ r r~,:~: - f F.: z 4'Y '. ~1 S ~~~ h r r f ~~~ 7t a ~~2 : ~t ~i ~ i~ ~~~i ,a,ri ~ j},!,p~L, i r<`s n ~ i a 1 ~: t t~} xaF ~ 4^~:: .~ `~~~ risFN.1' ~ is~ ~"~,` k .gti~t t. t ~?Y~".~FYd`. ~4 f -~ ~~~ J~ ~~' A~` ~r ~' ~. ~~r +~~ +~ 1 6`y .y'~.Lp `f~~ _~ , R ~. kk f ~k Tf hr~5~ f ~ a~:kn'~ FY. riv ~. • Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan `~ ` Road: ec~n.tuuu~ ~bl~'I~e `~ ~~ ~®, 20th, ~k _.. 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 ~~:: acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: e0nt-n>~ ~,loU c- ?~®rUr~ t® ~-~.1 ~ ®i 2001 h s; p> >; .r~ s y,~: ~'.:... ;~ 17. 18. 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: c~~` r~~c, `~~~~ ~- H[®YV"'S'~ ~'~ ~ ~,OOt~ Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: co~1't-i-nu~, ~,b1- ~. ~Q.Y~ ~ ~~~ ?A 2~1v Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: e~L'~.Ll(liLl~ t~~~'Ned.~run~ °lv Ptp~ 2®~ 20C1~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ''h ' r i ~' ~ ~. ~~ . 1 % ~! tit 1; ,i~~ .. t t'r ,. , Y ~~ ~w ~-A• ~ . $vrci a.r'.R t w4 ~~ ~ ~t ~, ~;r~ly .rye . a~ c~. ~~ti ~.~ _, ~ ~ , .~ Tib' e~ .s ~d.SG .rrrr#~„y~ 3£i ik r" ' ~~it,. .t~ ~ r• ne°;~ ~ ~i a cra.i5~,. *~ r ... s" r~~: ~e :ti ~::,,,: y x. h Est=,..:i .n :: ::,,:, k ~ ~~~ ~" ~. ~; ~L,. .; -. ;~; ~~ `~ aq p~. t*' ~, ~.. CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe -Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. 3. Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for _ Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects -1777 Victory Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-family development in a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CIty of Meridian. Anyone desiring accrommodation 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 ~ `'~~ ` ~ ~r~~ _~ ~ i ~ s r~ s,.- y r ! ~1~ ~"! ~ w Y~~-71 ~}~ ~ u .t.* ~ wti y ' }~ k`~ a ~~ ~~ ,~ .:~.a .--~s~k~. t ~~~ := a ~,~~# ~-~ .fit ~,~x 3 ~ ~ i{ 36 ,. A . .-t i M~ ~, Y~,i ~ ~ syy. ,yt ~i d,F ^va• r~r i i:~ i. ~ , ~q. !!T 7 tt 't- t ~ ~I y i - ~. Y W .((~1'vM hc+ !~2 bjy% 7` ~Y~ 9.. t t(^ i~y~.i5 ~ f ~ Tl ~ ? Yh ~µi '~ ~ - ~~~.'. y ~ }fi;r t N[ IrtY ~*° C~~~ _ S' t r~; 4yw,~. ~6.~' ~ 1. N r _ Y ! `, ~~'' ~ f, i- y,1 grS~Tyv{c1~ wry~~ ~ ~~,,~- ~' - proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District- for Casa ~~.- Meridians by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: ,. 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: k, .:~ 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and ~~~_ Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment `°' Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 483 East Franklin Road: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 ~:'-' ' acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big ~`F River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: ~: 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 ~ building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone ~'' for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: ~~ ~ 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 -' acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific ti=~:~ Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 ~~.~ _~~- North Locust Grove Road: s 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 %`~"'° ` acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge ~' ,, :~ Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: ;~-~- 14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 x acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial >~ Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: _ 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek ~ ,,~~ • ~` ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 ^ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~: °` Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings , . please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ - ~` , ~; ~h. . ~± - +' ~, ~~ ~~i '. ~:.~~~ , Y:'' ~. ;} N1 aft ~... ~: ~ ~,,. ~ ~uar .•, _~ w =;;-~ 4 ~ ~ _ ~, t ~ ~ 1::': ~y~ jy~ i,,.'3~ S' f 1i rT4' • ~ r ~~'IFa '-F f." -' Nr i _ ~±.a i- ~,.~: ...., fi .~ -' . ,,.,... s "~}~. ,~~ ~~ i ~; h: s~ ~; ?i T ^r, .~ ff r.t~- . rw. ~k, r ~~. c; ~~~ ~ ,~,'~. . _ t~ ''_ ~, ,~;~ ,. n ~ ~ ,a„„ y '~ y` r.:i~i 1{L it i! '~ ~ i~{\ k'~ Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan ' Road: 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: °° 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 ~''- residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons ~` ° Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: ~"' ~ y 18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to >~' '~ construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family 4r<.. dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue ~ and east of Ten Mile Road: 'I~ 'F~.~ 19. Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road °° ' Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: ~t'~~ _ ~~ > ,. ,r. .,; ~:~. ~, rb-. ~; .,: a. y; ~ ' "~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -March 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings l ' p ease contact the City Clerk s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ,;;,- ~~7 1 T ~'. ~,: . a' ,~' k >, ~: "'~ tier ,~ ~ h~~} ~~~ 1~'r r-,{Ci~ q y3I, ~ ~ 1 'i, S,' l l.,a~-*k ~ ,b y~ylFa1 .v. ,k.~ ` t ~+' ~{{++ ~: .W C~'; 1 I ~• 7 ~3Gd ~ y^i '1 S'r ~ ~ 1 Ao 4y, , i~'~ . .,~ i 4 l b . J~ .t ~~ ~!-! ~. ;. Y'' lE k ~ ~ ~' }~ S~~ K 7-~'x k4t a ,r-t:~~~ ~t,~ A ,wgyst~a ~ u~ ~ ~, r ?F'! ~:d~i ,s ~~T T ~ f ,.nt rL'yl yy~~ M ' Ls ~1u~~ ?i.. .~-` l ~' If ~ ~ ~ a a' ;~ + 3 ~ a,~~~~E S ~~ss ~2x1~~:j , a ~ Wt~t~? ~t...'"r'`` ' '" ~ o,;,: `~¢ f ~; _ t ~ Y ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ~~ AS OF MAR 13 '06 15 43 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN H> DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS ~ r ~ „~, 06 03/ 13 15 06 3810160 EC--S 01' 40 " 003 204 OK 07 03/13 15 08 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'00" 003 204 OK 08 03/13 15 09 8848?23 EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK 09 03/13 15 11 WATER DEPT EC--S 01'01" 003 204 OK 10 03/13 15 12 2088840744 EC--S 01'02" 003 204 OK 11 03/13 15 14 POLICE DEPT EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK ~~ 12 03/13 15 15 8985501 EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK ~,_ ,:.. ~ " 13 03/13 1517 LIBRARY EC--S 01'00" 003 204 OK ;~ 14 03/13 15 18 20837?6449 EC--S 01'00" 003 204 OK ~,;~,,, 15 03/13 1520 3886924 EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK ~ ~ 16 03/13 15 21 P-AND-Z EC--S 01'00" 003 204 OK - 1? 03/13 15 23 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK a? _: 18 03/13 15.24 FIRE DEPT EC--S 01'00" 003 204 OK 19 03/13 15 26 208 38? 6393 EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK 20 03/13 15 28 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK _ 21 03/ 13 15 29 2088885052 EC--S 01 ' 01 " 003 204 OK t 22 03/13 15 31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 01'58" 003 204 OK 'u 23 03/13 15 34 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK n,~ ;, 24 03/13 15.35 I D PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01' 00" 003 204 OK __ `~ ~ 25 03/13 153? 2088886?01 EC--S 00'59" 003 204 OK { ~' H 26 03/13 15 42 208 888 2682 EC--S 01'01" 003 204 OK :.. ~` ` ~ - ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 kr ~ru_-: ~f "~A,~ ~ CYTX Off' MER~~AN ~ ^ a MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. ' City Council Chambers N ~ ~: ~. s ~ "Although fhe Cify of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony " ~ ` , all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be x ,r truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." f ~, - ~ ~ ~ 1- Roll-call Attendance: _ f ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith B r< w ore p _____ David Moe -Vice Chairman David Zaremba s~ , ~ ~ Michael Rohm -Chairman ` ~ 2- Adoption of the Agenda: ,{ ,5?~ `~ ~' ' 3. Consent Agenda: f, ~`"'~` Approve Minutes of A• ^ November 29, 2005 Planning 8~ Zoning i ;r a ~mrn nni~r~ Ow.......1 11~--iC.--.. _ '? .. ` .. ~a ~ pb !% Y~ Y $,~ {rc t '~ r ~ ~ ~ - s. - ~° 1 _ ". ~ j _ ~ ~~~ I ,~ ~ y a~ ~,,n T° _s y, ~ u _ ~ a 3 ~ i~ ~ ~ y _5~4 " ~"s , ` f~ ~ ' _. ~ s 4 • , ~1 S I' P -F+Sryk~,Ra~' •, k~'rYr~j ~t ~ 4 xT ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ti ~ ~~` ~', ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~. y 5.. i~V t., " } 4 a W1~"~ _ I "~I I ~~ ~ ~1 S B M ! Y ~ ~- . ~~ ,; q nn~~~'~ 1 , " ,,j [ ~`~r`...rt +a:e&` } - N 7, ~ ~I. p~ X l~ -.. ~ y t ~I ~ l~~ ~ ~, ~' -~ !~ ~ $ ~~t .. y ~1 'y .i ~ .v ,ti _ ~ a 9 ~ ~ ~ ~] ( ' _ d I ~ ~ b l if a „a kr ~ v r t~, ~ „4 "~; ~ ~ ~ i ~,~ 1 "~,,~ ~ r ~ } w i '~ ~ ilk 3' - '} I.f ~3 ~ t ~".. .~ F~ ~~} ~ - ,~. Y'. ,~ /' i ~~/' . ~ ~n ~,~e ~ ~yrk ~ ~~ ~4 , ~r .aa.,+. ~ t,~y+~. ~ ~ S s ~~2P:. ll Y 5 +: , ~- Yb ~_ 1 e ' h y r ~ r :'-~ ' ' h ~F ~` _ - ~ ~ ~'~i ~ Z i ` ' ~ x~~?raid ~ 5 X66 I 4,. k ~+ ~t ~^' R ~i'~} aC w ~ ~ ,'~ s~' ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~`~ ~Jy ~~z[c ~ i ~~l ~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S `~` ~ i ~y ~qn_. ~z Y - 4t ` ~ r Y~ '~ ~ - I - ~R ~ r 1 ~ s~ 1 ~, '` * ~ ' * TX CONFI ON REPORT >k* AS OF MAR 1? 00:33 PAGE.01 ~~` ` . CITY OF MERIDIAN ~s;-,: DATE TIME TO/FROM MDDE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 28 03/1? 00:25 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK 29 03/17 00:2? 8848723 EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK 30 03/1? 00:28 WATER DEPT EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK 31 03/1? 00:30 2088840?44 EC--S 01'06" 003 251 OK :+ -,. 32 03/17 00:32 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING i' AGENDA ~:; ~ Thursday, March 16, 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 `7 ~ ` ~_ David Moe -Vice Chairman _~ David Zaremba '~ _~( Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: ~i f ~ A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning C ommission Special Meeting: q~pv~ ~' `_`~ '~ l3. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: q~~ C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line ~ , ` ~ r setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29 Lots 1-7 Bl k 30 f ~ I , oc o Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and r south of East McMillan Road: Ap~~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridians by Insight ,FI Cr~chJllte~~s~- 1777 Victory Road: I~CCp(Yy1r1Cr1d ApprG~/a.~ .~ -3-~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP OS-060 Request F,.~ for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-famil devel t i y opmen n a ~- k ~ ~ s ` I Median Planning and Zoning Comndsslon Meeting Agenda -March 76.2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clry Of MelSdian ~. ;~ v, ~., i . pleasen contact the Clty~"r~dapffice atr dIs888.4433 at least 48 hours prlonr~to the publl~c meeting. - + 5' s.;~i ' r b ~ K ~ „~~ ~y.E k ~ 4 > r # Y2'~,r y; x ~;~.~~'Y ~ -i d~ ~ St "E f~.r.+ s .~ ~~~ ~ k ~ .Y'J yir-+ ~ ~ ~ , ,, ~ ~ -- k ,~, ~ i r v t~~,l ~:~~ ~i~'fi ~~~'4§1P ;t' 4 i.r ~ - ~ ;~. ~ rev ~f ~~h r F y;~ l 3. s r twat {rh t ~ :.~: „ .. : ': z: t ~~It ~+~e f ..~y iii ~?~}~ . r r ~:° + w t tf 4- 't ~~ ~ r - rF. . Y . 1~ Y A I ~ ~ ~~ v~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P i 7. ' .A, <,K ,, ~ ` _ s~ ry c iz+ u , 8rotsa~ bin - NN"" ~^ `~ -. i~~Y - C H4~ •~ i~ 7s, ;i ~ r ~& ~ f , ~. ~ a ~ ~ y . _ ~t ~{ v t t~ k ( _ 1 ra# ~ ~°w `t ~ ~ . ~s, . ~r ~ , ~ ,. S 5 k+` F\ * ~ ~~ a +~. ~ ' ~ '~ ~ a ti h ~ i ~ ~. .. a4.+r+. ~,.. nY r > X ~ l ,'~ t .u' >~ TX T ION REPORT you RS OF ' MAR 17 06 4 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDI RN ~'',; ' DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMDli STATUS ~` ! x~, _ 01 03117 00:33 8985501 EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK .. ' 02 03117 00:35 LIBRRRY EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK 03 03117 00:36 2083776449 EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK - F` " 04 03117 00:38 3886924 EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK ~ 05 03117 00:39 P-AND-2 EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK 06 03117 00:41 FIRE DEPT EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK 07 03117 00:43 208 8~ 2682 EC--S 01'06" 003 251 OK s','; , 08 03117 00:45 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK `' 09 03117 00:46 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK 10 03117 00:48 2088885052 EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK 11 03117 00:50 LAKEUIEIJ GOLFCOU G3--S 00'00" 000 251 INC 12 03117 00:51 LRKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00'01" 000 251 INC -~:.z 13 03117 00:52 LAKEUIEIJ GOLFCOU G3--S 00'02" 000 251 INC v 14 03117 00:53 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00'35" 000 251 INC y,.. , ' 15 03117 00:54 IDAI-10 ATHLETIC C EC--S 01'04" 003 251 OK ~~ .^ 16 03117 00:56 ID PRESS TRIBLAJE EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK ' ' 17 03117 00:57 2088886701 EC--S 01'05" 003 251 OK ' `-'~y 18 03117 01:03 3810160 EC--S 01'49" 003 251 OK THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY >•r r.-. ~: i, ~ •' ,, ; ,_ CITY OF MERIDIAN' ~' '' " MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ¢'""~ ` AGENDA Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:00 P,M. F_~ .• . City Council Chambers Although the Cify 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 {s Y • 1. Roll-call Attendance: `` "~' _~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup ' ~_ David Moe -Vice Chairman _~ David Zaremba ~. -' _ C,~ Michael Rohm -Chairman i~ ~ ' 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~; 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning 8~ Zoning t~ Commission Special Meeting: q~.~~ f;: . ,,,;y B. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning :: Commission Meeting: A.~~ C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning ~ ~ ~ Commission Meeting: ~: Qppra~ r3-~- ~^~ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP OB-005 ~~`°. Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by 3::' Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and ' south of East McMillan Road: " '1-C' "~ ~~; - ~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for ~ Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 •;~ Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridians by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: k~lCQ~1Cr1d ppPl'O/d..l ,~ ~- ~aL.lnCa.ll ~} 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-family development in a ,` i ; Meddtsn Planning and Zoning CommlSSlpn A4eeting Agenda - Maroc{ 16. ?A06 Page 1 of 3 NI materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ciry of M1~ridian. E 1 ~ please ~nhdct ~ Clacmmmodation for dlsabllldes related to doamaMS and/or hearings ~;!;-~' '~~ - ` ry Cledc's Office at 8884433 at least 4g hours prior ro Ne public meeting. v S r j .. . " ~ ' ' ~ '~> r g~ , ~' -:I•' : ; t ~•=~"~ + ' :N :`. ,' ~' , ,r ;.err ' ;~ ~a43 .1-~ sSs .4? :. ^0'..^, 1 y I. { I I ..,~ .~ .Y ' ,E ~ Y+ h I ~ ~ ' :~ ~ .ia';Sd , ~.~ j "F:.w I I l ~. ~{ tl r ~ .: •. =,,, f ' ~" .~ `tx . ,y. y -n;, <, .v , ~ 5 ~ y j•'' ~, .•~ ~i;'q`«riW T"~f ` , .• • t j~ ~iF ,~- x'~' ~. l~ fp . ~x k< '.Y k Yi, r y ss. 1:~~,. . ~ F . ~ A ~ . ., r f ... .. f _ .r .. q t. ii • e i. .. . ~ . .. . N , ' ~+ .'t~: ~ yN ~ r.r ,~ I fi , tx r-t t ~I~ _ '.rr :~~ • ` µ •'m ;!,(; $ Y ,:,~~~ ~f L r~ }~~, ab'~'• . Y ~r7`A'~~;Fy' I i t • ~5. ~ ~' ~'~'~ t'T ~ ." ~- 'I.i S.F kffi'~' . y]}~, 1 y^1l }~ 'F 9.3 ri~ ~l i lln3 ~1 ~{~`,i.VA. k. . ~ ~` ~'}"- i. ~T,St'RSt . ' ° } ''' ''se ~ .; f ° . x I i } Y ;~y.:; ' ~ ~: r+,. iw ss~ ,r' : ~~',i. Y 1 :} a...'A N:i '1±:~ f~~i i~' ~ ~ a:C F1 ' ~.~~49~ y * ,.; ~ I F i '+ ' t.°•6, •:{'r r e , Sys ~ e ~ ' ` - . : ,- 7 , ,~ • ~ ~ ' ' { S • ' : k M'F t - ' ' Ft -~ af~ f~;r.~.YM1 {~:~ { 9 I k ~ ~. mEz' ., - n +Y •'1nrL } ~~ J , r }. ~ y : e. . q t ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ 3 q . ~ 1' °, oN n ~ . I ~ "~ . n :s. I ~ A .r •~f ,~ ~ Y~~ j ~ .' X 4 " ~ -i ~? ] ~ E ~ ' W ~ . y ~ ~ -" ' F . L ~ • ...t ~t . ' K 'e'~ ~ t ' ~ ~ & . , ~ ... ~LI `r. i .'T r .4'~~ ~ t ~ ~rA~xY:~~ .~•°, ., ~+, ~; i ~A/'•; ° ' ,, r # A2'!Y'Y .,.~{' • •x ^ -~ : y : ~ ~ . t ,{~! `` . $ eY t ° f .a. .. . , ...... iY- ., ~ ' I . ;. ~ ~µ'•"~~,i .q .l. i i `. ~,~~}`.w.t~•j~s .;I~R. -~ ' ' ~ +.: 2 ~ 4 } ~~~ Y :C i F. ' ,.e+x;~3'"h :'-.a ~a9 ;. {. .i~:~:± II ~ ° ~ '•F I .a ~jr •~T 'Fb`'~•.: '+4 v 1 I ~~'~ ' r: _" , ` /Y~ ° ~ ' ~ " ~~ ~ 1..~ . `n "'s'+: r'~rix ' I ;,: k =~?G, Y F 4' t ,t- ..it.,,) ~t ; ~ , } ' I I ~i ^x : ~ ' ' °!" u 'x d 'I' fir" ",? {. a , <f ~ .,. ,;• . I < I P „ ' '. ex~ : ' ,,~e. .^~' ..]~ .i ; I r,.ts, y ~ ~y~' ~, 1 '. ..^~ '~. ~ ~ '°~ ; 6 i l 7 ~'` ' ~' ~ ~^" b ~ y +.s, !~. /~, 2. \"7 ' .y„~..~x Wit' .:~.`~`,:,y~`~7 .;~ ~ ;j~" 'k.'}~.. ~'4`•w n t s' e ,~ ; f 5 l Y~ ` ~ w S. $) , A 3 i sr'. s $ F'A ~.' ylY:f.Y~~ ~3ej... ;~•'•,~~^" { ~ $~ fr't'Y .A S... ,M L •4` ~ Y'.'' 7 xy, ,~ .~ t ~+,F .'.y^, ~' ~µ ~ C .. t ° . ~ ~'1.: ~..'r F Y .. i . ; t~;,,~ i~~:i, ' ~' ' i ~ " ~ - ~ ' ~ %~; ~: ~ '{~. } ~s ; " ,; ., ~'+i 3 : [ ~ ; { . r i s , ` ^ u. ,:y-...'a~ !;it'~~i u:': thy, '• s",: II R E t i ~'t~i~Y!{. . ; ~~ j~~' y ~ Y 1 k 1 i . ` {~' + / ~. ~ I . ~ I + ~' ,5... . `rt 4 + ti. ~' ~ '!R49PR~ .~ a •t;;:r1Vx'+~.'~''E.a,~,.:F •,," ,~. ~I 1 T ' • ] ... I,F ..,. ~'~ .,E~ f ,,. ~Ir I>r'~,~..t• ,f J„ . ,~; .~'•• .~. ~ I ~ 1 I ~' 1~'y+'r- y:~qs. 'j y4,4. ..+ :'h'( ` 1 ~ I ^1°n .~',i: •• -,"' . ,:t• 4~ t^ 9. ~ ar ..c~•~ir...s ~. f' I~ l:~ I I r ^ ~~~• , . ,! .i ; ^ I ..I: I ~ , ,1Y• M1.. iA. i° ~ ~ ~ 1 y, ' d ' • { ' ' ' v '` 1 { F ~ ,` "' a~.?:•. • '~~. ~~9LaL i ;~ ~' ~ p : T Pi. • 'i r~~~i.R ~.~ .y~ (~,~1,, ~ { r ' f ~-YY~if ~ ~ ~ _ p . „ , s ' ~x ,. Fa. :'•' ° 1 G. °} 7•f - ,~ {s , .. }. ~~ ~~~' ~ rr "~ x a ,c t ~ ~ } ~ ~ ~ ?'•rx.•.~ Ti•.o..:3 ~ ~ r ,"_ # ' x ? .. ik (r i ~ f:. a ~k +. M 1 _ , h ;., , t x ~ . ikr '~j"4i~'•° .T~ i~ 't•u "i f ,} i . YS{ I l t 1 l~ ' "~ '+~' :,( F ~.EYria~,}c~` t 9 •:,~',.~'Lv' 4 r i ~ { q - 'r '..Y yy J ~ ) }° j . • • f Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 16, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 16, 2006, was r called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Keith Borup, ;~,,. , Commissioner David Zaremba, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig (Caleb) Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. ~. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: ~: Roll-call ~. X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup ~~: X David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm -Chairman ~: Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I d like to call this regularly scheduled ~X meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of w?~ attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we adopt the agenda there is a few changes that I'd like to propose and they are as follows: Items 8 and 9 on the agenda, AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008, both relating to Cardigan Bay Subdivision, I recommend that we continue ~- {' both of these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, because there is no f'~``~ `' Ada County Highway District report, so we cannot act on this item anyway, because ~r~ there is some missing documentation. So, my recommendation is we continue that one =; to April 20th. Items 12 and 13, AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating to Hendrickson Subdivision has been requested to be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6th, 2006, and I would like to further that recommendation onto the Commission. And Items 16, 17, and 18, all relating to AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all r ~ ;. relating to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, this would be open only to continue it to ; = ` the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. The last item on the agenda, AZ ~` ` ~~ ~ 06-008, related to South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation, ~~ there are issues with that particular application, but what we want to do -- or what I'd like ~ E ` to do is open that for a staff report only and because there are so many things that are ~4 ~ still up in the air on that, I don't think that it would be of much benefit to take public ~~ ~ , testimony on that, but at least the staff report should be heard, so that we can at least >T -~ come up with a method of moving forward for a continuance on that. So, we will not be .~ taking public testimony on Item 19 either. And that's the balance of -- -;:~ ~~~ s; Hood: Mr. Chair? ~" 3 ' y ' 4 - ~z _ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 2 of 82 ~.`. Rohm: Yes. Hood: Mr. Chair, on Item 19 I would ask that you actually do open up the Public Hearing and have somewhat of a testimony. It will probably be continued, but I think we should have the Public Hearing on that item. Rohm: Between you and the applicant? The reason why I brought this up is because for those people that are in the audience that expected to get some sort of conclusion ~'~'`"~ on that tonight, I don't think that we are going to get there and so maybe it's just out of courtesy to those in the audience that are here to speak to that item, we will more than likely be continuing -- we will be continuing that to a later date for conclusion. So, maybe it's -- I will just leave it at that. With that in mind, I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as amended. Moe: So moved. `' i 11t Zaremba: Second. ~~ ~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: '" A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning :~ "' Commission Special Meeting: * , ~r - B. Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: ~4 ~ C. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning ~. Commission Meeting: `~ ` ' D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development -west of North Locust Grove Road and "t`` south of East McMillan Road: Fs~~ - Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to present the Consent Agenda. Item A is approve the minutes of the November 29th, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission Special °' Meeting, February 16th meeting, March 2nd meeting, and the Findings of Facts and ~ Conclusions of law for CUP 06-005. Motion to accept the Consent Agenda? ..3~ # "~ •F{'.~-3F~+ x ^~,~TV: ~,` ' ~ "J. ~~3 ~'.Ta~~ Th.r - ~. -. 4{ .1 1 "S S -' ) s ~`i G s ~ r €1 1 ~ js~ t~',$~~t v ~t~.~"•_,~yY ~y;i~Il': ~+ ~ ~ F ;~~..is`. ~; • rt te~ ~ i ~. .1Ya i.. ¢ w~ tic x ~ ~,. ~..1:-:;~ • !. e , ~ , ~.; . ~ :.Y ^. , ~ I ~,;g ~;, R §.. t,r~a':;>a,,,>~,:~ 5+ y ..j~ u i f I T a ~i~ ~ f . , ~ T ^ ,,.- s< ~ f ~ II , ; 1 y xt-l~~ ' M1*.``I 1 4 ~ f 1 t 1.; .+,: 4f /J-fi" ~ ; y *~V ,~`}" `l^'•~-. ~r r ~ Y .. ` ' i'•. . "; I ` ' `i . >; ~ x,: E ~ I ' .t . ; ~ ~ I a { 6 > zi•~"i.T s-<>q , C•, ~' } `x' i r ` . J a : ~~' ~ : < T~_ „ ~ n, • a: y . n;~..~:~,:i ' ~ ,asr s~.. ~ y ~ '~ .'ts . ~. i ~ ~ ~ 1` ~ . ~ Vi 'k d ^ ? •" ? . x~. .4 ! .+Ps?g•~`~f<'$~:(c`= .a .b:~ ~1 ~' I .'~` s ~ - i t i - i ~ ~ 1 ' > l• ' E t ~" ... •1 ~~ .. . , , ;i., •~ . ~ • >ri -., ,,. ,. , ' -.. , ,. , . _ S v t . : 1. '~ i ... _ ~, ' , . ;• ~€•~ ~ ` ~ ~.ry :~ii?~; ~ "µ ~ g'`Ai F~ ~ .A .. .. r~ ~ ' ?ri`= ~ . . i. , .. . . , ; ,. M ,:,:r< ~. 1" ~ `!,^ ~ ~ ' ~ ` ~ - Y ;. : ~~ , , s ~ ~ 1 ' ' ~~} , 'j;T. 1 i •"~~ .~iL''M'k, °,' "IY.. y o ` ~ ~ ~'` i .f :: '3' t •`iT•t~ T . p.ysr~,j.., Y« ..:j i•. III l ~ } 6 :~ ?{, i I~~r . ~ i-: f 1 1. n3` f%rStk` ~ ~~i t i.,....~ . _ 's .'~: ,~ ~ S-, F .al ~ r'.. .:.$ v • 3 .ly '' 1 ~ ' ~ . `r' :.t t ~, i. ~.; } 1 ~~ ~ I{ s ~ Ir{s{ .~! 1T q; t'..'a4 ,.a •.~ ~ ~{x < S 'i ' ~~'% ' ~ bye L i I~~'rv, .t. •!~r i"• ~*: , .`..~ . .: ~~". i'~;'.:"; + :t. ` ~ y:w . a ,s . q . } 5i. i ~~.:'rM : ~ k •xY ..yt~'~~ [I{ ~ ~ 11 { tw yy I ;}' • .4 `>.. +i yl ~i1 ~ I ' I . ~ ''yyam~ A " , ~S' ` ~ i i d I Ea 4 ~ ~ ,I.. ! 1 2T,~q:t' l r " ~" ~ ni ,~• is L'1x" it t. Y $ a ~ ' {Y 4 x..~ . ' 7 P r ~x ~ ~ ~ ~~., ' I.~.. Y . 4 I ,~'~ ys `ii l ii . .v ~} `F~[:•'' A~ ~ . `T` I. j: i; y ~y' j ~r.yrd'.e I y ~C ^~ti$'~ I +ST^~;{5~9'FS~~e '~.~ ~'{~.' ~; ~ ~ I ~ `~ ~~ . ~~, ,.... , , . ,,JJ ~ i. .~ .~' [ ., f +.~'a 1 ~ ae.•.'df.~~~ ~.:f •. r • . • ' ~ • } _ _ < ~' I ~i~ i `~ ~:: I + ' J i ~ s i" ~ k ' i . ., ~ ,. ,. , i 3 ... .. .2 Ytt. . . ., y.'il)n ".% 4£ '-'Kii ~.!E.'r '§r:'. 4 Y W ,[~ :• ' ~~?~,' '~ ~2Y,. ~ ~~ r,: i. .~~ ~i :' , ., ~v .u .1 ~l'' ~ vY. • 5 , r. "5 x ~ ~ ~ ~ J •~ { 3 7 Jy,~ r '•v 3'~ ~~: x ~' yd "'T '^Y: ,,~' (~.y :3,c~.>,V 3+1., itl y rt. f:< '~• ~~• i ` ~ Gf YA ,`t~~.Y ~D . ~ ..__. ..~ ~-c'n' ' . "' t ~ i r r ,. .~r 3~ ?F ~ i;i~y" - `~~.. .S{0:.: i4.' •1`~.'~ ti.....:/ ..~ .F.;: ,.. ~ ' •I 1 ~ t ' ~ 9i ~ , . c, >f'. ~,i: iW . i'.. .'i.. `. a> F ~ x- . .~~. :''` ~ " Y ~ l . . . I .^ . i ' ~'4'~y; Y' k V't ~ ~1` '.~ es;.: ~. TF. hid &'. ' ~ .iT'" r cJ r.'~`'4 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 3 of 82 Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. ~'~ ~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Consent Agenda. All those in ~, . favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~` ~ Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for ;~ Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 h;~:,; Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight ~; Architects -1777 Victory Road: ~:- 5'~ ' , ~ V' Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CIJP 05-060 Request ~= ~ for a Conditional Use Permit fora 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa ~'~ Meridiana b Insi ht Architects -1777 Victo Road: Y 9 rY "N,>~ Rohm: We are almost through the page and it's ten after 7:00. We are doing good. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05- ~~~~ 067 and CUP 05-060, both relating to Meridiana -- Casa Meridiana and begin with the staff report. ~> , Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you remember, this project is located at the southeast comer of Victory and Locust Grove. The project does include about 6.9 acres. They have submitted for a redesigned project, which does not ~. ~~` show the gates. It has reduced the number of units from 32 to 31. And shows more of ~; the concerns that the Planning Commission developed of the March -- March 3rd hearing. The applicant has made a good attempt at addressing all of the concems that ~~ were addressed -- or brought up at that hearing. Staff has prepared Findings consistent >: for approval. There are some special considerations in there for the Planning :~ ~, Commission, which do address the ublic versus rivate street issue, as well as ACHD P P still needs to provide documentation on this project. ACHD has not made comment ~:£,,;:` specifically on the redesign, but has indicated to me that their comments would be consistent with the previous design as well. They should be receiving final comments in the next couple of weeks and they indicated that they would have final comments prior to the City Council hearing, if this goes forward tonight. Again, staff is recommending approval with the conditions as listed in Exhibit B and I will stand for questions. t Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Before I call the applicant forward, I would ~' like to just kind of comment to the audience here on the procedure that we go through ~~~_~. when we have a Public Hearing and, basically, what we do is, first of all, we hear from the staff and they present the project as it relates to Comprehensive Plan and ``r ; ordinance. They don't speak out for or against specifically, other than how it relates to n, Y,{ ~e • Meridian Planning & Zoning ~%` -': March 16, 2006 ~' ~ ' Page 4 of 82 ~~ o, •~ those two documents. Then, the applicant has an opportunity to come forward and sell the project to the Commission and once that presentation has been made and questions asked, then, the audience has an opportunity to come forward and speak on the project as well. Each person coming forward has three minutes to speak, unless they are speaking for a homeowners association or something of that nature, and, then, '~ we, typically, will grant a spokesperson up to ten minutes to respond to an applicant's testimony. Once all of that's been completed, then, we will either -- we will call the ;~ applicant back up to respond to any specific questions asked from testimony offered. ~r~. Once that's completed, then, we will either continue, deny, or approve a project. So, that's the procedure. And with that I'd like to have the applicant come forward on this, please. Phillips: I'm Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, 2238 Broadway Avenue in Boise, Idaho. And to start out with, I guess a quick recap as far as for annexation. Where we left the last meeting was I believe that -- seeing that there -- understanding that there was support for -- not really any negatives for annexation. The use seemed to be ~~'` positive as far as we were hearing. It seemed like there was a general consensus that a,, `" ~ the development we showed -- next slide, please. Next slide. Thanks. This was the -- the proposed site that was brought in, the development. At the previous meeting -- and the next slide. And, then, we believe we have incorporated the comments from the staff report that was presented at the prior meeting, which mainly focused on eliminating access to Locust Grove, which was at this point providing a stub street to the south at this point and, then, setting up the development so that if gates are approved at a later ..r:,~ date and time, that we would have stacking for a minimum of three to four cars and, then, a turnaround area in case someone changed their mind and wanted to leave. We still are -- have presented this development as a PUD, utilizing private streets as a way ' ~ ~ of conveying traffic -- excuse me -- traffic to the area. We have worked -- we have worked with the proposed property owners to the south. As we understand it, they are not under contract at this time, but they are moving ahead with some plans. So, we have worked with their civil engineer and allowed for three lots to be along this area here and, then, a stub street that they would continue and join to -- at the south. So, =~.-4: believe we have, you know, satisfied the -- at least, as I understood and reflecting back through the minutes, we have responded to the comments that were made, mainly ' redesigning this southwest comer and providing an area for gates that would be in if ^F that came about that would work for a gated community. Again, this is a very unique ~~ development to Meridian. It's not unique elsewhere in the country. It's not that ~ ' , complicated, but it is new to Meridian, and it provides that diversity and residential z;>, offerin s that isn't current) here. In readin the re ort, the staff re ort, you know, there ': 9 Y 9 P P were a couple items that -- that appeared that weren't in the first report that I'm ~`i~': compelled to respond to and the first item there is -- there was a memo to Planning and ~~,,:: Zoning Commission by your planning director and in reading through it it seemed that it `°>;~ was a kind of a general, more philosophical about public streets. We feel that we are . ;: ~_: not talking in this case about drive aisles in parking lots or a rental multi-family community, that this is set up more as a single family attached type development and ~a; ~: ~ when considering public streets versus private streets, the private streets -- seems to ~; me that there is latitude in your Uniform Development Code to allow for a variety of ~„ ~' c;: { ~~ ~i~ ~. ~q'q 1 S~ ,M" (.~~ r ~;~ r Yt t,~ ~ ~ ''- .rf y;dv ~4, s~ ~# X11,. s ' :.~ ~y r ¢~: km ~o<s~, ~~' :, ~ ~ is <~ ~s~F' t~a~.f''T 2.-~'r ~i1 L a. ~ a" 4~ Y ~~~ ~1 ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ #cf; `-Yc ~ ~~...{~} ~ T ~~„: ~, ~ ~t~4ha 2 ~~~ 7~ ~ s F ~~ _.~ - ,: ~y .; fH'c ~a.'e"g' ~' 11 it L'. y. E ` ~n~ d r, ~.. s ~~.~~ ~~ ~ ~': V i S. N ~" 4 3 1 '` i,~s ~ '~' 15'x'~i ~~ - _ ,°~~u_ -s. --. F~ .t-... fi i~; 1~~ 4i . ~ '' ;; `~ ;.: ~, ° ~ .. ,, {,~::: ~~ fa; ~; ,~ .: ~.: =; `` E~_ ~`~:: t ='~,, ~w,,~; ~`~ n ~, x' t ~!~ -. k ~''' ~: F' 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 5 of 82 e projects, case by case unique situations, and we feel this is one where -- where as staff mentioned in the meeting the other night two weeks ago, that if these were public streets it would take on a different character. We also look at if these were public streets, we would lose, for example, the type of parking that we provided right here for that center, because of backing out onto public streets. The streets would be wider, which would cramp setbacks and the homes even further. And we just look at this as a -- you know, we really think that you have got a good ordinance right now where it does allow latitude, so that when unique sites come along, when creative solutions are presented that you have the latitude to evaluate those and approve those. Looking in the staff report, there were a couple of new things that appeared that we hadn't -- that weren't brought up in the last staff report. One item is that staff has concerns about using private streets for, essentially, a single family residence and some concerns about setbacks. Again, we have got over 40 percent open space here and this is a planned unit development where some areas are tight, but others are more open. It was also mentioned we have not submitted a UDC text amendment, which is true. We attempted to yesterday, but we were advised that it needed to be defined further. So, we did not submit that yesterday. There was also mention -- and this isn't really -- it's under I guess number five, that the L-shaped roadway system. Well, that's -- we have eliminated the L-shaped roadway system and gone to this next one to the south. So, that ought to be changed. It's under special considerations. There is a notation about additional trees being planted along driveway cuts. We can certainly do that. We'd prefer not to make everything entirely uniform or that would start destroying the free flow design that we have here. Proposed pathway connections to the east should be landscaped. That's fine with us. It mentions, again, that ACRD would prefer these streets to be public. When we met with ACHD in the beginning, they indicated that they could be either private or public, that due to the city's preference for connectivity, vehicular connectivity, they'd prefer that they were public. I believe now that we have got the connectivity that, really, satisfies, as we understood the intent of the ACHD report, that they mentioned in the report public streets, so that there was an assurance of connectivity, but we are providing that even though we still have private streets. Now, there is a -- there is a new comment about eliminating our access to Locust -- or, excuse me, Victory Road and we really don't find that that would be the way to go. It would be advisable here that this is our only access now to the property. The property to the south, you know, to all respects to the sellers of the property and the proposed owners, you know, this may not happen and at this point we would prefer to keep Locust Grove as an egress and even if, hopefully, this all develops some day and there is a loop that goes clear around here, I still feel it's important to have -- to maintain access to one of the collector streets and the ACHD report did classify both these streets, Victory and Locust Grove, as collectors. The staff report goes on to suggest, essentially, that there would be perhaps some type of a loop drive and so we met with ACHD -- or, excuse me, we met with staff and your director yesterday and -- next slide, please. And took a look at what that would entail. This is kind of a general diagram that was being proposed and, then, that -- at some point this would become an emergency drive only. And we found that contrary to the verbiage in the staff report that there would be less pavement, we have the same amount of pavement. This becomes a very standard, uniform development, in our opinion. It becomes much like other r -_ > i"^+ 'e~'~i~t ^'6r;. t 2 s.I ;.ens r'~!~ .k fiaff A ~i ~!: 1. }y ~~ G:. ~ r ~ ,~,Y ~,~ r ,-, •~a; 3'tt~, . 1 i ~~ i z ~ ~ ~ ~,_ ~ i ~" c..,~ nil ry t ~ r~K ~~ ~~; x y~ as ~~ ~ v.. ..._ _. .,_c ~,. a:. k'~,' ,~ ~ w;. Meridian Planning & Zoning - March 16, 2006 Page 6 of 82 developments you have seen. We have concems regarding -- and my eyes aren't good enough to read all this, but we had concems regarding in -- solar concerns in the late . afternoon during the summer that all of these outdoor patios and outdoor kitchens would '~ have full summer sun and if any of you own homes where you have experienced that, ` - it's not comfortable this time of year. The neighborhood to the north, when we had our ,~~,; .. neighborhood meeting, they expressed concems that there is traffic noise along Victory - and Locust Grove and so in this configuration we would have a number of homes facing =' .; those noise generating areas. As far as views, the -- essentially, we end up with a wall ~" •' ' of housing fronting these streets. It doesn't respond at all to the neighborhood or to the ~~ 'I intersection. It really turns its back we felt. The amenities that we tried to bring into the ~ ~ project become very minimal. There are eight homes that would really enjoy that ' ~'~ amenity and if you were to take a look at which homes you would want to purchase, I ~ : ~~ ~ -~j don't think you would want any of the perimeter homes, because of the noise, the solar ~ aspects. Even those homes now would have a street behind them. These homes would be okay and we really have eight that would share the amenity. If we could go ~;`~-. ` back a slide, please. The whole concept that we developed for this site is there is an existing water feature that meanders through this area here and what we did was we ~' ' looked at what made homes -- if you're a homeowner, what makes your home inviting, ~_~ , ~: `? what makes it something that's pleasurable to be at and a retreat to retreat after a hard ", day at work and so what we built our concept on was the fact that place the homes first in a way that makes sense and, then, let the streets develop to serve those homes, ; ~~ rather than the revious mind that -- where ou desi n streets first and, then, you force p Y 9 ~ , ::.~_ communities and residences to fit around those homes and that's really the -- you know, ~' `' the bottom line here is that we feel that we have spent 11 months designing something that seems that have been appreciated with every one that we shared with this and we believe that our assignment after last meeting was simply to redesign the southwest ~ ~~; ;' comer and provide for gates if that happens. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? s~: ~ Zaremba: I do have a couple clarifications, if I may. Phillips: Okay. :.z ~} Zaremba: The display on the wall here slightly differs from the paperwork as I noticed it ~'~ `'~' only in this spot here. It looks like this dead ends. Is it the intent that that really see a ~~°~~'" stub street that connects to the next property? Am I misinterpreting what I'm seeing on - this one? ' ` Phillips: Commissioner, no, that will be a stub street. We just threw in a little ~' ~ landscaping there, just so it didn't look like a stub street until -- :.;. ~' Zaremba: But you don't really plan to put landscaping there or you plan to put some ,. ~,~ , a-~; and, then, remove it when it connects? ~ ~, r ~ Phillips: Commissioner, we would put some there and, then, remove it. ~,;,: ~, ~; , ~F. ~ ~[ . ~'. ~~ ~~ ~I' sue, ~~; _ ~~ Y ~• .. I j y S t ~? 4~ ~y~ F~ f ~i: {fit, ` X 3'7i ifi z~ .f • ~>~ ~~~ tai ~ f' ~,, r #, „, ~ ~. ,;r ~~ ~ ;~~s '~ .4 u ~ '•1~. 4+.-'S+••~Y1 Mks. ~•~~ .2 .:,Ce tl ~ i 7~;3': ~~ w~ F ~ ~'F a t..~1~1 ` ~~ y ~~ ~~ a.; k` f "~` :~~t, ;-~ , l Y L ~'r ~' ~3 4 ;~s a; ~:. s~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~. ~i .` ~ ,x tit r ~ T ? ~ * d ~ e 3` ~¢'e ~~K C '' m rc ~S';~ t ~._. a~ ~~1 Yid ~yf _` i.:. • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 7 of 82 • Zaremba: Okay. Then, my other question -- there was amention -- and, actually, this was in the last staff report, but we never talked about it. Are you connecting one of the regional multi-use pathways or are you only having intemal pathways? ^~ ~-~~ ~-~1 $ ,~ a~``.` ~~ . ~~t~_ ~~.:~ ~: .I ~~ ;,:$ °:: ~, ;= =z . ::.:~ ;: ~.', ~~•~~, :; „j 5 s'8il ~ ~,1 ~:1: Phillips: That's a good question. We -- and I'm honestly not entirely clear on that. We do have front -- you know Ten Mile Creek is down to the south here at some point and so at this point we do have a pedestrian connection here and a pedestrian connection over here and how that develops, you know, we need some more guidance on it. Zaremba: Okay. We will ask staff to chime in on that, but where I was going with that question is if it's a private pathway for the use of your people, I don't have any problem with it having gates or fences on it, but if it's part of the regional pathway, there is a mention that you plan to put gates and that wouldn't work on a regional pathway, because people need the pass through it. Phillips: Sure. Zaremba: Let me ask staff if this does connect to the regional system. Guenther: Let me just show you where the regional pathway actually is. Currently, this phase of Tuscany (right here is undeveloped. The pathway would come up to Ten Mile here and it is on the south side of the creek in this location. What we looking at is intemal of Tuscany. There is an open space lot approximately here and we anticipate that this property here, as well as this one, would connect through with -- it would not be multi-use pathways, but will be micro-path connections to the regional pathway. Zaremba: So, this project would have connection to it, but it would not be a through portion of the pathway. Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Then I don't have a problem with the gates. Phillips: Neither do we, then. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Phillips, I don't want to belabor this, but I realized that what you're proposing now does not have the gates in there, but the simple fact that we are looking for connectivity to the south and whatnot and that will be a thoroughfare through your project and whatnot, I guess I'm -- I'm still a little bit confused why you wont' about putting gates in now when you are going to end up having to allow access through your property down into the other subdivision to the south. So, I'm not sure why we are so concerned about those gates. And the other thing I'm kind of curious about is -- as far going to public streets, have you guys done any analysis as far as what that would do -- ~ r~ ~. t , ~',i ~S ~. y' •' ,i a~ f<i ~ r ?. ~ rv e ~`< ;~ r~; ^, ~. , ^.c,-,,~ •,~. ~6 ; i, ti - t.-. ~, +n ~~}G ~ ]~ dui ,cY'.i1fA~ s~'i ..~. fi~ ~, r' £,~: i~~ ~t ,i ~~;, 'i'. *'.~Y~I ~ , ~~^. f;r - ~#~~ H Y ~ ~ . lr ~ s L ~ e:f Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 8 of 82 ~,. ;i `~ .~r and I realize you're talking about the setbacks and whatnot. I was just curious if you guys did take at look going back to a public -- Phillips: Okay. Commissioner Moe, we did -- early on we did take -- we did make an analysis, taking a look at public streets versus private. And, again, to fit the number of units that we are proposing here, the width of the streets affected that, our number of units, and -- the colored version was a lot nicer to look at. It did affect that -- the parking for the activity center also was affected by that. And in talking with the owners, they elected to still meet the ACHD standards for public streets -- private streets and -- but take over control of those. And that's the simplest answer, I guess, as I can provide you. Regarding the gates, we'd still like to see these gated, because the -- as we met with staff, the overall plan is to really have -- this is a small parcel, but to have an overall loop that goes around this piece and so that -- that this parcel, if this develops first, it would still have access out through here and, then, our residents here would still have the ability to come through the gates and out. And that when we first met with staff, the idea of connectivity was -- in our minds it was presented more for pedestrian connectivity, rather than vehicular, because this is a small development. Moe: So, then, you're basically saying that you have talked to the developer on the south and whatnot, so it's -- you're anticipating, then, that they will have access around your property, so, thereafter, you will be able to, basically, have the feel of a private street within your own development. Phillips: That's correct. Moe: And that's why you do want the gates? Phillips: Yes. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Phillips: All right. Thank you. Rohm: At this time I'd like to call Vickie Richardson. Richardson: My name is Vickie Richardson. I live at 1835 East Victory Road. Our property is directly east of this parcel. I have four questions, three of them pertain to, basically, the same thing and it's the water issue and he brought up another one I didn't even think of. He's talking about a natural water feature that already exists winding through that property and I guess my concern is we were contacted six to eight weeks ago about them piping or tiling the drainage ditches that exist that run through our property, the parcel next to us, and back to this parcel, so that they could get the property dried up. I guess I'm in question what they exactly are going to do to address the runoff water from the other two parcels that wind through this property. And, then, if >:: . ~ `91~ ~' r h:.. d''* ~ ~ ~kd;; ~ ; ?r ~ ~,f ~ 5,a er, t L' , .~.. ' ~ +fi~~'rr' t ~%r? {'G ~ C_•. . ~Y: .. A . 1 ~ '~ ~_ 1~ r ~'rK ;~ E': ~_ ~: ~ W `, ~k: *.~: ~k ~K'.Y~.~G. # ~ zb ~ a8' ,.~t~,.•; ~.3S{~. ~t`:h 1 Mt C ~'~ ~ Sd' 'F'ry ji 3 ~ f q fi~ ~,~ a e` ~' r`r „ d .,~.?.~Si a ki'aF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~„~t F ~ , S i~i ~.. .. ... 1 h! 4.,'~b'~"~~~ ... .+.'.1,. ~.~~~, t ~ iX.~Y ti'u'~~ r , stir -;;~ ,, , Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • March 16, 2006 Page 9 of 82 °~ z t .` «r,. ~,` ,g., ~f ,;: ;; ~~, :. ~t~. ;r they pipe it, it's got better than a 600 foot run across their property. It needs to be adequate enough and somebody needs to make sure that they can maintain it and clean it, because the nature of imgation water is sediment. The third one -- let's see. Whether or not they are using pressurized irrigation to water their property. If they do that, our property is where the main irrigation ditch feeds that parcel with its irrigation water. I guess my concern is if they are using pressurized irrigation, how do they plan on doing it? And, then, my fourth one is something, I guess, that could be fairly minor but we have livestock and, then, the problems that we have had with the rest of the developments around there is the garbage. And with that being directly adjacent to our property, I'm not really into huge vet bills because somebody's picked up somebody's garbage. Okay. Rohm: Okay. Richardson: Thank you. Rohm: May have questions. Any questions of this testimony? Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Richardson, are you talking about like construction garbage or -- Richardson: Construction garbage. Newton-Huckabay: -- household garbage? Richardson: Everything. We have had beer cans. Beer bottles. Pop cans. Fast food. Bags of concrete. Roofing. You name it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I had a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. You had several questions about the runoff. You said you had met with the developers before? Richardson: He had contact -- Borup: Did you call them to ask these questions to them? Richardson: They told us that they were going to address it and so far I haven't seen it. Borup: So, they told you they'd address it in this meeting, rather than just answering your question? Richardson: No. What they told us, that it was a -- they had planned on tiling it, because they needed to dry the property up. Zaremba: Okay. So, they never really gave you an answer you're saying? ~. ~~ A~ ~ r-,% ;~. ~: ~,. r~~'~ ~: J~ r ~` k~r k y a ~ : r s ~LC*~'~~ f 1P fi ~, ~k n °E, ~,~ x,~ v:. e~ ~~,~y~ ~; -,_.,p~ r ~ yy ~'( 'S .~f ~~'}'~. ~~Y ~ i:c' ~' ` ~ Y ~ ~C ~~~I ;~~ lam`Ar ~:%Y L ~2. f ~{Q ~lt~nY~~ ~ ;t ' { ~; JY1 h ~ ~':.~ "T 7 R K S i~3 r 7 t ~ }l~. f ~t,'~ 4 ...~ i ~A • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 10 of 82 Richardson: No. No. Borup: Now -- Richardson: And, then, legally they have to maintain that runoff ditch. Borup: Yes. Yeah. That still -- and it needs to be sized accordingly to handle it and everything else. Richardson: That's correct. And it needs to be elevated, so that it drains. Borup: And Mr. -- I thought I heard Mr. Phillips say earlier that your property -- someone was looking at it to develop it. Richardson: No. South. Our is to the east. Borup: Right. He's talking about eventually -- when he's talking about the loop road. Richardson: Well, eventually -- I guess eventually. But right now, no. :;. i . 'K -; i 4,« I t, ~~' { ~' Borup: Okay. No intentions right now? Richardson: No. Borup: All right. Thank you. Richardson: Uh-huh. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And, Caleb, do you want to come forward, please? Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Caleb Hood. Sometimes I feel like I live at 660 East Watertower. I am going to read the memo that Mr. Phillips referred to earlier on behalf of Anna Canning. Hopefully, it will maybe clear up, at least from the planning departments, side things or Anna's side of things, that latitude that Mr. Phillips talked about with the private streets and just kind of take you back maybe on how we came to having new private street standards in the UDC. So, I'm going to read that memo from March 13 -- dated March 13. As the Casa Meridiana project has progressed through the review process, I'm increasingly concerned about the proposed private streets. The purpose of this memo is to document my concerns related to, one, the intent of the current private street provisions to the previous prior UDC private street provisions, the interconnected street system, and, four, the applicant's stated desire to have gated streets. The intent of the current private street provisions, as stated in the UDC -- as the UDC was being developed, we recognized the need for a means to address apartment complexes and commercial projects that did not have internal street systems. For example, it was very difficult for emergency responders to quickly identify ~ ~ , .~ ~ FR W. Y ~s E '\ ' ' ~ f~ F ~ ~ y .1b ,~. .. ~r~ ~, z a f , ,~ , . ~ ~, ~ ~, a ' ~~ 'z ~K. " f ' g"~r~~~ ~ s da ~+ y ~ .. - ~ ~ t S ,-.. T'y~. a*~ ~ ~s~{ ~~; t4 '~'A t t!Y a J. J~- C ~' c' { . a ,,y}~-~', ~ t]li r~ ~' 4.~ i:_ ,c ~ ti ~~ >E ' a ~. rs x ~ , x kp. i ,:t ~ ~; - ~ «. _.~ ~ e r~ F" t =~ ,Fri,, ~ ~, xt:+~`~rtFS~ .u~?rr .. x .~~ ~ s ~ j~{p¢~~.. ~ y~ qtr t ~ 1,'iy " ~f,,,a.~ r~r ~" ~ J 4I ,~ . ~ r .il ~i~.r~ ~~V rw - s7 ~~~N '''j' y~ ~~'A~ - i F ~~" r_ ~ ~ Stiy, a +r t~ 4 ee~ F +~ x 7r wq i ~ ± "+~' ~ r ~ ~ r i . .~ ~ _ _r s t ~-. - 7x4~3 Y, !!_# ,y~.-~ ; 4b .r. ,k¢;, ~ ~ J ~ >., __ ~° ~ r ara S ~~ ~ `~ " n'- v~ }~` tai'. ~ ~ - ~r1~*fi rvy i,~ ~; ; "' y, ~'~t Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning _ March 16, 2006 Page 11 of 82 ~'`:: an apartment unit that may have a Franklin address, but is actually tucked at the back of a complex. You will notice that the standards for private streets are, essentially, the -'~ same as a parking lot drive aisle. In apartment complexes you would typically have ~.` ~' drive aisles with 90 degree parking off of a drive aisle. This is the original intent of the ~' ~ provisions. We later expanded the private street provisions to accommodate -- ~,,; accommodate new developments. In that .instance it, essentially, allows homes to access -- to take access from the alley. Again, private streets were allowed so that we '~ ~ could get addresses on those homes. Casa Meridian is being processed as a multi- `' family development, because there are multiple attached and detached homes and townhouses on a single lot. The intent of the developer is to submit a condominium plat to create homes for individual sale. I'm very concemed about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets for, essentially, single family homes. Prior to the UDC the zoning code did allow for private streets. Private street standards ~= ~ mimicked the ACRD requirements for reduced right-of--way street, 29 feet back of curb, ~~ with sidewalks on both sides in a residential district. This allowed parking on one side ~-~ of the street. The standards were purposefully based on ACHD requirements, so that ~`` '` you did not have developers choosing private streets in order to avoid the higher construction standards. Most developers opted to use public streets. The Casa Meridiana design has a 24-foot back of curb, back of curb, with sidewalk on one side for a portion of the project. I'm very concemed about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets in order to have reduced construction and ~"~~`" development standards. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages ~< an interconnected street system, so that people can travel within a section without R`` ~ having to get onto the section line road system. Generally, those section line roads are arterial roadways. In this case they are currently classified as collectors. We anticipate ,V ' that as more land gets developed to the south, both Victory and Locust Grove will likely gig; be upgraded to arterial roadways. The applicant's original proposal was for an L- a^. shaped circulation pattem that connected to both collector streets and did not stub to f either of the adjoining undeveloped properties to the south and east. ACRD has "`" pointed out that this is very similar to the Sageland Subdivision circulation pattem that ~~~ we struggled with for months trying to devise traffic calming solutions to discourage cut- ~'` ` through traffic. The applicant has presented a revised site design that now addresses '~ Q . the interconnectivity issue, but now we have new issues. We have had two pre- , "a application meetings with the property owners to the south of Casa Meridiana and we `~ anticipate they will submit and application soon. For a homeowner in that subdivision ~~~ ~ that is headed east, the shortest path will be to use the Casa Mel idiana private street F~,,~ and, then, tum right onto Victory. Clearly, that homeowner should be traveling on public, not private roadway. Again, I'm very concemed about the precedent this project may set regarding a private street that connects two different public streets. Although gates are not specifically noted on the current plan, the vision of the applicant for this project includes gated streets. Staff acknowledges that gated streets will address staff concerns about cut-through traffic and about a private street connecting two public - streets. However, gates are not an acceptable solution. The UDC specifically prohibits ~. ` gated streets. The applicants have not submitted a text amendment -- talked about that ~~ earlier. The applicant -- the amendment to allow gated streets will not comply with the •• Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on interconnected streets and circulation pattem within ._ ,, 1r _ 5 ~`!~4n [ '~,~'i ~~EJ~ k, ~ f'- y '~~. ~ ~ Ott,: r 3 $-. ~ J4 u..` ti ~~' b a 'rl ~ :~a'w~tir'°~'.`.~E~~i4: '~`~'i i j i '~~ ~ .- ... ; :, sir. :: -~r:. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 12 of 82 R' ~` each mile section. Because the only way this project works with private streets is to ~~`~ have gates on them, I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding gated streets within the City of Meridian. I will stand for any questions you ~`~ may have. { Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Hood? Hood: Thank you. t:, :. ~'~' Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. That is all that have signed up, but at this time anybody else that would like to come forward and speak on this issue now is the time. Seeing none, ~'`` at this time we will -- would the applicant like to come back forward and respond to testimony given? ~' Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe there were a couple questions that were raised that I would like to answer. Regarding the water management on the site, «~~ we are in the midst of engineering the site, looking at ground water levels and some _ other factors, and as a possibility, we may end up, because of ground water separation and storm water retention and separation, we may need to pipe the irrigation water that ~~ comes from the east, which is, I believe, runoff water. We may need to pipe that water to its outlet over at the -- at this comer here. So, it depends on the separation and how ,, `` the grading turns out. If that scenario happens, then, what we will do, as our kind of ~`` seasonal water feature that runs through the center of this area, that will become our ;~ storm water area and will -- so storm water will be diverted to this area, along with ~~~•~~ plants that augment that field, and it will be designed so that within 24 hours any standing water will percolate through the soil. That may entail three feet of sand. So, ~:~ hopefully, that answers that question. Regarding the maintenance of a the or pipe system, if we go that route we do have a very qualified civil engineer that will design this system. There is roughly -- I believe something like six or nine inch drop in grade from « _ this point inlet to the outlet over here. So, they are working on that design now. And, `. then, the homeowners association that will be developed for the entire site, of course, will be in charge of maintaining that. Regarding the pressurized irrigation, I don't know ~~``` all the answers at this point, except that our civil engineers have been working with the imgation district and have mentioned that will bring that water from the south. And we >~ ~ will use pressurized imgation water for this site. Regarding garbage on the site, of course, we have a six foot concrete block wall with stucco that goes around the perimeter of the site. During construction that wall may not be the first thing built, but yp ~ : I'm sure what we can do is like with any owner, any contractor, try and insure that they keep a clean site. A lot of times merely putting up a construction fence will handle that. When winds pick up it will take care of blowing wrappers from shingles or other building products. °` ` Rohm: So, are you saying that you would put up a construction fence during that phase before the permanent -- ~~ -: ~~: ' ~~; , Phillips: We can certainly make that a requirement. }'J .~'' ~~ ^: ~ v t ~N~ } 1-; - :~ ~ '~q :. ~j } ~S. irr~5'SC Y,CY ? ''.f ~`~ ~c .A•i r f' t, ~, - , ~ 1 ~, r ~ ~ t ~ f i ~F ~ ~~' I . ~~ ~~~ k ~ ~ _ ~. _ ~ -' - INa ~I~• Yytl.~ 4 i +fq( an ~+;e ~~y~,~',Fk ,~ > i ~{ r r 6 # F' _ ~ '` ' i~ ^'~ ~ G_t r~ " 3 ~' C,~.. ~ ~rir€ .. t 3 E ~t• Z~ ,\^ if ~ y . ' ~ { ~ < ' .. ;tr tx .. . f.. . . s liar ' ,_., : ~r~,yx „ : t~~~ ~'y: ~~ y ~f l_ ,~ ~j~ x~4 f 'Zi"x 'Ft ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~~~ 4 ~ ~~I~' ~:. ~.~ ..~:. ? -:_~!, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ~', :' Page 13 of 82 Rohm: Okay. ~~ Phillips: Let's see. There was one other -- regarding the irrigation water, the owners ~ . ~~.,::~ have --did contact the owner to the -- to the east and, then, also the owner to the south, because right now we have monitored the ground water for a year and during the 4 S ~~ summer it was at grade, but that's because this whole area was being flood irrigated. At this time of year the water level is down I believe somewheres around six feet to : ~; eight feet, something in many vicinity. So, what we are asking the owners to do is -- is if 5 ; they don't need to irrigate their property, it would give us a truer picture if they didn't ., ~` `_ irrigate. If they had, then, to the east we could -- we would need to manage that water and take it around the site while construction is going on and at the south we can gate ~~` that water and that will be diverted around the site. So, that's all we are asking was what their imgation plans were for the year, so we know how to manage it during 3'~ ~ construction. I believe I have addressed Mr. Hood's -- the letter he read. I addressed e' ` our feelings on that earlier. 2 3 - Rohm: I think that you have addressed them. I'm not sure that we are any closer to `. , , agreement, other than you would like to see private roads and our planning staff has concems that private roads will set an adverse precedence and -- and I kind of think "``=~' ~ that the stub street to the south gives indication that the intent is to have F~ F . ` ' interconnectivity between your roadway system and any future development to the ~' adjacent properties and in your earlier testimony it sounded like it was more of just egress and no ingress and -- and I'm not sure that that's desirous within the interconnectivity process and so I just throw that out and possibly other Commissioners may have concems along those same lines. So, at this point in time I'd like to tum it over to the balance of the Commission if there are other questions of the applicant. ~' Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple. Mr. Phillips, I think you have -- I'm not sure if you have ~•~ ' ' completely answered the Richardson's question on runoff, but I think you did say that s~ you have still got some studies and analysis to decide what you're going to finally be ` doing there; is that correct? Phillips: Yes. If there is any point that I need to clarify -- ~'. ~~. ' Borup: Well, I think, from what I understood what you said, maybe at this -- it's premature to maybe answer completely, because you're not sure what you're going to do until you finish that analysis. I guess what I'm asking -- I assume that you would be contacting them once you do determine the procedure and coordinate with the Richardsons. I mean that's where the water's coming from and I think it would be pertinent to -- Phillips: Absolutely. ` Borup: -- have that coordinated. So, you would be contacting them. ~ ~ . '"'. , ~ ' ~ 1 I. Y .~iR,~.w d fdt4 ' ~ J I ~t 4 r . N~. 3 ~ ' ~ } ~~ ! ,fi +j { ~ .i ~ ±. l{ s ' }w~t, €.. ~ ~w ~, 11 ~IJ ~ r Y9 t~ ~*t' y" j1, ' ; } $~i • x ~ ~ ~ R eh -Y'nuztit2',~"~.' a . „~ 5, ~C~R . ~ . ` r d i w. .2 •w ~'t. ; t~-jr i4 ~'!"x ~ s . ~~ ~' s £ F ~ j ~~ ' F~.,``"'.~xf: ~&•; ~, '~s~ ~ ~~ " ~ l i ~ .. ~ ~ ~, ~, r. S~r,*.ti~. ~ ~~. `, T ~ ,s.. ,tip; in4` t ~ :ii`"',• y3 t` •, o-.1. s~. ~ a y ,,it ~ T `L~{v'~,~,¢ 1.1 11 :~ , ^hA ,« r ~;F ~ ~+t ' : 1 F ~ t '~'.A~ h ~ A~ • s 1 = dC: '2 g r ' ix;^'fi"Me" ~ I IC F f# ' ~. •' M g a ' a t, k I'.. J'/' +/ ` ~ {ry ; 1 . ~q t 1 5 e to v'~'„ k i I >~ ~ ',; YS.` e - ^ I ~ ` f I. ' d " y •J:k{~ tri i'Lw ~r t, Si ~ '•{ ~ I ' ~ ' a v ' . ~ a,~ AI x J :.,~( ~~ 1:. ~` ~~ .s,;; 7 ,Cc is~.ns"i:~.`4 :'~ 1 I ~ .. •: ~, , v # 4' ..' . n. I Y . I , .. . ~~~ ,. ; E.w g _ C ~, 9° I~ R / ^ ' , .... ; ; .'• :: ~~ : . , c 1 ~ - ~ ~ $ . t E g ~t:~~•~ ~'.' " ~! r ,a ~ ~ .i! " . '~ = 7 ~", ' d ... rx t, ' °~ w. ~ F~ e d.: ;~'~ v ~ ~ t $ ~ ~5 ..~~,~' Rr:. Y ~~ F:ti "2 ~ ~ ~ ... s.. .. ..,^~' ~ ^ r.,:F..:..l .:. ., ...,. .t..s :•.t.".. S.i T,.~.'~~4xa ~» .~. 7. '~,.` ,.~'~. _ :~ ..S.t ~, ..yys.. o-l:.. .at*'."'„3v. :'f. . , ^a .x+c. +r. a. jj, ,:+' :f?.:;,,,' "'+.'' .A~~ m.'tw.y t . ~,'^~ N~ .~ ~ ~~~' 3 { 4 a ' t • I. F ~ 2 •.~•..~" `F N . ` w ~ ~ ,4 4~~ r ~`n) ~• ic A) ~. S` ~¢+Yy^9Y': " : r ~ .. t ja 5 j ~ 4 `~ 'c ~ • R~ ~ 1 ~''"~k "~ " ~ la { .S ' a: t r . ~ . 'Si ;.~i:; ~.l5~~.: Y:br+•e~~'+;?(,F{ R~.. •: h ;, ~ li a 1 w +~r } a , c • :• F 1 ' , ~ ~ . ' "" ` ' ~ t i 1. :~ z` ~ ~ t ~~~ ~e. ., x Y ~ 1 i ~ ~, ~ i 1'~ ' ~,`. i % A • '* ;~'• r[5 ~,a ~4"4...w . W ~I ~I 3 ai'i~ y`'^~ {F ~ .y. ;Y: # . .: .~. i ~ : ~.. ': .: :: ~ -F.. ° :7 'I' .}. i.~~lp`~. ~ ' ~ ' ~ s~ s ` n . ~ & 1 (q~ •; ` ~'t'~A F ' N N~ '' fL~ gqII~~^.:,p:yv~$~ L ~. 1..~ f _;n•',:Y. I ' Y = ! ~ F ..1 ~~ 9 . ~ ~y~ '.T', r e~4 r ~, ~ , ~ tS~~i~Ff,` ~ :N:-•Sl:~i. ~ 4: F, ~Y ... i . t _ t ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r , re .T Y1 +.E. .'-~ ~+a;' ::, ~-:°" ~ .J j $'y ~ ~ht ( a t k ~ ~..$~a.. • r~~+„-e~~#k '~f' ~ " ^ F $Cy,F,.~:l~' rs, fr Y F,.~4ilr i' ~, ~ i y~>;~~L .I.',"' "rS,•r'~:~'j,.y~ ~ ,s+ ~ ~ ..7` 't Y' . ~s~' f ~ I `, ;~ F +~..: tt c ~t r~ . ~ .¢e yvtie.n~• , `°• ~ ~ i . ,x;Y~~~:`i :('`; ^ ,~y ~ 1' < , ~~ 4. ,FI' y '~kfi; p :`+rf•~i' xc4 .is.'sM+': •.,. , ~. f 1,5- a 5y ?' ^.:d .. 'l a . ,.~ Jg ~%:'/?!'.ti ;' .. °~ Y. '5.~~ i ' I , d V 3 ! T .IE ,. ]., r'.` rb;%i .tl `.y 'yQ fiy _."~~ ~1 '• •~ d M' ' ~`~ tt T'., b~4 k .'AI. ~.~1 F } V~;' .~ , i . ' , ice.' -• 'N t'~nta~i+~' ; ~ ' = "a ` ~ I ! I ~ I ;'4~~}... y J5, .• ~.~ .1 t §. 51.1' L i ; • ~ .~ } ~ ~ ~ ~, , i , , s • ~, x ~ ' ,~ ' 1 s R ,t ~ ~ ~ [ , ~ :5 , 3 1 'Y t - n ~. ! ~5 ^ 1 .5. ,x k.<.v.~. 3 ./ . . s •s , ' ~9C'1r: ; `.ya..a~ 'th: i ?..+~ rx. •; k.. 1,..._ K ti~ x ~ ' _ j. If F '~ , • ; . t t ~"~sr` F t""~Y~h 'S. ~~_s~,~.~` ~ `'1~5:,~,~, "4Z ~•~ u+fl''16a~~. T .~ t3Q~'Y~ 1 7 .. 4 ~ A, ~ n A ~:S ~ +( [ .1 . F ~~ 4 ..~ 't`7 t ~ °+u~ J7 :. 1 ~. ~. ~.;. , ~~ ' °' ' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • March 16, 2006 Page 14 of 82 . ~r . ` Phillips: Yes. a~ , `~' ~r _ Borup: The question I had, then, on -- you mentioned several things earlier in your `~" ;~;, , comments on the staff report -- and they have prepared a report, but I don't know if wrote completely which -- which items that you felt that you had a concem with and ~_' which ones you felt okay. I'm specifically looking at section nine on page nine under the ' analysis. I think that's -- that's the section that went into things that staff said, special ~. considerations, and also other conditions that -- that the felt were necessa So, an Y rY• Y 4 ~~~ of those conditions that you had a concem with? ~~ Phillips: Yes. I -- at least mine says page ten under special considerations. ~; ~' Borup: Uh-huh. „,_ ` ; Phillips: Let's see. The item one, two -- under three, ACHD staff report, regarding ~:~ public streets, that I guess we just want to reiterate that we would prefer to have private streets, instead of public, and, then, under private streets, second paragraph, staff ;.;: '`' would recommend that a Ilcant consider eliminatin Victo Road access after pp • 9 rY construction is completed in the following fashion. And we do have an issue with that, - eliminating the access to Victory Road. ~~, Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I might shed a little light. With this we have just a conditional use request. We don't do the detailed site review at this time and typically we see a ~. ~;_`~~ '~ pretty close site plan that's going to be what we anticipate seeing on the ground in the ~ future when we do staff level final certificate of zoning compliance. With that we still -- r = ,~ as the staff report details, we are going to have a redesign of this one, just because the - ,1 multi-family unit standards don't -- are not met with a lot of the design of these -- the ~: ~' front of these garages. There are I believe 15 units that show 15 feet and we do require ~~> ~:. 20 feet to back of curb. So, there is a lot of elements that need to be addressed. Staff wasn't necessitating that they do a loop design like they were showing, it would have ~' ' just been that if they are going to do a public street, that they provide one public street and, then, possibly do an emergency access similar to what Sageland did to Victory Road, so, then, all the traffic to Victory Road may be eliminated. Now, when we do `'' these compliance to CUP, that's what I was trying to get at with that portion of the ordinance, is that when they submit a new site plan to us for final approval for certificate ~" of zoning compliance, that we can make substantial conformance to your approval with `' those s ecial considerations. If the used one, two, or all of the elements of them, p y that ~~- . would be something that we could also concem significant conformance. So, they were fir;.,. not made or even put in there as conditions to be written into any type of design for final _ approval, just as considerations for potentially alternate designs that staff would find in substantial conformance to the UDC. Borup: And that's kind of -- thank you. Because that was kind of the direction Iwas -- was wondering. So, it looks like -- I mean the staff report would not at this point require r a redesign of their project, necessarily, would it, for approval? I mean -- _{ ~~ ;~ ;, - 1!' t ~~,. /,~ ~. ~''~ ~' x ~.: ACS ~': r. '.s:: a' b >z: .G, kr.'~ ~ r .. ~. t-~ µE~ a 5' 3 1 ~ ~ '~ a'. .~ f' ,~ ~ ~ >'° ~ z ~"~4 ~ w' ~~ ~~' ? ~' q' +~'~ r 3e"yf~~r~ ~'_ f+.'r~Y. k ~,1 s*~ ~, ~,~ e ~ -. ~ -. ~, r;• ~•1 ~ = ~ ~~' u. , + E. ~' ,+ ~ etc. }~. ~ - ~. ~ . ~ 3 ~~_,~; r -~~ ~'~x~t ~. , :fit ~ , d Fa ~( ~.5€~~ i ~ ~?, o t-,,~~,,it ~ a:. i ti~.riT,:-~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~, ~x,~„~,~~~. ~ - _-s` It f t iii ~.E"r ' ~ n~ 's7,,Y. x u ~ ,- i ~ - `l ` - r s ,~. "- ~ ` ... .. M. ~ ~x~ a:: ya•1:;s Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 15 of 82 ~~ Guenther: I would not. They have some design elements that need to be readdressed, ~~, but staff feels comfortable with the design. ry~j`.: Borup: As far as annexation and zoning. ~,. :~~ _: Guenther: That's correct. ~: ~_ ` Borup: Okay. Then I don't know that Ineed a -- I don't know if we need to answer, in ,~; my mind, some of these other questions, unless some of the other Commissioners -- unless you wanted to -- well, again, depending on what -- on what direction it went, .~ those things would have to be addressed on a final plat and that you understopd? ~~ Phillips: Right. ~, ;~ Borup: Okay. ~: Guenther: Commissioner Borup, just to clarify, there would not be a final plat, it would ~; ~~: be a staff level certificate of zoning compliance. t ~1"1.:'~ Borup: Okay. But -- right, because we are not doing lots and blocks. But the staff level y- would still need to comply with the -- the same standards that they were addressing. I don't know -- I don't know if I had anymore questions at this point, unless ~rou -- you ` were going through some of the things you had concerns in, but I think ail of them maybe are not going to affect the annexation and zoning. Phillips: Commissioner Borup, yeah, I -- that's our understanding of this process. .~~~° However, I just wanted to insure that these weren't being conditions of approval listed that way. Borup: Okay. I think that was explaining that, no, they are not, but those are concerns to consider in the future. ~. "~ - ` Rohm: Back to the public versus private roadway. Maybe this question is more of staff '~ than of you, but if, in fact, we were to make the applicant have a public thoroughfare F `~ from the stub street to the south out all the way through to where it dumps out onto ~~`, Victory Road, where -- that connection portion of it, make that public and allo~rv them to ~; _ _ have private roadway for their two cul-de-sacs, would, then, there be a requirement for lots along the public roadway or is this -- could they still maintain the development just as presented, except with a wider roadway? Guenther: Well, I would have to defer that answer to any ACHD representative, `' because it would come back to how do you dedicate that roadway without ~ plat and ~`'~ since they are not doing a plat, that question I cannot answer. ~` ~~ Y rte ~m ~~~ ~~+' *,a. ~I~ ~'~ ~. to F, w~~- h ~4j ~~ ~ ~. t. Z LS 1r f i y [I ~~ ~~ °k. ~ s, ' .~~ ,~ ~~ ~:: a air;' ~ s 1~H1~ccfin ¢~ ~~; ~. ,,,A ~~r, .. 5 M' .,: i L 15 } S ~ ~o(( - ' YK ~~ ~f ~ ~' i ~~,, ~kfz r s ii~~t t~ ~. '~ ~~* ¢M, ~~~ , ~~'v ~ ~' #~ ~ ~ `; P rt ' .~R'; s ~ , , ,,'~''f" ~+., ~ ' 1 F}~.yr~l~ •: ~~~~~ t. . ~ 4 L 4 : ' ~L ~ T7~' ~ `f ` . . s ~' y h 1 }F ~ ~ t ~' M1 ~I kid ~ l"i , , r ~ ~ .; ik sJ~ w . ''*n+ ~x ~% - '~' _~~~ s +. ~~k` Y ~~ ~( 7i ,r a~1`~ +,~~ ~' .,'„ _ t ~ ; ~'.L ~ ~~r s;', ~i~ t ~~7 ~~_~ .~Fk ~~}_.. - .. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ~'~` Page 16 of 82 Rohm: Okay. Well, ostensibly, that does answer it. If you have a public roadway, then, you have to have a plat. Thank you. Are there any additional questigns of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. {~ Phillips: Thank you. ti. ~, <~ ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? k ;; Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. G Zaremba: If we are commenting, just to kind of speak my mind -- and I'm not sure it will hel because I could Basil o either wa on this. I'm ve sensitive to the issues ...- P, Y 9 Y rY thi k b t idi t M f `~` ' n a ou an o or er raised by the director. They are important considerations and incorporate into projects. I also know that at least, I, myself, and I think most of the Viz:.. Commissioners always wish that we would get unique and interesting projects. This appears to be one of those unique and interesting projects that I could easily support if there weren't the controversy of whether the street's public or private. I like the basic design of it, the basic idea of it. The only thing I would offer is that if we could somehow make it clear that if we do recommend approval of this, we are not establishing a precedent that everybody else can use, but this is a unique experiment to See how it works and we wouldn't approve another one like it until this one has been it effect for five years or something like that, just to see whether it works or not. But other than the ~''~ plat issue, I like the chairman's suggestion that a portion of the road be public and that Y~,,;.. was exactly the portion I would suggest and, then, the cul-de-sacs be phivate. If that ~'` ~ means a plat, I don't have a problem with that either, really. So, now that ',I have not given an opinion -- ~~ ~ < Rohm: Commissioner Borup, would you like to add any comments? Borup: No. I think I feel a lot of the same as Commissioner Zaremba just expressed. ~ :' ~~ ; i like the uniqueness of the project a lot. It's nice to see something -- something that's different and I think it offers some -- some opportunity. I think the -- I don't have a lot of concern because of the size of it. It's close enough to the intersection that -- that if it's gated -- I mean people don't need to cut through that. It's not that they are gaining ` '~ anything. So, I guess I'm saying I like the project. ;, `~ ~, Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: I was hoping for public streets through there and I would still like to ~ see public streets. I would be okay with the concession of the cul-de-sacl arms of it _ that's private, but I would like the connectivity to be public streets. And I -- oh, I do want to add, though, I wouldn't mind private streets if the only access was through the south - ,' `. ' -the- main access through the south. But I don't think that that's desirable for the applicant to have no access to Victory. So, I would like to see at least the cut through `~. ~~ „ that -- for the north -- the south heading north or -- t ;, ,~. t~F4z . ;~ .~~;: _-? ;; , - .:, ~';; _ _ ;: r , . ~+ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 17 of 82 Rohm: And, then, that has other concerns, then. You end up with a plat requirement, as opposed to the development as currently -- current application 'indicates. "`' Commissioner Moe. s'= = Moe: Boy, it's always good to be last here in this explanation point. Actually, I concur pretty much with the other Commissioners. A couple things I would like to point out that I do appreciate the applicant -- since our last meeting, you guys did come back with a ~jl different design that did address our concerns in our first meeting. I do appreciate that ~~ immensely. Although I also feel that I want the public street basically from the stub ~, ~ street out to the Victory Road point. I do believe that that should be noted as a public street, although you'll have to go in for a plat. I do believe that -- other than that, I could support it, because I do believe it is a nice project. k'", Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for staff. And I may be reading this wrong. On page 13 we talk about staff recommendations and say subject to conditions listed in ~ : Exhibit B. Is that supposed to be Exhibit C? ~_~;~ Guenther: That is correct. It should be Exhibit C, the conditions in this report.) ,.. Borup: Okay. That makes a lot more sense. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we are mentioning typos, I have one also. Rohm: By all means. ~~_=~ Zaremba: On page six, roughly in the middle of the page, there is a paragraph six, but the paragraph that precedes paragraph six, in the middle of that it has a reference to ,:', `. Amity Road and I believe that should be Victory Road. Rohm: I believe you're correct. Okay. Then, at this point in time I have a question of staff. If, in fact, we are going to recommend approval of this with standing 'Ithe public roadway versus the private roadway from the sub street to the south to the connection ~~ on Victory, can we make that as a condition of approval and, then, the applicant would, Y''` then, have to come back with a plat or how do you make a motion to that effect? I'm a little -- ' - 1 ~~ Guenther: I'd have to defer that to the legal representative. . '~: ~. ` ~ Borup: Mr. Chairman, I might just mention one of the conditions that's already in the 3 staff report says the applicant shall contact ACRD to determine that the private roads 3 are not deemed a competing road system. The applicant shall certify pn ACHD letterhead that this finding can be met prior to City Council. Does that help clarify that 3 some? ~~ - ,~ ,',, ,_ ~_ . ~' h'I~ ~ ~~, ~~~~ ~ s .. F '. I ~ ,, ~ I z v ~ I 1 ( ~ f it Jx ,?+y J K ' ~: ,, I f ~q ' ,1 ' i I. ~ ~1 F ~F '~ ,~/jY ~ ~` " ~ ~, ~. i .. `~~i 1 ` ~ ~r I ~ z ~ I T+ , . , . I 4 ,. ..,} ..F' '1.. :)~.d~ 1.a,. " I ~ { •• yyX, ,t t • c ^:~. 7 ~ }, 5 '{ f ~ .•~i•~ Z'6~•:•[:~ ~w.~~Y~3 i~"a Y . /' ` 9 `# Y9~' ~ ~ M1 I ~ . ,fir 4q~ ..R'<: ^~.}°~ ta~,'s; ,.~,~ i Y`c.. ~. ' ' ^# ~ y a ~'k 1 ,k'.,'~'~~. '~ ~ li to f . o ~( . .,` v k~ t ..r.,. ac;' 'ri.*y ya ..r .. t ~ 6# '' qa'r,?, a (_ b '.s: ~,~ a.$ ~5^~:.h>p,,,,';~... ~ ~ ~+~.y,:.i ~ ~ ~ i ~ :~.x .r^C ~' > i r :a ; r •<~s ,.;,.> t: ' _ Y T :.j.. . ` <"~"~~~t •~ 1 ~ i ~•: F ' f ' } : ': '2 l ` . 1; •d1 fR'~ _2 t 1~ iL1~ IV.k, I`S /~ C K . . ., { k,' = k . H~(~i { Y A , ~` .er : ~ .. W,y ,. I ~•~~•.'f :,]1~.:{~^: .Vl ,~ k1 ~ , g i``. rl. ~,S t ~~ ;~ ~.' ~r" ` .`n~~.Y x .ba. „ t , ~ < r ' + ^ ? fir('' ' fi I ,' - x : •; . , ~* i• s 3 . zV~i;' `. "" , : #th. 1 I -i~ ' ¢ f s.7a r 4 i5`.r ~f ~ 7 ' , , ~ 1 ~ ° f .~~ h ..7 Y H J ' `S: .. .6 . . `it ~. ,Y. ~ _ W t X 4 "{ 1 , •: K i•_:. ~': rod' , _. ,.. .. ~ a { ,c ...~+' A t g. ~.t ~ k ~ x ~ I , . . r ri ...~9... csx. , , .. 'is.x',A .-~d :~~~ri7. 7 "Y ~.;+., Y .. { .... r v. a ., .. ,<~'" r . n•~:i, iu .i. P .a a + _ s ':a. ' ' ~ S . " t `; .:5;" S~t:S :iF';i; ~L`y ;J ~ ~ d ~ 4 s, .~ `§ "sf,~ I I S . a F. z_' 1 .a ::- r ~ N F v ~ 4 ` 5 i. ~ f a 56 , Y {q '1 F . .~ . o .5 't ' ~ ° s ~ I 7 ry ~ y 5 ' o ~. ~,': S Y i i •' , ~.~~ •' ~ :a .;y .6 s!; ~ e ! , i ~ , ~ I , r . :t h: : di ;,`_'o:'~'~'.di ~i , :r I, f, ' e si ~' ,C ~ ~ ,•: b _ I: >;~.{ x` Y ,. a~ "~aF,.; J • ' ~ * ~ d~ dt .3' Y 43 k' ~ "it • f,~ '.fi ~;J~.1; :L• 'f _ :Y •,',,. • `1. :k '>(^ om. ,. Y7,: •f~~ a~ ~ {i . :: n, . •1 -uf` / r h g i~. A"~''. ,x~. h~4 { •~. } 3 ~. ~ I 3 +b't ~ .. kro x •V :t"•s~ r , b T ~' d ~ , £s~ . . y'x Yx...y„ .qR ~ n ~.. =her.. • ..r~ ~ ~ • k ~ ~~ n w. . ... ,.. , .. ... . .1 ~ Y X, x J I I ~. 3. ::~~. ~ ~ . , . . , ~;i.4 ~Y z ?. ~ ~ x . ~ 4¢ i ' ` ~ il i ~ ~' ~ , " ~ 4y{ e ~1~S~ * ( • '.N d •~~ . ~ ~~ 1 I.. ~ 2 ~:~ : i •},a,q 1 , ~ •~ ^^ 3'~ . e ~ 7 : H ' ~ •' } I ' ~ ~ y . . .•i~p ~,4 ; 4~ s rv , r r ~ .M~ , S•~'- ' ..:.r` . . , ~ 4. 'sb~.s . ~ . ,. a ,) ' iFK'~I~ ;;c . F.. II ' c 4 ~ [ ,.. ,,.. .. ~ a.tY;~ I I f 7 . .: ~•fi% ;}k : : h ~ y I y ~ x } 3 '.~l'.«F~~• E < `~4~. \ M d! s0. ' ` ~: • 4T' 1:. J ,t~~'l ~ Y , ..4.. q . l ;~ R j ~ r ;c ~S , ; i r l ~ , q ..W S.:a1R A,.. ~ ~ ~`dx?~s^` '~°!•"`, „ .' ' n'% ".~". . ^"3iys ~r ;,'-~;,yry, ' • ;~n r, k. ti`' ~.~ v. ~*. 1 , s ^• J'~-r" Y..{-:'~;,•n 4 f' i yi 3,+i~s y,. •' •', 7 r ` d ^} , i ,4 :~ . , { d ~ a i '-~~i . :. ' ~ ~. f... .:,5 ?; *Hi;;'~~ 't J ,; . I t ! : :d: 4 I # , . .~ r I •:rt.~~fi ; S, •:q„"~ 7 • ) jj~L k ~`R i f ~: ~~ >~ ~~" S. ;~.I ? ,. t~ x' #., , ~; ~. , ~. t: s 3f'~ <' I ~,, ~' "~'. ', y' ~, ii ~,, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 18 of 82 r~ ~.~ Rohm: Well, it clarifies if, in fact, it remains private, but if we want to make it a condition of moving forward that it be public, then, that almost seems to be a moot point and maybe at this point in time I'll ask legal counsel for his impression. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Council, I think that you can just make that a condition of approval and he -- the developer will have to decide how they make that happen and if that involves backing up and including a plat in this, then, that's what they will have to do. I don't think you have to decide for them how they accomplish that, but if you are going to make that one of your conditions, just go ahead and do it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think -- I mean they still have the opportunity take it bn to City Council the way it is with our recommendation. Rohm: Well, we are going to make -- one of you is going to make a motion fon~varding it on to City Council with a recommendation. How City Council react's to that recommendation is solely up to them. So, maybe at this point in time we will'just make a motion as we see it and City Council can react accordingly. Borup: We don't always necessarily agree with ACHD, but in this case I'm inclined to let ACRD determine what kind of street system they are comfortable with. Rohm: Would you like to make a motion to that effect, sir? Guenther: Mr. Chair, first thing is that you still haven't closed the Public Hearing. Borup: Right. Guenther: And, then, Mr. Hood wants to make a comment prior to a motion being established. Borup: And I did have a -- well, maybe Mr. Hood needs to speak first, but I ,did notice that none of the director's comments were incorporated into the staff report. Rohm: I believe the reason why is the director's comments came at a late hour and it was best to make sure that it was included as public testimony. Borup: Oh, yeah, that was quite late. Rohm: And that's the reason for that. Caleb. ~4 F~`~ lF~ ~~5 ~ T F1f~,kt'yS~, f V Y'. t r 1H:~i~i ~' xl~> > ~ ~k: ro1, ~F?l S ~b ~ '°. ~ yam,: ` i~, ~1 - 1 ~ a~fp e¢ ~ ~~~~ r ~ f~ .;~ a~G --~ aR > f =-f .,.r,~ > ~ ; ~,~ry~ r ~. Ft~ ..~~' ~2 ~ x ~" Y-'y ~ ~ 1~ , 4 y d .?^:: ,y l v1~i~ 7s ~_ ~,~~ 3~ v ~ `~,~ ~~_~ - ~Y. t i ~~ .Mf a. ~~. ~ a s.1 UAri -~ ,.•g y..~~;,~,~~ 0:` b'S W l2~ ~;~` r~ k ~"`~€ ~ ^ N S"~y,~~: f~~ ~ a.M.il~~ t { r a a~ ~. ~' i; r ~g4'afi`~ ~a ~~ . 4 l ~i''44 r -a: } , L ~ '~ ~?~'+~~ a~ ~- ~ . f .~ ~~;~ c ~lvr a;... T ... K'7 }bras'", `P j, x, -~.- t.r- E ~ _~~~ S ~.;; s: ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 19 of 82 C Hood: I guess since I have the floor -- I was going to let it go. Just to kind of tag along with what Mr. Baird said, your motion -- I know there has been some con~em about pressing on applications that you're not quite sure how they are going to loop, so I was just going to also give the option that you could, you know, continue this or' make it a condition that they need a plat and you want to see what that looks like, because the applicant's testified that it is going to change what they have here. I mean there is no doubt the roads get wider. There has been some comments about parking' having to change and things like that. So, I just wanted to also add that, that sometimes there has been concern about pressing on projects, not seeing the final thing and; then, the City Council approves something you never got to see. They have been ai lot better about remanding things back if it changes significantly, but I just also wanted to throw that out as an option to just pushing it on to City Council. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I'm ready to make a motion. I'm just wondering if the applicant has an opinion on -- on what their preference may be. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Phillips: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, as you know, the -- you know; we were here two weeks ago, we made the minor changes that were deemed necessary and we have accomplished that. We would really like to move on to City Council 'ilevel and, meanwhile, talk to ACHD, as Joe mentioned in the last meeting, that if' ACHD is developing quite a back log and we could see that we are going to potentially get held up for quite awhile going through this with the meeting and trying to work this out with ACRD, get their opinion, then, if platting is involved and so forth. And so 'we would really like to, out of respect to I think everyone, be able to move forward to the City Council level and -- Borup: And that's kind of my question, as long as you realize that you have gigot things to work out with ACHD, things to work out with City Council, and if everything was approved as it is, you got a lot of things to work out with staff on the staff level process. So, you understand that all those things still need to be worked through? Phillips: Oh, yeah. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Phillips: Thank you. Guenther: One final staff comment. Just -- I don't want to sound like I'm defending the applicant, but ACHD has had four staff members comment on this and they have been ~I _~' ~i~ .~'. 4~ {: C' k + f ~, ;a. KI" ti ~~ ~ ~°' ~' f' . ~~i e'~.~, t T*- y r s~ 4 "a~~~ {t F: n l' : ~ t »X~M'YY. ~.i. x-, _, aai~*~~X F 1'~ 'y`9.f ~'t''u d ~ 7 ~} i j C i.~' i ~My~' 'r~ `'.5~ f~ A ,' A~,`-• t ~~~~} ~{ t ~-i 7. 4 "~sa d, s~ r ~~ \ ~ A C«~ .x'~L , Y.'. it aY mgt f•`, ~:t ~ T::" ~.,~~ ~ a~' ~~ , ~ tit w, i• - vl ~. ~1'~jci ~ {.: Fj;_ ' S 1 .,[ ,,°r ,;_~ i~ «~ ., ,: ~`;: _:. { ;: , ~. ~~. , L. G~ ;, . ~~~~ ~~~ ~fl'n ~; F>': :. f' ~f ~:. i~:,.:b y_ ~'.~ ~~. s P: f' ~; ;;:~, ~~ ~I '..~~ii. 7 h ^~i, y''. • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 20 of 82 kind of inconsistent and he is correct in saying that it may be awhile before he gets another written comment from them. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing -- Borup: Both of them. Go ahead. Were you going to repeat those? Rohm: Yes. On AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 16th, 2006. End of motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion? Borup: Yeah. We don't have a second, so I guess it would be discussion. Zaremba: I would ask that we add two elements. I agree with the basis of the motion, but I would want to ask -- Borup: The motion is consistent with the staff report. Zaremba: Well, the staff report asks for all public streets and I like the compromise suggestion of a public street from the stub to Victory and private streets for the two cul- de-sacs. But, then, I would also add an if and that is if the applicant puts landscaping across the south end of the stub street, it's with the understanding it will be removed as soon as there is a stub street available to connect to. I don't want there to be any lack of clarity on that. Rohm: And I think that what you're saying is consistent with the balance of the Commission. I believe that the motion -- the intent was to let Ada County Highway District make that determination and that's why Commissioner Borup cut his motion off at that point, but maybe I'll let Keith respond to that himself. ~~ 4 ~. 4 Y ~1 .F t34 y ~ l ~; t ~ H 1 F k j1 ~. 't t'l A. -F ~. ' < ~ ~ ~~ ~,~t Vha,f-4 {74 ~ ~ Y Y E ~ ~~ ~ 'Nr` F. !'~ i ~~'~~E - xPi - r~, s ~ 4 ~.{ ~ ~ " ; ~ r r '!~i I` x. '`~'j~ s.., ~~gg t ~ a ~, s, •. S ~ .. ~ ~~ ~ 'a S ilj ~*C ~1 h'RY .yy~~7 ~^ ~ ' wE y '~.f av7 ' ~t ~.j~ T .ry ~ })-. tr33 { ~ r::." A~ i 7yyij~j1',,.~~,~ ~~yy G ~N~~,~Y~f ~ ~.~' ~aC } t M1 ~~ yS~S~* r - ` S`~4 - cE 1~ .i .a.t^ w~i~.. ,4q R jhyy. , ~- ~ ~ ~~ + ~. . ~, gti 1" tti 1 ~ i' f n 3 ~~~ (Yi k ~ ~' l~ } r -.i t ~ ^C 01' t F ~ ~' ~~~"Y'N'L ~Y S, ii"n ~~ _ ~4 y ~, S~ ~ . `7 ~ ~ . ?';, f. '- ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 21 of 82 ~~ Borup: Yes, it was. And I -- unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing where the staff report `~ ' required public streets. They said it, you know, essentially, needs to be determined by ACRD. Unless I missed the sentence that had that. So, I think the motion is consistent ~t' with the staff report, so -- 1'".: ~3 t': ~ ~' Rohm: And so the motion, basically, is let Ada County Highway District determine if a >;'1: public roadway is necessary to meet their objectives. So, that's - I don't believe that ~k~.~~ Keith's motion would include your comments. ~ -. ~~. Borup: At this point it didn't. ~~, ° ° Rohm: It didn't. So, I guess at this point I will see if we get a second. Okay. !; ~~' ~` Borup: Let's try another motion from someone. x "jT"'' Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd entertain a second motion. ~- ~ Zaremba: I'd be happy to try, Mr. Chairman. "~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Very similar. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP ~~~ 05-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16th, 2006, with the following modifications: One, that the roadway be a public dedicated roadway from .: the stub street and including the stub street, through to Victory Road and the two cul-de- sacs may be private streets if the applicant so desires. And the second is that if the applicant chooses to put landscaping across the southern end of the stub street, it's with the understanding that it would be removed immediately as soon as there is a ` '` connecting stub street available on the property to the south. End of motion. Moe: Second. ~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending ' approval of AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, with stated modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~,~ Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast comer of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: ;~~i , ~1. !~ ' j a R ~ • ~.s ~ • S ° ~ ' , !fi •~e. ~: 1 4 a t r„~',M.` ~. _ ~ ~s:~( ~L ~ y K F tR}~ g+"gF. ,~fNM i :1 '}~~. iY~' k5~ l o ~' F~ ~' ' ~ ~ ~ b~''..' a g':~ fk ~~ ~,y>i .Izz Cy !; ~ E~ +7 t ^Y ~,J'k i ~ t ,M'• +x.. t j ty ~. ~*~:?:$ ~"w.t 3~M . M~ .~ 7 f .`{ _ ~~r~.~'~y~ .• r ~ iii ~ '~%~~r" ~u~i~~ ~ i~~'' ~a' 1~;r'y~:'"; .i . +: ., tl ~ ~T r`.Y~+„ • 4 ~ ^" ,~ ( k•a ~` L`4.n+F xS~~~irA°( tl ~ ~ 5f': ~ I '~ ~ `r~'.': ~„"~ (,t ' , .5 _ a . ~ .f. ~ ..p : e?ati ~ ~'>Xi-3 -'~i''b ! s?,', ~:,., : ~ ,y ~ ~ x" ~ • 4 6 K ~ ~ ~ ~~} t ;.~ ~s tti 'I:. .IC Z X/`+ti F=~!h '• 4.{, ..{.p4 i L' i~ '1 A [~ ~ . I S ~ r Y .y ~ .. ~~ y ~'. fti C ~ •~~,, t. v:ou,.~ i ' N.. '3 H OA ~~ • ~bi i :tl ~~!" 'tl7A::~~ ~.~~m??"ff 3.. iSL,~ •r3'~ .~+r...Z~.µ: a j ,~'.i5~ !a5' i~"'~•'. rAkt ':h • ~ a+ j ~ : a ;N ~` : :~~., f .y k SA •w + r' e k `'Y`~6~' ,. s ~ . y, . ~ , d %. 1' .F; ,,MS.~;•:k':.x F~:y =: ~"•~x • ~ '>+s' '` ~ ~ r ~ A • ,. . ~ tr a,. , , } Y ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z d"'.fi+ ~~.s ^'~'.'~F ~'.e'.`~?~ .tai. ~ aC.:.€` '~'n.. h"x ~~ r '~i fl . r ~'~,re ~ I ..fix "'mss`'. . ~ ~t `7~~..5. .. Y~.~.~~-~.~~# hq; ,a.~ I• "III ~ +`i. r~ Y'.wd{7P~=$t '.. .. y ,:. ., +• ,: ; ,: to ~. :~ ,:; ;; -.: fi :.. ~~ 1 "` t n11 i Rh ~: j . t i w. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 22 of 82 .. , ;. ,4!;., .. -. ,.t, Rohm: At this time I'd like to open up the continued Public Hearing from February 16th, 2006, of PP 06-002, related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is continued from -- sorry. This is the section right here, again, from the development agreement site plan. This is the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. This is the slide I wanted to -- for the revised preliminary plat approval. It's for 18 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone. This is an existing C-G zone. With this, the following modifications have been made. This was originally six attached kind of medium large units, I guess you can say, with -- and they originally had five small units at the end of the sixth one to the north. The applicant has redesigned this with several amenity-type of uses. There is one additional eight foot walkway. As you can see, they would all exceed the standards for landscaping. In this location right here these three uses will share outside amenities. Staff has conditioned that those would not go away with subsequent development, which we would really like to see that happen. As well as in the comer of the -- their cross-access, they are showing additional landscaping pads, that type of development. Again, this is something that is more of an amenity, because outdoor seating seems to be much more desirable when you're waiting for a table. As well as the staff has done the modulation to the buildings to meet the requirements of the gateway corridor, has broken up the parking lot by adding a pad site in the middle. Has provided the private street style cross-connections with the sidewalks and additional landscaping as required. The outstanding issue continues to be the connection to Eagle Road, which will be at roughly the quarter mile mark. The application is showing the half section of 41 -- or a 42 foot wide road system. The applicant is also showing an additional 20-foot landscape buffer from this commercial site to what, potentially, could be either an office, residential, or an additional commercial site to the south of this project. Essentially, the applicant has also redesigned the loading docks in order to facilitate large truck traffic coming off of Eagle -- or off of Ustick and not off of Eagle and would not have to cross traffic at an uncontrolled intersection. I guess the staff report has made findings for approval of this site as conditioned. They have come back with a plan that seems to meet the concerns of the Commission of the prior hearing and staff is recommending approval of this site as designed. Again, similar design elements are still pending final approval by City Council, which would be the access points to Eagle Road. We would foresee that these points would be contingent on that, as well as a potential redesign, but the applicant is getting the commercial plat, which we don't always see a very static design come through at this level. So, this would be for, essentially, 18 general commercial lots, which, as conditioned with the incorporation of the additional design elements, staff feels comfortable recommending approval of this to the City Council and the Commission. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. 1'y, _ a, ~z.+ ~. $ ~GK ~'h'{ f ~~ r;r ~ U, rc_ ~i S~~t f ti '~. Y ' A C Y3e ~fiS ~' ~~ i ~y~. r { ~ Yk ~ we=t a ..- ~ " - i . :. i},~ y ~- y ,p . X ri .F F~ z. r ,~ fi a N,~ ~ x.~ :_:) itj.a~^c t~~ ~'r'. -; rl'i ~ ,~,:r `fi w. ~ K,.. r .. . p ~ ~.,' _ i ik~ . _, p i ` F"' r ~~ ~ ~_; yti '~?K ~~: ~t ~K f r.+ `'_ ~~~.~ i x',i e' ~~~ z~'I ,::~ f. x' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 23 of 82 Moe: Joe, just a couple things I'm assuming might just be misunderstood. The preliminary plat that I received, you're noting that it was redesigned March the 10th. I didn't see any dating of the preliminary plat. Basically I have got a received by the city on that date, but nothing in the revised. Guenther: That is correct. The applicant's engineer did not re-stamp it. It still says November 15th. Moe: Yes. Guenther: I stamped all of them in as received March 10th in order to indicate that those were the revised drawings. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way, Boise. February 16th I was before you. You gave us some great direction. I think what we came back with, we are, actually, more exited about it than our original. So, I think we did some good work there. Hopefully you do, too. Joe, can you -- okay. I gave him a little disk to put up. I do want to note that the preliminary plat -- the site plan that you see still is conceptual in nature. The exact mix of where things are going to land may change, but staff has build in conditions of making sure that certain pads have pedestrian plazas and that kind of stuff. So, you should feel comfortable with that. We will comply with that, although, you know, the size may get bigger or smaller or configuration may change a little bit. Joe went through the specific changes with you. I did want to note just a little bit -- before we had a -- a very straight driveway coming through here where we have made this one kind of meander and we pushed out the center building 20 feet, pushed these back five feet, and, then, we left these end ones where they were before. So, they are all staggered a little bit, so nothing's in a straight line any longer. And, then, we do have our three points of access to the west and, then, the one to the south, which staff was -- was requesting. There are -- and, I'm sorry, I should have gotten with Joe prior to this, but I just noticed that there is a couple areas in the staff report where there is some discrepancy for this frontage-backage road that's required in the development agreement. In the 2004 development agreement it stated that this property was to have a frontage or a backage road along Eagle Road and on the first page, page one, in the second paragraph, the last four lines there, talk about the requirement of a frontage road and that staff feels that the future collector road east of the site addresses the interconnectivity of the site and -- but, then, there is other areas on page nine and eleven where it talks about we need -- we still need to redesign the site plan in order to accommodate this frontage road and so I just wanted to clarify that the intent is that -- and our workings with ACHD has been that they want the -- the new Allys Way, which is on the east side on the other 4 ' ~ y~~' 1 yi ~i;C ~ ~~~. ?-'~ .~ ~. z~~~_ ~~ ~ , ~~ } ~ ~`xS ~a '~ ~'' ~' '~'.T ~i Y ~ ~r s#JJ~ ~r F , ,,,.~ r .. 7,Z t. r .~ 'a~ ~ t', 4 t ~ ~` t'.4 «~ .. .~ C S ~~ t '• ~~ t fir:. ~ , r ~ .~~~.. r cc ~~" ~ '' ~` df F, s ,~ ry~} t i s ' ~ , y ~ ' ~ nr3 rN' 'C ys T : , ` wYY ' .;t: ~'~" sir-` ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ F ,aY. 3G 4~ 'Pnt'~fr~~ Y . ~', t tin. ~ ~~ ~k l?K, ~y { M LU ~~r ~ ~ .. z .. i ;'? ` ~ x .ti ~ '' }~ ~~}} r ~ N , ~ °~ 1%~ s ~n'N'~ n+ ~s~. ~ ~ . ,~-t it?~f'... . 3 :^ - ~- ~ ~ ~ ~i. _ i~: r ~, kA l~r - r [ ~~{ E, ~ Gv-~'~k , ~ ~ N~_ ~ rc in ~~ i %~ r' ~9-5 - ~ ~ -: ,~~~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ SST Y~ ~' ,~~ L ~ ~~~ r ~ _ ~" Meridian Planning & Zoning `' March 16, 2006 ;,ty' Page 24 of 82 Vii' ': side of the Una Mas property, that that be the back-age road and not another one ~~..~:; : through our property. So, I just wanted to hopefully -- ~R :~' Borup: Do you know the specific paragraphs on those? ~~~ ~~ Thompson: I do. On page nine -- I'm sorry. That's a different one. Page ten, the ~' ~ cross-access internal, it would be one, two -- the third paragraph down. Full paragraph ~v~ , down. The middle of that it would be one, two, three, four, five -- the sixth line there -- ~:~. Borup: There we go. j,~'~ Thompson: -- it says the site should be -- Borup: Yes. Thompson: -- redesigned to provide the backage road. So, first, I guess I would ask for clarification from staff and, second, it would be that the intent is that the new roadway ~` ~ Allys -- I believe it's called Allys Way, be the backage requirement. And just so you know, we worked with ACRD on this and because that requirement would be coming off ~'~~ of this property, we have agreed to pay for a portion of that road -- of the new roadway. Borup: So, that was just left over from the previous report; is that correct? ,;;. f.?- ,.. ~i r,' ~;: ~~ '~ :~ , .: ~- ~~~; RY .~ g{.4 n ~'.: . ~c i~' ~G E~ ~~ i ~'. ~i 1 ` ~'.i p' ~I, xl tW1„', I ~~I ~ f K t 5. ~,~. ~,. Guenther: Yeah. I must have missed that. The intent of the development agreement for providing that backage road has been satisfied with this development plan. I mean there is three points of cross-access, with one of them being a future public, so staff would find that -- that condition of the development agreement has been met with this design. Rohm: Thank you. Thompson: Okay. Thank you. I guess there is just another one, Joe. With the commercial cross-access points, it talks on page nine and page eleven -- this is the other one -- where the -- that the preliminary plat does not include the cross-access points. Is that left over? The last paragraph on page nine and the cross-access paragraph, which is the second main heading from the bottom. It says the applicant has provided a design not showing any points of access within the immediate vicinity and, then, it asks for three points of access to the east and one to the south. Guenther: I'll revise those. Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Are we not going to get -- Guenther: No. It won't read your disk. ; ~~ ~ ~: ~. ,; ~ y ~~a+ r ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ "~~f~h~ *~.. - ...,. ~j Y i ~.+f`i~F 1' ~y_C _.~n-~i _ ~ ~"* y, ~ ~i" `ff 4 ~. r ~. ~tiy. r. .*k y ,c. ~, ~ ' ;y_ 3 t w,l~ t't, e ~ f { ~ ~. k ~i` *N~y~~ • i r! - y, r{ } ~yFr i ~ M ?;y ~ _ w y ~r3,_ ` ~ ~ r <v» ~ t~ •l" ~3 t ;~.~t5'r.~' o ~n'S rr.: r t ~~ ~'4.'^~ r - 7{ e y f ~~` l.) J'Ei 1 ~~ ~~ J ~k ~ ~ _ " - +~~ 3 y, ~~. r }yam 1' t P?i x '~-ti':~' i~ `,., ~ 1 1L '..Jrq 't r } t `.~~y T I.~. _ ~T W~~~ ll lll ^^^ } ~ a , f ~fh' f#- L f1. '. S~. S~{ 4~ y E ~ '~Y {y~~. y~N, :~i ~ r:,~ u L ~~ ~ i r, . ~; , .: i 4.' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 25 of 82 Thompson: It's a good thing I printed it out. So, can we put it on the Elmo? The next thing I wanted to go over Commissioner Moe had asked for some examples of loading > ~<< , dock areas, of how we could mitigate the concerns of the neighbors to our east, which are putting in multi-story office buildings. And I drove around town, took pictures of all '~ . the ones I could find that had some sort of a wall there and I actually found two and , "'` none them on Eagle Road and it was surprising that even some adjacent to residential ~~ ~ uses didn't have any type of a buffer or anything like that, but the two that I will show ~. ~'- the really old Albertson's on Broadway and Beacon, has you -- one of them is actually , , a wall. This one is, actually, at the Crossroads center behind -- I don't think it's for the ~~~ Toys -- or the Babies R Us, but it's for the craft center. They have a very small -- a very `~~ small wall here and what we would propose is -- I believe this wall to be four feet high. But we would propose about an eight foot wall, so it would be a configuration just like ~~:;~,^ . this and if the back -- if the building is a concrete block building, that there be a -- a wall . ; ~ ~ eight feet tall along the recessed dock, so that the adjacent neighbors would have both ' ' s one. Can you flip to the next page, please? a visual and a sound bamer. So, that ~ - This is, actually, the old one at Albertson's on Beacon. Theirs is about seven feet all here at this one end and, then, it steps down, but -- so if we went like a foot higher than 3 . , ~ that and just brought that back. And then -- one more, please. This one is out at the µ ~ ~ Albertson's in Columbia Village and it's not for the truck dock area, but it's for the trash r '' compactor, and they have built alittle -- a little wing wall here that's about eight feet tall, ~~~ ~, that -- I think we should add that also, that there be a buffer for trash compactors and for ;: ~ recessed loading docks. If it's just a surface -- some of the retailers, like -- I don't know ~, that all the retailers will have recessed truck docks, but those that do would have this "` '~ requirement and those that don't wouldn't. And, then, the regular trash enclosures ~~ would be -- trash units would be in a trash enclosure also. But we haven't addressed ~j compactors, so I thought I'd show you a picture of that. The other thing that -- in our last ,a meeting that we talked about for the adjacent property is that we would make the -- the ~~ landscaping larger along that property line and we have addressed that in the ~'~`~'~ " landscape plan that we have -- that we have attached. The revised one that we submitted. Lastly would be Eagle Road access and the existing development ~~; ; agreement states that we need to work with ITD for approval and it also showed an ~~ ~ intent that Eagle Road access would be approved. I hope you guys all got the letter sent, the letter that Mr. Kissler was given by ITD. I brought more copies in case you ~° didn't, but -- so I just wanted to -- we are still working with ITD and right now it looks like ~ - they will be granting us right of way approval. It went to their executive permits committee Tuesday and they tell me a letter is imminent. So, we are hoping by the end ~r,' of the month that we will have that letter for the two access points. Thank you very '' much. ~~ ~; ~~ Rohm: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Y Zaremba: I do have one, if I may. Joe, can you go back to the Columbia Village '~ . picture? I pick on this one, because it has some decorative treatment, I'll call it, that , ~:, there is some variation either in color or material or something there and that was going to be my question. Along this east side -- it's the back of these buildings, but it's not the backs of the people that are east of you and along with your offer to do a screening wall, ~;e; ~. ~, ~~ {;. _ - ~ ~ I ;~ ~ y 9 ~~r ^ F r ~ u, - 7 4 ' 1 yy ~... ?.4 ~. ~:~ ~~ ~.l : 1 ~ . 1~' ` ~' ~{ ..'II ~ .a~ ~~~~hx . c~ ~ 'ii ~. ~,~ ~ ~ ~' - 1 ~ ~ ~ ~s _ ,tii. ~, ~ r q fi'fC F L rC`~ ~~, , . ~'~~ t t i~~F'~AY -S~,{iJt ct ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~s. r - ~~ t i~~;:: - - a~ a~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,a. ~ ~ P ~,a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F x r3,1r F ~~'~ e ~ 9 ~ ~~ i ~ ~ .t . ~ ~'~'~ ~ i ~ K ` Tx 1" t ¢~ ^ Lh~ '<~ , "I'~~I ii ~l I y `,~ ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~~' y $ ~jli ' Q I ` 5~ ~ Q',, f P 4X ~ -. ~ ~ j P y ~L vA~i ~ L 97 i t . ,~ 1C~ S ~ . ; x ~ + i o rm~~ II R !i ~ 'F Lk +~ 1 4.~ k~ ~^ ~ k~ 1 ~ ~ "~ , ~7i1'i ~~~ I~ !, 3 . ~ ~, ~ ~ `r"~~ ~~Y A..~ 4Y ~~~~. ' ~ i jyy t"4 ~ ? ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ 1 t ~ ~ 7..f tlt ~/~ ~tT r F ~ @ 49 J .r T,~ i ~ kr, n t t ~5„ g, ~ ~ 1 ; 7 a ~,~'~ ~ ;~ 1 a ~ ~q ~ I yy,,~~ ~ 7f'~ ~ Y ~ - ~I'.'~ ,~ ~~ ' ' ; ~t Y. .y "'s` a.:• r iii ~ ~ r2 ~ Nog ~ F s~ ~ I Y ' A ~Nti, kt A F. ~: , ,: ::' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 26 of 82 I think it would also be helpful to have something that breaks it up visually -- either horizontally like this or I was actually thinking some vertical altemate colors or, you know, sometimes there is different cinder block faces, altemate those or something. Is that a possibility? Thompson: Yes. And I believe from last time a month ago we kind of touched on that, where material, whether it's, you know, horizontal blocking or some sort of vertical blocking -- this is, actually, done just with paint. It's all the same block and they just put some paint stripes on there, but it does give -- give some break for the residences that are behind. What's back behind here is they have -- they have some parking garages and, then, two story apartments behind that. So, the garages are kind of their buffer. But I do agree that we should have that as -- at least color bands coming around or horizontally or vertically, that staff, when we get our CZC, you know, for the building permit, that that be a requirement. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I also want to say I appreciate your modulating the long building. I thought that looked very nice. Thompson: Good suggestion. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Okay. We do not have anybody signed up to testify on this application, but if anyone would like to come forward at this time, now is the time. Seeing none, maybe open to discussion. Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. '; ;;: Zaremba: It seems to me that we had the discussion last time and the applicant's done everything we asked for and more and cooperated with the staff on everything. I see some heads nodding. 4 Borup: Yeah. I don't know that we need a lot of discussion. I really like the looks of it. "~~ I think it's going to have a nice feel to it. It's a nice project. ~; ;~<.' Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 06-002, to include all staff comments for their meeting for -- of their memo for the meeting of March 16th, 2006, with the following changes: References to frontage or backage roads can 4y~~ ~ '~3 , , ; c _ " xlw~f~ ~ r S~ ? t. '~`5 - ur _ t t ~L y S N L = ~ ~ v ;ui~Y} - 4 * . ( ~ f ~ ':.~i' + ~ e., v Y'p ~I ~T""} 1 ' { ~ti~j Vii- I f~ ~.~. ~i~ ~, G1 k N ki ~~~'~'~. ,r r y. ~.. ,> r , ,,_ i~ ~ ry t~~ yc, 1~ kv-ir, _ ~r w 1~:. $ ? rF- : Y N .~~' ,~~; ~ ~; ~ .. i~ V~ a _t i ~'r ~l _ a, y~i: ~y.- ~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 27 of 82 be deleted as being satisfied by the ACHD road that will be to the east of this. And ^~ references to the cross-access are, apparently, also being satisfied. End of motion. `~ '' ~ Borup: Second. ~.~:, K' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending ~~., `` ` approval of PP 06-002, to include all staff comments with stated modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carves. Thank you. '`" ~'~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Y' ` Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 06-002 Ff Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and 5.-' Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 483 East Franklin Road: ~: F>; ";, Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public -- open the continued Public Hearing for -- ~~ `'` ` from February 16th, 2006, for CUP 06-002. This item related to Sunbelt Equipment ,: .:; Rental and begin with the staff report. ~,:: ,' Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item actually has been . ~ ~; continued once before. It was not heard. The applicant actually met with staff the day before the hearing, I think it was last time, or maybe the day of the hearing, went ~~ ~ through some of the issues. Staff was recommending denial at that time. We sat down, 1: ;: ~, ;. had a very productive meeting, they have moved the site over -- and I apologize, the s _ , computer doesn't seem to be working tonight. There is a presentation that would give ~~ -~ you the vicinity map. It's two lots within Bonner Park Subdivision, which is on the south ~~ side of Franklin Road, right adjacent to the park. There is a Car Quest that is not too far away. You may have noticed some of the construction that's directly across Stratford ~~,~' from the cemetery. That's where we are at. So, this application is for a Conditional Use ~~ ; Permit to operate an equipment rental, sales, and service business. I need to give you . . a visual of it, anyways, but it's a 2.49 acre site and, really, there aren't a lot of issues. A tip, ~ lot of the issues have been addressed with that meeting that we had and the staff 4' ' report. I'm going to go through some of the landscaping requirements. That seems to ice' be where some of the -- a majority of the comments and conditions that the staff is ~ recommending occur. The applicant is also concurrently with the conditional use ~. ~'" permit, had applied for alternative compliance fora couple of our landscaping "`~ '` requirements around some parking aisles, just vehicle use areas, and just to run through some of those conditions, in Exhibit B, page one, condition 1.2 just requires a five foot wide landscape strip adjacent to all the vehicle use areas. So, the subject site 4 is this area here. The applicant provided this to me today or yesterday to bring to kind :~ of just show the overall area. The park would be in this area here. The landscaping -- ~~_ they are proposing landscaping adjacent to the east and west sides of the northern half ~' of this project. So, the buildings are here, there is a drive aisle that runs parallel to ~ :' _ Franklin, and they are proposing a five foot wide landscape strip on either side of that - area. That condition that I iust mentioned would also reauire landscaping along all of a~ 1' ~,.. `Y;J x~ ~~~Ddk ~~t ll. ' ~': C: '1•a. 1 li F J''M T ~ u . ` { ~• ~ ~ ~ y .~.° : > SI ,; r. ~ I y'Vi ,;h a f le ' b .br F y ~~~~.'~ ; ::Y l! r ~' ~ ~~ i , '~ ! k ~ { ,~ ,g fir, . ' ~ ~ ~ ~; s ..~a rw~ j ~ ~~ 4:, . I4 ~ ~~~ nx:xtr ^sc "!~ ~ 9~:'alr '1 I I, i ~:j, y ry, :rte .f' _: ' i '~~. •;','.,',iz' :{`' ~ .2r ; 1 N A >f„~h~ I I i ,`, ;~4 .x. = ' ~ V w s ;~ L. ` '•a u ~., q . e. < ~~~ '~ r ~u,~ ' ' ~ ~ Y * ' ' , , 4+ .~ ~.J , , (r ,.. , . .. 7 .. x~ a s 'Yk: ~ '-~~u'' T y ? r ~ 4'v'"..SL ~ iyi~.Y. *C .. .. 3~ ... ;r. ...a. p s~~ .. . . 1 r 4 'r x .~ ~•x 1 ~ . I r . ~~, ~ , x ~, ~~ ... :, x>: ' ,>-. ~ '• p ~ y. Y U . Y . S' I . ~` r. ~.fe NP l • ' ; ; ,.: • ~' ... 'k",`"~i'w V q ~ ~jk {i. i~ ;~'~ r '{R'r~ ^ • t l~°:"ii x ~'~ c f~~ ", ~ d k + h I i ~ - i. :d:W i¢.:'''z , y ~ ~~ . y A xs'.t~ I I 5 ~ -'%'•' 4'~iis;i;;'~^gw°' ::arc ~ - ~ ..~~~~ ..,,yy~~S.~, e R ~ ~ (° ~r s 3.~n z ~~ ~,. y f i ~ j F'S'~.®+'ya•. .~ 'i . tY -i',i , r ~ ' 4~ky: E a . I'L , ~ ~ ~ ~ , .91.. s . ~ :x M , . , In 5. 'P s ~. J 't ~~ ~ m` ~ ~ : f • 7 . 5. ~h5: ~r? °,~~% :L'c r.1 ,.~i . '~ M,. ~i ; ;~o ~~ +: l # . ~~ } 'F l . nN c. . ~. '.'gyp •.. ~ "vK4, Y j ~a+Yd + iMFO + ~ i ~ r :.5', I +~'4 ~ ... .~.4. yy. T F: L f N 1 ~~'~'Ti Aq~u9~~''p-~'~.}t.~i ., i r~~'? yad •t {{ ' ~ ' T d' " '• ~ K ~~a 4=3A~,~! '/' ` ki i j~ ' ' . : I . . .~.~ ~e~, - .t,~ ~ i fj Y ~'~ { 4 f E g~,' ~ 'Z ~ a-kl] s. "rz +.~9kxr e, ~ r' , ?:i,. •~ '~r.'i~ ` ` , '§ , ~ 9~'v 4 V~ ~;.,'., ~'~ t ~ y ~"~~'' •~,, ; y -. ~'tf'~ •- Ji`-.y.,~M~#:~: . . ~' ;~'r ~ ~`~+. ~ I 'S 1" ~ ' ~ '•~ rny~; .~~ ~ ~A,'fn;••. .' V i `. y~ SI . . ~ ~ ,-. ,..:.. .~ ::,, =,r"l•~xulyS.r ~Li :;7~ i:~,• s ~~ I S ~t'~ cL:.ii y 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f Tr'~ ~y f<P'~ ` ~N,yf k• '.~' ;. . J _ ~~q.rn ' •.~. `~ ..:. :-'. ~ ^7i.p4Il f.~r~ __33 { ~ ~ e.` ' d..4 ,~ ~Y4. 3~ '~'d~~ t, V~ .-n~~,~~. , q., p y Oak }~ p~ ;a'„~ . 1 I: 9 3 , = Yy.~..pp 1 ~.1 f E as ~ 11 d ~ ~, d ~~ I , ..?,g : t . I 5 , '' - :~%i' ;' . • n„#'~, rs 1 ' a ,m ~ e x q~,~ I ` a- r =4 ir r ~ . " . r .` ~ .. I'. . ... ,. .... ~ yy ° i~ < , ~ f, (~ it ,~. ~s: {, ~ ~ ~ .,.~: :~`;~i r, ~ ;:i+s;s+,C~:' , 1',~. .t r ~ r :-~ ','r;::>:, ;;i. F ti "~ .'.~.~..•. ;, : ry s ~ { fi :~ : M;' ~r - I *+•s: a ~r'/fi;. rY n ~ .'~ t ~~ t: . ':: '~'3 ~4.•.• ' '~h't~.~'F .,~• r~.• , [ ~ 5 , . ,„.~ ' - . ~ • t; q± ~ y r, ,s ~ -'Epp"~~g.~'~4,~ , 3v `l.; ~ ' ~~` T ~ ! 5 ~ -` ~ ~ l .: A : v~ :4r'~Yr} e ~ P vi .N .~~ ~ JpAd' )m r~ ~ '~r:~ ~ k I ~ ~' lr S,' ~' :d yJ r` f S r a , . : , ~,P.r LFs i z ry ~ ' •..i : ;' ' 1 µ . ""4~• ,/ .~,,~ : :;.ls *;.; .t., .'L":l.,,e " yF y :...An.S }a 1 1 I. ~ sa~ i XT;~:~a ' a+~~.-~~y'y'.:` " I'.,. ~j'.~ } ~ . I, i .yC, ' ~ <.''~„n ~;tY. .9 . 'tv t. ~ '7° .';j ~ ~ .. ~ 'a Y.` ~~ ~ r ~ - F dTb ~ s ~~~ i 1 • ~ 3r ~` ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ` ~ ,y Y.'.'iH~F~i..'a. .S,3 ` ~ t: a ~: •. : • a le .j.,.'.1f R ~, ~ t ^ ' Y t~Y`', C .F.. `'d i`''.' - ~ .''b ~:`d . r5y~ )`~: 9n£.'~ .lV`.(; ~.{'. .i /' [5~< >'~ Rt T@ ,( ,J ~{'~'•~'•. ~4~. ~ . ~.~,.-v '.h'~' ~''}: . z ~' i.1 'w•f~ +t(. ° : f ~ Y '~.F~L" 4 _ p'C edit +. D .tea ••' • .. k ' 'F %e # .~7. ' ,d~' ~9 ~+ r c F ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning .~ March 16, 2006 Page 28 of 82 ~,`;" ,': the vehicle use areas, basically all the impervious surface, asphalt, yard as well R Number three. That basically -- that condition was born of a gentleman with Capital Educators coming in and speaking with me. He had some concerns about their large { of course, the street they use fleet trucks being parked on the private street and that's , and their customers use, so we thought it was a good idea to require all the fleet trucks : to be stored on the site. Again, because the park -- city park is right here, staff is K recommending that an eight foot -- the applicant's proposing an eight foot block wall, , '` `~~ again, on the north half, roughly, and, then, to put slats and chain link for the other half to screen that outdoor storage area. Staff is recommending that that actually be an r ''' ei ht foot tall block wall that entire western bounda And, then, in addition, their g ry• current site -- Sunbelt's current site over on Commercial has booms that are 30, 40 feet 3-; in the air and staff did not think -- does not think it's an appropriate site to have those ~''' type of equipment that visible on a major roadway and I bet you could see it from -- from h . ~ Main Street as well. So, that condition is that everything needs to be screened. And, `' then, one that just says that through respect from the numbers, all the maintenance stuff ~; should happen inside. the thing I did want to point out as well and, I will conclude my ~~ comments, is that there is a comment in there, it's not a condition, but there are some -- ~--~ there is a fueling station and some docks that are also on the site and just -- there is ~~ . - , some concern -- and there are some standards that the planning department doesn't ' necessarily enforce, you know, the fire department has standards for dispensing ~ ~~i- ` flammable liquids and storage of those types of things. It is an accessory of this. I ., understand that that's something that they really need to have on here, just to -- just a . ;~' ~ concern, that it really is -- and, again, I apologize for not having an aerial, but it is, really, a commercial -- a mixed use area and this really is going kind of towards that industrial Y f type of use. I mean it is -- they have large flatbed trucks that they move stuff around on. think it can work with the conditions in the staff report and they can be a good neighbor to everyone around them and it's definitely better than the first go around. So, with that r`~ I think I will stand for any questions you may have. ~~ i Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, first a comment and, then, a related question. I understand ,~ ., their request for not having internal landscaping, I'll call it. I work with large vehicles all ~. the time. I work with buses, but same situation. It's very difficult to move large vehicles ~~ around in an area that's of landsca m ut around the wa it would in a normal arkin „~ , 9 P~ 9 p Y~ p 9 } lot for a commercial thing, so I can understand their desire not to do that and, actually, ~~ support it. There is one comment in the staff report that says they are asking that the requirements be waived, as opposed applying for a variance. But I would like to ^~'~ ~ suggest that whatever landscaping they don't do in the middle of the truck movement area, is added somewhere else. I agree with the alternate compliance. The staff report, ' I believe, mentions heat disbursement, but there is also -- trees and shrubs help with il, pollution control and I think that amount of material does need to be somewhere on the property. That gets me to my question. The landscaping buffer, particularly along the _'~ park and the wall, I wasn't clear which side which is on. Is the landscaping inside of the ~~ y7 ~ wall to this property or outside of the wall? ~'i~ d, ~,' ~~I~ ~~ Ili'. !3,~ ~ `~ ` ~ ~ .,' .~i d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r - k f [ ; r .,,~ ~rh. ~ < ~~; ~~~ ~~~~ '` " ' ~~- 5~; ~~5~yy~; 14~ ~' x'3[' ~ { i ~° ~ y'.. 'y~.i Y.` Lin ~. 44 L . ~ ~7 9 ~' ~ gYJ 72i ~l -r ~f h 1 ', t / ~x y 1. ,x x.`;~~.' a ~ 5 r,;, ~ , , ~t , ~ y ..~ rid ti~ kM , ;.7a,.. Ft t Y. rya ~ .- ~s~ ~_~ 4 ~ ~ r~ ~; Y1} `,sS~ii`, z r='` ` ~ ~ Ih' ~;~ ~~ a. s ' -A .< ~ f ? .fir- - r` ~ ' ~: -. ._.._._ ,.~ e e_:ito I !' Meridian Planning ~ Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 29 of 82 ~~ -; Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we -- with the UDC there is no longer any ~~~ " _ landscape buffer that's required. That landscape strip -- five foot landscape strip would ~ ~;:;, be required on this side of the property on this side of the wall or fence or whatever, to -- -~` and not because it's a park, but just to your property line we require a five foot wide ~~ ~ landscape strip. N;;, Zaremba: So, what would border the park is actually the wall? `~~ ~~ Hood: Correct. On the property line or just off the properly line. So, there would be a :, asphalt, essentially, up to the wall, wall, park site. And I think it's mentioned in the staff >~ : report the reason for that -- usually there is not fencing right on the property line in most commercial cases. They are not screening their vehicle use areas, they are open :;; ; parking lots or whatever. There are several reasons. One is usually you got cars parked and we are afraid that they will overhang onto someone else's property, so it automatically pulls you back at least five feet, so you have two or three feet to ' ` overhang. Trees are also usually in there, so you need an area for a tree to grow and ;. '~ the root system for shrubs and things. So, five feet is your landscape strip that you get ~' ~ the trees in. It also helps with water runoff. Sometimes there is a storm event, they are ~"~` • not all designed the way they are supposed to be, so it keeps some of that -- if by :~: chance runoff were to flow toward someone else's property, it keeps it on site anyway. ~'r - So, that's some of the reasons why that standard is there. And also the landscaping internally, I -- it was a tough recommendation for me, the landscaping anyways. The one that is in the staff report, though, not -- that I would like to touch on that Ididn't -- ~ ~~ ~ and I'm sorry to switch gears. It's still in the same area, but on the end of the -- they , have got 19 parking stalls in a row here behind the gates that are enclosed. I do have ES.i =: some concern about this parking -- a planter being on the end of that row, capping that ~_ row really to protect, just from what you're saying, driving large vehicles and not realizing someone may be parked there and running into that. And that was one of the reasons we do require the parking islands on the ends of the rows. I didn't touch on that in the conditions, but that is one of the conditions I did want to just mention briefly. But that five feet landscaping, to go back to your original question, would be on this property. ~~;:~~ Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Back on the internal landscaping again. If I understand '. this staff report, you're saying not required to do planters, et cetera, but you're still -- the staff report's still requesting some internal landscaping, even though this is not a parking k {' 1 area, just an equipment storage area? Is that what I understand? ~' Hood: Yeah. And that's where the -- Mr. Chair, Commissioners, that's where the fine ~. ~:~> line is. I mean I would look at all of this as a vehicle use area. None of it's defined as being storage here and here are your drive aisles as your standard parking lots would - ' ~ be. So, my interpretation is that if it's paved it's a vehicle use area. And so by ~~:;: ~, - . ,;~ ; 4 y - ;ti ;__~. ~'~ 1 ty9 j~ .. ~~A , ~~ t ~ , „ ~ ':. ~~ r y ;.. .~; ~ ~ ,~~~ ,.., '• .1e4:.yi fi_M:F ~.. ."d.~'`a (J:'i1"i' 1.t A <.• A ~•~. Yr ~. a f :~•, u~r ~_ ~,. ~}, .y~,, -~, sb ~ +~. ~~Y '} ' h'y~ x~ ~~ N oa~~~ } S •~ L "A'~'~ F Va j; } ~ •~ ~;`7 ~c h t Y ~ ~ ~ F7 ~ ~N S .k j n vs ~SZ,c7-f- `'i*t~ F tI,*~ .~~ f ~~ 1' - 1 :E~'qE .. .t. w .. .. ~. .l.:~F~: i ,, I f.'.. N~ ! E, ,~,, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 30 of 82 ordinance, if it's a vehicle area, you put landscaping adjacent to it. The staff report, then, says you put landscaping adjacent to all of those areas. So, that's what that condition is, that condition 1.2. Now, the landscape plan is a separate issue, but those are, really, the two altemative compliance requests that the applicant has applied for. The altemative to not putting in the five feet on the southern portion is to put up a fence. So, there is some altemative proposed, it's just to put up a fence there to prevent cars from overhanging and doing some of those things that I mentioned earlier. Borup: We'll get some more clarification from the applicant. Rohm: I think that's a good place to transition. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Larsen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, who is actually home ill with the flu. So, we had -- as Mr. Hood had mentioned, met with staff before the last meeting and elected to present a different design to you to try to alleviate some of the concems staff had. So, the design that's before you tonight is, in fact, an attempt to alleviate some of those concems that were mentioned earlier on. As we have read the staff report, we had a -- some of the same concems regarding landscaping and where it was placed and some of those things. So, I'd like to take just a minute if I could and tell you some of the things that we have done as we have moved through the new design. Last time the applicant was here in town we did meet with the parks department to discuss what we could do along the park side of it and the two buildings that you see here that are under construction and this building here that's under construction, are buildings that are already going or are up on the site. They are owned by the same owner that would own the Sunbelt Equipment facility. On these two buildings there is a sewer easement that runs here. The sewer line is six to eight feet off of the property line. When we met with parks originally we had talked about putting a block wall here. We were concemed about having a block wall close to an existing sewer line, so we had -- we went ahead and met with the parks department and asked them what we could do here and they told us we could plant additional planting on the park side and -- to screen these particular buildings and put some -- the planting out there and that they would go ahead and take care of it and maintain it. We would put the planting in at whatever they directed to do. We used the same philosophy from here to here, so there was some consistency along the park and we did have Elroy Huff, which I have a copy of a drawing that he initialed that has writing on it basically saying that he would like to see chain link and slats there along the park, so that it was, basically, consistent with what we were doing. Again, we would be adding plant material out here based on his direction. Part of the reason for doing that was because when we started these two buildings we had met with staff, Mr. Freckleton, and we were really concemed about having a wall close to that sewer line and wanted to maintain the openness of that easement. And there is an easement there. Putting a wall on it, I'm not sure we can actually even put the wall on it and comply with the terms of the easement of the plat. So, in any event, I do have these handouts that I can give to you and staff and to Mrs. Green so you have those for your j1 o-~~~ a~~~~a, ~ t Y. ~,. ~ ~3, 3? 1 AYJ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~~~~1 S~ Jig ~~ T£) T Y '~ n c,~~`r'v4"~' ~ ~ >. ~~ i. ~~6 ~' Y' ~h(' ~~ ~~~ ~~" . „( .~ 'p - 4:.` p .. yf ~Tt - r e,~ C'.~a ti ~~.~ ~ r~r:~. - ~ ~~:. IF ~, ~riIP } ~ 5~ f ,y , , '~ ~s~~: - .y 4 ~ ~ ~~ .µ ~ ..:d. "' i ~'c1~ ' ~ nR'h~.~i ' ~,. ~Ar ~ ,x~ k " ~ ~ti x... ~~ ~f 4 ~ .~y~ ~ - h `~ ' ,y _ °~%f t ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ t .x" A ;t • a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 31 of 82 file. The particular document you have is -- is the meeting that my client had last time ~~~r he was in town with the parks department regarding the proposal to work along that boundary of the new Sunbelt site. In addition to that meeting, we had -- we had ~:. concerns, too, as staff had mentioned and the gentleman from the credit union about what the yard might look like from the street and from there the credit union's building and we had proposed to put a block wall in this location to screen it off. This building to the south has landscaping here. They have a yard in here that would be available for S their use. This was chain link. And from there up to the block wall that exists up here was chain link. Part of our reason for the chain link here was not knowing what may go ''~' '~ on on the building to the west that's -- or, excuse me, the east that's under construction ~~ ~ I and they were very similar uses, so the question was did it need landscaping or did it -- ~' ~<' was it fine without the landscaping along this boundary separating them. We found from time to time that as tenants move and owners change things, that having some of ~; these landscape buffers in here on building -- these flex type buildings is very difficult for them to utilize it in the future without tearing that out or doing some additional things to make it work for them. So, consequently, our philosophy was to try to screen from the ~, street and to be consistent along the park boundary and also taking into account that there is a sewer easement along that boundary. We do have a block wall from approximately the end of the park out to the end of the building on Sunbelt, which is ~~~` ~`° also paralleling the easement and we do feel that that's very necessary, because that is also screening from Franklin Road and as the buildings going this way get built, it will eliminate some of this need for the block wall, but at this point in time we did feel like "'~~ there was a need for a block wall there and over here along the comer that's also fronting Franklin. In the condition 1.4 there is noted that they wanted this to construct ~. _..2 an eight foot block wall and that's what we prefer to do, although there may be g something in your staff report. We did receive comments from the police department ; 5 f saying they'd like to see a six foot wall, because it was easier for them to scale and " ~ ~ easier for them to see in the yard. We would prefer to maintain the eight foot wall at this r :: point in time. On item 1.3 -- the Sunbelt people don't have a problem putting their fleet ` trucks inside the yard and off of the street. What we would like to do is we don't have _ '~' ' control over what the public might do as they use that site from time to time. So, what we'd like to do on 1.3 is just note that all Sunbelt fleet trucks be stored and kept inside ~~ and not parked out on the street and et cetera. On item 1.4, again, we were -- we were ~' reluctant to construct a block wall over on the west side and east side of the project, a : =' ~ because of the flexibility on the east side and because the sewer easement and the ~ arrangement we had reached with the parks department on the west side. On condition ` , 1.5 we want to note that we want to keep all the booms down on the equipment. Sunbelt has agreed to keep the booms down on the equipment. They do have 13 pieces of equipment that are, actually, over the eight foot height, just because of the way they function. They have 12 of them that are 8.6 high when the boom's down and "'~ locked down in position and we have one that is nine foot six high that is locked down when it's in position. Those pieces of equipment would theoretically stick up above the `~ :' ` eight foot limit of the wall, but, in reality, if you're standing on the ground that eight foot -'~ ~ limit actually grows as it goes into the middle of the yard. So, we would want to make { ;`~ sure we mention that to you. We had no issues with 1.6, 1.7, 1.8. We did -- staff did ~` note that there were some fuel islands and docks out here. Those are fairly integral to ~~~ ~~ ~y~ ''. ~' tj I ~~~ ._ ~. _~~ ~,~~« x` t~~'C ~ a 3-r: 14 ,~'~ ~ ~ d ~R} ~w ~."~~ ~Ytl~~~ `~w~_ L a? rs r~ ~' ' ~ a `~ ~~ F' ~; » ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~;, T k ~.,,,,. . .a yti± ~" -~ 1~- 1 Sig ;`~ ~r,r: __ _, 3; ~~" ~ ~+ .n r: ~ .wi~1a~ p Utz r~ x ~ ~ ,zr'~ ~/ h ~.. n !M ~ Y,. ey~ 2. ~~~ T ~ N-h'~',yN ~ t _. ~X~. ~ f ~ ~ ~: , ry 4 v 4~.' ~ 4 -, 6 ~~ r Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ~, , . Page 32 of 82 c. ' , the business that we do need to get equipment that's transported or brought into the facility off of a truck and we need a dock to do so and it's an above-ground dock. We ~' ; ; also need a fuel island, but -- obviously, to put fuel and gas in, whatever, lawnmowers ~' or pieces of equipment that are rented out. With that I would be happy to answer any ~.~; questions. I do have a -- since Caleb's computer wasn't running, I do have a colored ~ rendering of the buildings that I have brought along, some colored prints, if you had e . questions regarding the look of the buildings. And I'm not sure how you want me to do ``~'° this. I've got four of them. Rohm: I think possibly go ahead and give Caleb one and he can put it up. j : ; Larsen: And I did have some -- actually, some printed versions of the overall site plan }:E ,, that shows all of the buildings, kind of the master plan that's been developed in that area. If you want copies of that I have that available as well. With that I'd be happy to -; answer any questions you might have. ~ ~ ° Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~.` `~~~ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. f ~~ ~'~~' Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Larsen, I'm just curious and -- what -- as I understand Sunbelt Equipment, that's heavy equipment, Caterpillar, John Deere, is that incorrect? ' r Larsen: They have boom trucks. They have man lifts. They do have some heavy ~~ equipment, some that we had -- we show a graveled area here that would store some heavy equipment. They do have some fairly good sized equipment. They are not huge Caterpillars, but they are track equipment that they do use. b~„,~ Newton-Huckaba :Oka .What a of thin s would be inside the store that -- Y Y tYP 9 ~, k'"'~ Larsen: They would have things like lawnmowers, chain saws, small tools. They would do their maintenance on those vehicles inside the store that they might have out for rental. They probably have lawn yard aerators, power rakes, the typical rental things '` you would see. They also do have larger equipment that. are -- typically goes out to construction sites for contractors to rent. These would be boom lifts or man lifts or *,~ . those types of products. `` Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. .: : ;, 6' Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Larsen, is it the intent that they are going to move from their existing location into this site? Is that the plan? z~~ Larsen: Mr. Chair, Mr. Moe that is correct. They would be moving from their existing Y ~~ site. They are willing to lower all their equipment down. They do like this site from an ~: +?.L - ; r . ~.~: '~6 ; ' ` ~Y '? ""~ ° t _ , , , I a. g f. d~~ ,' v ' •~~ ~ 1 ~ c`~`: r , :~~~e may. ~<~ +; ~ v" Ir i '`~~~~~x y I ~ i s I r ~ ~ 1 ~~}}Y.. :y,• 1 '~~` a 4. 'ri C~. ~ Sc e b ~ ~ ~ I e/ A ` i d ~ e 5 R"y e'•bZ. ',' .'3' y 'r ~ _ ~ 8 . a .~ :.. ~c`i i.::,S>:~``d' t~.7. ~ ' .. ~" j' r Y ~ „ , y.. ~I, ' '~~-... J ~~ • '}~. .5 5 ~ ~• X k i} ,t .{. ~, / ~ f S'= k * ~:, ly~~J~' ~A {'i ~+Y~ +'! ~: ri ~:.;. t~"p t 'k~~~~, 7i' • y~ 1 _ ~~Ki1 N .. K.~ !, .~ J'.~ 11 ..~ Y '~ f+ '.~ '^1.. +1 ~~ ~. , _ ' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ` ~ Page 33 of 82 ~: ~' ~ exposure standpoint. They are trying to gear themselves to a more public retail sales ~- base, as well as the contractor base. ~': BOrup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larsen, on 1.3 you mentioned on the fleet trucks -- I don't know if I caught that. You said just limited it to Sunbelt fleet trucks. Is there a concern there is going to be other trucks there around the site? You mean -- or were you referring to trucks that had nothing to do with -- with the Sunbelt business? ~< °`1 Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, Sunbelt has their own trucks that they use to deliver equipment. We would want those stored inside the facility. If a person that -~'` ' was going to rent a piece of equipment shows up in a truck, it's very hard for us to ~° control which direction they might come from, but as far as being able to tell the Sunbelt ~f ~~ people as a tenant of the owner that they have to enter in off of Scenery Lane, we can ~~ `= control that. Our point of not being able to control something is what the general public k:; -. ~', WOUId d0. fir.;; ~~` Borup: Okay. I was referring -- I guess I misunderstood. I was referring to the parking. q~: . ~~`: - "~ ' Larsen: No. The parking would be inside. Borup: Okay. You're just saying all three -- l... Larsen: Yeah. '.~~ Borup: So -- yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Oh. Sorry. Borup: On 1.4 you had mentioned that, but in the way the staff has that worded presently, doesn't that satisfy your client and -- because it says a combination of chain link and block wall. ~, ,~~~ Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I'd probably have to defer to staff, but _`_ - think staffs recommendation was that there be a block wall on the west side along the park and that there also be -- but the wall -- excuse me. But the fence between the existing building and the Sunbelt could remain chain link, as well as on the south side could remain chain link. Borup: Okay. So, you weren't -- Mr. Hood, you weren't talking about chain link on the ~~~ ~~ park area, then, in your -- ``` = Hood: The onl Chan a to what the a licant y g pp proposed was along the western ~~~ boundary adjacent to the park, that that would be a block wall, rather than the chain link with slats on that side. All other perimeter fencing I'm recommending approval as is. ~~ ~; E ~, x' ,. j. 4d.', t t i~'' ~'I! t,`~'I s''3~' ~~ '~~ i~ ~,' .~~,~ 1. Y+ '" "~i .~~ ~ a~ ' s '.. , ~ ~ ' ~ ~' y ~'~' ~;y' 1 ~~ ~ ~~ y ,? r ~s >- hz ti ~' ~ 5 ~ r ~r ~~{ ~ .p y ~~ ~' v ? ~ ~ ~. i ~~~+~ ~~D .~~~7~ ~._$ k r. l ~~ ~~ y ~, ~5 6 ~i~~s~~ v t ~f~ ~9 ~ ~,r .. x~"E ~ # a ! ~. ~ r ~~: ~". x-> r - i v ~ ~ ~ ~~ +' n. :.~, w::~ ~ .t~~ 5.w ^r F. ~' ~~ ~t P~ ti ~ ~~' ~ ; 2 ~' ( r~ t Y 4 ~. r12. 4; '•~ k ~A3t 3fi'x d.~ ~' ~y ~i :, `Yl' R} 4 !. ~M rw. ~, r 1 ~. ;,:5 r ~~; ~, ,_ q v k ~'~~ :4 ~?~- r ~ _ ~~.` - ~,~.. R ;,; Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 34 of 82 y '~i Borup: Which was -- it sounds like not consistent with what was done to the south, then. All right. Then on the boom, would -- you had mentioned some of them are half a foot taller. So, I'm wondering if the statement saying that all the booms would be locked ~, ~ down at all times. Would that comply? -:.-_ Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that would be our desire is to keep all the booms down at the lowest level that they can be -- ''' Borup: Rather than have the eight foot height limit statement. Larsen: Correct. -~: ~ Borup: Mr. Hood, does that make sense? '<. ~_ Hood: It makes sense. I'm concerned about maybe other equipment, though, being < screened. If the booms are the only ones that may exceed it by six or a foot or 18 `~ ~~ ~ inches or whatever, that all other a ui ment needs to be screened -- full screened from q p Y s - view. I'm okay with it -- you know, if there is an exception here or there or booms that ` can't go any lower than eight feet and exceed that minimum, that's fine. E~. ';' Larsen: I think, Mr. Chairman, that's our intent is that the pieces of equipment that are '°`' '~~ on site, they be kept as low as they can and that nothing be allowed to go above that. `~'' " would hope that they would be able to maintain that and we can certainly control that as ~~ ~~ best we can by lease. ~, , ='~"'° } y ~ Rohm: Well, possibly if we put a ten foot limit, then -- my concern would be that at < { ; some point in time you may come back with equipment that has, you know, a 14 foot, ~ you know, minimum height and that at some point in time we are getting to a point ~ ;: where we are exceeding the intent of the -- of the comments from the staff. f < Larsen: I think we would concur with that. I mean we want -- we want some limit, but we want you to know that there is some equipment there that we cannot get below a certain height. :~-_~: ~a-' ~ Rohm: Right. That makes sense, too. a° b-:; < `~ '' ' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman that makes sense to me to say like a ten foot limit. The way , staff put it is not limited to booms, because there are, you know, man lifts and cherry '. pickers and other things that can be extended and I agree with the requirement not to ~- ti, ; be as visible. I would suggest that ten feet's a good idea. 4r.` °? Larsen: If any of the Commissioners have been by their existing site, the booms are ~X~_ extended for reasons of advertising and, again, if moving to this gets them better ~' > exposure and -- they can move those booms downward. - Rohm: Good. Thank you. ~~~ :;a .,,. ~:~:,. ~.~ * .,; ;.' ,.,; 'S .•3~~ {~~_ ~.z;''ffrti ~ 3y~ t~s r,{#I{ g~^ 'a. ~~ ~T'.:trAu;~~,,~~,-" ^~fi 'a,~,t`.~~"'+t;~k°t~;~rs ~a :~ . ~~~~9.. ~. ~'~~ kt~4F•i'~A•`•t :'y','~t~i~:~'~ ..X .R St ~?!+. ?~T.K ^$, g ~3~~. (}{ ~ tiI i ~ '.. ~i' ... ,. .e. r S.i ,~. nl.r.JE~ ~~ ~ y ~ a ~~ f ' ~ ~ , ' ' ~ `5 S.~'~1j . ridian Plannin & Zonin Me g g March 16, 2006 Page 35 of 82 ' ~.; ;~, -a;~ ; ~.. ~: ~. ;; Zaremba: I was going to make the comments that it's exciting to see a Meridian business growing and expanding and needing to move into another -- my first impression was that this was kind of an odd spot for it, but I think staff has covered and you have agreed to things that would make that a good spot. I appreciate your providing the drawings of the front of the building. What scares me is the Car Quest building which is near by is -- in my opinion, takes the price for being the ugliest building in Meridian and when I saw you were going to do a metal building, I thought, oh, no, we are getting another one. But the facade makes me comfortable with it. So, thank you. Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we have had that discussion before on the building and our instruction to our staff was not to duplicate the Car Quest building. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any additional questions of the applicant? Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Rohm: At this time would Richard Cummings like to come forward, please. Okay. From the audience Mr. Cummings said he had nothing additional to add and he is in support of the project. At this time is there anybody else that would like to come forward and speak to this application? Seeing none, move to discussion or close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-002. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06- 002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Ijust -- I want to make one comment that me, personally, as far as the building goes, the interior rental, chain saws, et cetera, I think that's an appropriate use for that area. I think it's a completely inappropriate use for heavy equipment in that -- that part of Franklin Road. I don't think it marries well with what else is going on around there and I just think it's a bad location for that type of business with heavy equipment. I feel that's more industrial use, so that's -- Rohm: And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Newton-Huckabay: I would be not in favor of the project for that reason. ..~,~~ ~~~'~ . _..z ~~ >s ,:, ,;~: v;4 ~~~-~. ~:, ~ -- ,,~FF ({Z ~ Y ~~~T-may, ~~ ' z, F ~~f f x: ~ {C KT-~~ k S [[ai~~'. '{~oY4` ~ a 7 ,_ ~rs$ ~1', T ~~~'~+ ~~t.~,t~ ' k,h t. l ; y ..~, ~, It7 "rt ~ ~.i, _'i. t "r ~4.~ .r .4 ;ti^i t ~~ ~ .. :;~ 3.~ 1 ~}.. ~ t s:a .;-z ~t r~ f ~ '. ~ ~~ ~ r p ? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 36 of 82 Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would agree that was my first thought as well. I would visualize a yard like this being farther west on Franklin, maybe in the area of the bus F,:,;~ barn and Sanitary Services Company or maybe on Overland west of Meridian where ' there are similar things. But that to me would be a more obvious place to put this business, because it would blend in with the surrounding things. On the other hand, I was satisfied by the conditions that staff has put on it and applicant's willingness not to be a blight on the landscape, so to speak. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I just want to preface my thoughts on -- the heavy equipment is loud and, you know, you have the backup alarms and all of type of thing, ;'"~` which are required and I just don't think that it's -- I just don't think with the park right next door, the public pool, it's not an appropriate use in that area. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments before we entertain a motion? Borup: The only thing that -- in my mind Iwasn't -- know if it's settled, seems to be a ?'~ problem. The only thing that there was any -- any differences between the staff report and what the applicant wanted was on the west wall. Staffs talking about a block wall. ,Vl `F,,, He had said they talked to the parks department and the parks department would prefer `~ the chain link with landscaping on their property, but the parks department comments s~~''~ don't say that, so -- ~~~ Rohm: Maybe we could get clarification from staff. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup. The parks department's conditions were from ~:~~ the original site plan. Now, Idon't -- I did not touch base with them afterwards, but I would imagine it's the same use up to the same site, so I have not talked with Elroy -- I did work with Elroy and Don at Mr. Larsen's office when those other two buildings further to the south came through and I was familiar with what was going on and putting the landscaping on the park side. Those were a little bit different. I mean they are flex uses. They weren't -- and they do have some -- some storage areas or potential storage areas there. This use, though, is more intense as far as the outdoor storage than those ones were. They were more geared towards internal businesses. So, the ='~" parks department's conditions were based on the original site plan, so -- Borup: Okay. Well, my thought was -- I mean if it's the parks department's preference ' and they are the neighbor that we are talking about here, if they preferred that it be consistent along their property, that seems to make sense to me, which is -- which is different than the staff report and, you know, there would be a condition added about off-site landscaping. Rohm: Yeah. I tend to agree with you on that and maybe just adjust the staff report for -- in your motion so state something to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? . ~ • IY]] ~ I L 9y~'{ ~ ~~b „~N'~: ~(. t 'I.",:yr '~ i l i f k . ~ d , "~ -!~;u~ h:~ xu .=.'~s~J :.u.~~s~C~¢¢' z' Y~ - ' ~ ; '"~ ';a3#~i~;i;y'x~"'F`CC': . ~ ';' . y : ~ : n ~, ~ :.i ~ ~ x. . r:. .?~, "~n~;"rf ~~. i ~'f4' }3:.:::°w' F:4S" E '.~ ~q .~ 1,+ 5 C~~,t ;r'~(,~"~. 4 E~.'".f,~i < y :5rs=..~'~~iS~r~,': x ~^%"~:i' • .~ ~ • .1YL. c~.:..:.MG`" xaY 'r Y''~ $ i i t"., ..~1F «„ >3' #. ' - ~y A mS .ha w. ~r I ' 1+ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~.@;: ~_.~>:, • T} ,k "' ! ~~ '~Fe::F' ~.y ~;~. ~~ • ~ ~ ,fir' • , i; . i ~ i ~ , li . x,..• ,,,'~ . ~,.~ ,.' ~ I 4y '; ?° 4:? E :i.,n I t}:, :~ ~~,~te~~ij~.'ji'•,pt y`Y , .x o-Q Q 1 ;: ( ~ :~:.¢ ~ A'Ai-~ +v19;•,. ~.,w~A. *,~`+':x„ ..jj 4: .~3, r; .4 • ~'"F;,i, _ { rs. .Y. ~s~." Y~w. w~!- 4 Fl a Wit. ~• t`°sN t f ' 4 ~ '~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .3' :•:a.~r=,+'~!•-c'!,''{"_:,:"'~v i ,Y`~ls ; . ...,~{N~y rl~;: •..F r ,~ ~y ,~ ~ - T ! ~ S Y •A ~T 4 1 . . i ~ }, ,. ?n , ( . .:16 H,. I` ~w~~w- '" ,•r ~+'s 'C J~{ _? e' - 3 ~1 rt ~Y' ;iiY~ +~'°~~l{ ~ ~ ~ %,F ~~ 'Nk ~Y:p.~~4 S,f 4yY,t .'•~~;k Y y,~ .x ~"'7ty j~ ~+ ~} j +.. ;. ' N`•. r ~ F ~, ~.FE,'''~ r2:~Z~: } ~# •. ..Z ~ I ~ : l r `~ ~' 1~n;u..,.+ yW,^~T ~' ` ~' a ,,, . . ... .• , . ~. ... ~: W k 3:~ ' a ~q zr. ,~. ,~ ~ $. • . • S' ~,1~iR~"t {~~ ~ ',F `,~:~A Y I .1~ : ~ ~.: .. D ,. ~ .P.~ , ~. ......x..Y.3..,.::.:'.S'Y :.k^ il~i h ~ y y. y 's' ! r !., ~ t~..~ ~ K ~ r 4 >•s~ 3a t~3 F F' f„ t ~i ]. t a: K ~.. _ ~, ( k ..: Y, g F r r Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 16, 2006 ' ~ Page 37 of 82 x., s Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ,;;. Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate to ask the parks department to comment ` before City Council on the new site plan? Borup: That might handle that. And be a little more specific in their comments. 4, `t'``' Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. ' ``'~ Zaremba: Well, the applicant did supply a drawing that was signed by the parks department. Borup: But nothing was mentioned about landscaping. Zaremba: Yeah. That's true. Borup: Just the fence. ~. ', Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just state that because of the fact that we are looking to do the block wall to the north portion up to the upper portion of the property =f `~ continuing all the way through, I think it's going to blend better with this property, number one, and, number two, I think Huckabay's comments in regards to the noise and ~,<~ '~ whatnot with the eight foot block wall as a screening between this property and the park, i.e., and the pool and whatnot, you will get some sound abatement at that point with that ~ 'I block wall and that block wall would be in the yard area where all this equipment will be parked. So, I think that staffs comment is to continue that block wall all the way through and I think that's probably the way we should continue on. Newton-Huckabay: That makes more sense. j ~~ ~`~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd also ask staff while we are sort on that subject, for ~4' ,; altemate compliance -- I have sort of felt like I was satisfied by Mr. Larsen saying there ~'_~__ '~ is going to be plant material, it's just going to be on the park, instead of in their property. Is it all right to approve off-site altemate compliance? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's exactly what we did on the other two ~~ ' lots to the south, because there is a sewer line there, they couldn't really provide it '.' where it's supposed to go anyway. So, we worked with the applicant and said, hey, if ~,r'~~' ou can et the arks de artment to oka ou lantin it on their side and maintainin it, Y 9 p p YY p 9~ g~ that was something that we could support. And, again, it doesn't meet all of the intents ~` '~- that are in the code for requiring that, but, yeah, that is something that -- that alternative compliance is geared for or circumstance like that. ', Zaremba: Thank you. <r ,;,~ ° Rohm: I'd entertain a motion. ~, ~. ~~ ~< Meridian PI i ann ng & Zoning March 16, 2006 ~;~ ~' Page 38 of 82 ','-, Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make an attempt at it and people listen and correct me if you need to. Did we close the Public Hearing? Borup: Yes, we did. Zaremba: We did. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and `- public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-002 as presented in the staff ~" ° report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006, with the following modifications. On page `` one of Exhibit B, paragraph 1.3, the mention of all fleet trucks can be all Sunbelt fleet E.`~ ~ trucks. Paragraph 1.4 I would leave as is. Paragraph 1.5 I would change the shall not exceed eight feet in height to ten feet in height. Shall not exceed ten feet in height. Paragraph 1.8 I would add a bullet that says for alternate compliance, plant materials on the park site to the west are acceptable. I believe that's it. „~;;`, Moe: Mr. Zaremba, do you want to speak to the lock down of the booms under 1.5? Zaremba: I think as long as we have a ten foot height limit that would -- that would do it. Moe: Okay. '~ ~ ~ Zaremba: That's the intent of the ten feet height limit. ~_~: Hood: Mr. Chair, can I ask the maker a clarification question? For clarification, your ;; ~ added bullet, does that take the place of the first sentence in 1.2? I know that was a -~ ~:; topic. That five foot wide landscape strip, do we want to strike -- because they are kind of in conflict there, if you add that bullet that -- I think the intent is that they provide the landscaping on the park side, but 1.2 requires it adjacent to all their -- Zaremba: What if we change that sentence to read that -- in 1.2, construct a five foot a =: landscape strip adjacent to all small vehicle use areas, because there are places where `'_'-` you want it; right? r~~ Hood: Uh-huh. Yeah. Zaremba: And the large vehicle use areas don't need it. Hood: I think I understand the intent, yeah. r`'` Zaremba: Okay. So, I would -- on Exhibit B, page one -- this is part of the motion. Paragraph 1.2, insert the word small after all, so that it reads construct a five foot wide landscape strip adjacent to all small vehicle use areas. Moe: I'll second. a ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 39 of 82 "~ '' Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto -- no. We approve ~' ' CUP 06-002, including the report with the mentioned changes. All those in favor say P. ~r~:,, aye. ~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we vote, I left part of the motion off. I need to add to ~.: ,':: the motion. Rohm: Okay. ~' ;_'~J~ Zaremba: I'd further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to E=~~~~ be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on April 6, 2006, as part of ~ : '' the previous motion. }'t' ~= ` " Moe: I will re-second that. ~~; 3, Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-002 to include staff report and all amendments to that staff report. All those in favor say aye. ``~ ~;~ Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. ~' Rohm: Motion carries. One dissenting. ~, MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: At this time we will take a short recess and reconvene at 9:30. ~:, "~~ (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: ± Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 ,~:<<: building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 - Larkspur Way: ' ~' Rohm: At this time I'd like to re-open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian -~ ~ i. Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, March 16th, 2006, and begin by r, ` opening Public Hearing AZ 05-010 and PP 06-008 for the sole purpose of continuing w these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008 relating to - Cardigan Bay Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20, 2006, for the purpose of receiving and assimilating the ACHD staff report. P .X:'~.'S'~'%A~' `~`'~f ;.-~ '`>;S ~ t 4 { C h 8 `~ t :1 ~ ~ ~~ ~. 1'i fi~+'~,,,~ ,Yi4T'•.s,~. .. ~,r~~<~1V~a'YI'v"C;(. ~%'"~• 7r n ''. 7 , > !:~ FF ~ ?< ! "'~ fi I :1, it .~~ >t #L"s '~' ~ •. ,~ ~.: ` r .~S °°~i P~:'~xtiP. {.. .Y. ~ -:8 •.;a rrrv ;• it 1 ~~F s.,. fi'r' , ,. V; ....: •. 1 .'.y R4 , yk~fF ~ 1, ~ A.S-'F.• ~ Y'•dY'•~Y ..~"vll I ~,'.~ ~.b'*<`.+x'=;.e(:.rrC.:R~n. ~.~ I :: ~A'N`''j f I' ~. _ ~... rr},. < ~~r ° :bJ: ca ti'(•~':~{~%:k " .•~•,~',•., A ~ ~ ~ "~' :.~'• r'y;A'Se; Y -(''~ ..M1`~ 0.(y ~S.ri,.,C, ~~ • ..~ta.. .~ - -. ., I _ 5.. .. ., ~• . .. w. F t .';e M.'M ~' h... :~ .~. n .~ . ..:~, , ' •`'-~'~"°"~.~~~;;~L k C~;~; :~~,.s.~~,'~ i. ~ ~l~..:,^yY;s.. 's*'. yir ~ ~ ,T~~ ,w~.4: r r ~_5,~, •r("C':'6)".'y~",TVF.~~'sl Y.. ,fe:. 'rl jt 7 _'' ^A' 9f .. '` c'., ~ Y?;v'eiaw:i~r t~,' :z M'v' r': Y ; ). I 3'! +~ ~ I ~ ^ '~,~. :'~ J~ ,fir ~~?~ > ~ s4,... ~~~`~ f ~' li ~ $ _ I "'~`.':~ .. ~J;a', < r.. ' ,~ a , ~ ;f ;; .. `. ~ ~ . I y i ~ f Z ~ I t ~ ~ '~ ~~ 5 Y ~~`£'~#' { x ''" ~~ ~ i ~f { f; 1, Y ~ SyAG d ~ ~ kx' I y f ~f~ ~ y .. .. '~;." 'fi' ` ~>.,I I ~ .c °' Ys , Ls;e ~ ~. 1 ~ Y~} Y . \~ 2 4n ~4 ' ;+~ a 7D, `F H[ ~* y. -:,~ .:~a ~ .l+fl~'' -r . : ~ ~: ~ . z ~i /rh YY. •I ~.l i S.. I ..~ .. ;'Yg~i* ~~~~ '9' .^~~•. y~'•`~'Ai2', ';'~ ' ~ F °t { ~ ~i+ '~~~ 1 .1 f ~ . ~ 7 .'P •_ ~~ . . y r ~: ~ ~ y ~ er u a f ? ~ I ~ ' . >u . ;n + I ~:~_~ ' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 40 of 82 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. s'~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. - Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 ~'~~~~ building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 E ~ . North Locust Grove Road: { ~ ` ' Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-011 and PP 06- 009. Both of these items relating to Basin Creek Subdivision and begin with the report. ~~ Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Basin Creek '~'`>Y ' Subdivision lies generally northwest of the intersection of McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road. Surrounding area consists of an older county sub named F'~=~_ Larkwood. Recently approved Tustin Subdivision came through the Commission and Council last fall. Saguaro Canyon to the west. The Reserve to the north. Arcadia to the north. And the previous item that did have to be continued is Cardigan Bay and is directly to the south of the site, located on two lots here. So, Basin Creek consists of 29.69 acres, currently zoned RUT. The applicant has requested to rezone -- or to ~~` ~ ~;~- annex and zone to an R-4 district for the preliminary plat approval of 88 single family residential lots and the request states ten common lots, but there is -- I did confirm with the applicant that there is only nine common lots in the request. The preliminary plat ~' ' has -- was modified from the original submittal at staffs request to match up with a stub street proposed by Cardigan Bay. The initial submittal did stub the road to the LDS Church, which we felt it was more appropriate to connect to the proposed stub in Cardigan. This site does have some really good connectivity, end up with an access -- anew access off of Locust Grove Road, connecting to an approved stub in Saguaro _~:~ " ~ Canyon and an approved stub in Arcadia, stubbing to an undeveloped parcel to the north and, then, connecting to Cardigan Bay to the south. So, the traffic circulation is quite excellent on the site and they have -- staff is quite pleased with the number of stubs and the layout of the subdivision, with the changes that were made with the e; ~ revised plat. A few things I will mention. The submitted preliminary plat did not have an adequate landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road. As an arterial, Locust Grove Road does require -- well, it's actually, an entryway comdor on the Comprehensive Plan. So, that does require a 35-foot landscape buffer. The submitted plat did have a ~~~ 25-foot landscape buffer so we would condition the plat to increase that to the required , 35 feet to be included in the common lot along Locust Grove. The parkways with trees ~~:x ; that were proposed as part of the subdivision -- and I can go into some landscape plans ~:ti•t t~ ~ r a tw'o` ~ ten" ~f~' ~ r ~ rp "~ 1 I t ~ 1 I j s . s' , f ~ ,~,~ , ~~ Y 4 ~ 4 ev . *~ P is 3 L ,i ~~ . I ;:s,C ~ e t;+ ..~v:.„Z~S.±t'„gr :~,K }~. ~z y's a'k .. I ~ .I E )["T„r' r•.' ,.c'= °.•~i%'-.°-"Y',E':;G`~ ~ .~,:`r~P". I ~ i • I. <t. ~:s':•ax;.~fl;. r ;. . , , ~: "' ' '.•i : Y ~ ~, I a ' i tr ~M>l }W' -~$?: ~'Y~ a'FC'.'-',i~"v'%.'::~:~5 ~.=M1! ':~S''i4~:~s:.:"tip 'e i' 'Pr i ~ r y ' r 1 I ;1 ~.~ . y z~_ :r ,. ^'•xt .~R ~ rib, S~; a~ .,~„ <aT ~...~. ~,. y' ,'.~, r%=•,.,,5 ,~' ,.~, z yy°`s s i ~ j3 ,;:~4~~Y^~` r.d,.~ ~' 1,=.~:,.lr''G.F :Y.:;R ':~~s,~;n 'trn{~, ,{..~=1i °'~.~ 3 ~ .1: S ^re~,C, ~ ~ I f~~`'~:^ .'x'~~ r .O~ !'.r~M1 y~r i. •Y'#{]a "[f •a li~,k iTo-r F ~ tl ~ A'. {^,,"`~,• t.~'„~ .i py` ~yyY ~ d.~jy~Yry7'y.~; .k. ;k yix~ I{; } ~Y I ~ ~ - 2 3 ~~'9•'~v~ N'^' k F .q :Rl•' I F 1 ~ 1 i t, y" I ~~'1; ' ' ~~ yQ 1 ~~ ^ h?;IMF` • } d YP • •{ ~f. xfY` ,a$SY:`~44A`` S. t ~ ~r ~~ i ~` .j`:4 t',,.. ...; ~s~ *. "° I"~. ~Y:'t:'~F~;;'~Fn:P s .k ' gY}?y' ~ i 3. ~ ~ ~ i L M x~ `..+ ~ 4 ::n.+~'," ~ 1' , v~S~. ' ~ s •~~ . ' t~.a9¢ .y-,?,t: ~~~z, i Ii' i I „'' ~ ,s h :~{rxh'h#tiy LLL.... ,. ., . ~~A9.'h4!'.2"'f:a's. -; ,i.i ~z;;. Y- ~ ~ `i}'t s' ~~i ~4 ;~`~' k^~'.*.~' ~.'~'. =a~a ~:"u~:n~~~.1~•"~I;,`r,',~„`I~, ~' 4r w~,~ ~x ~, `F x ~. I , ; x- t~ ~ 7t h'~°li L ~ s 3 ."~ c~'^' :~ ri. _I T~-x~`:"?t'~'}'~ r:'k .. '~~..%. •.Y h i .s+~~Ser •~ 2iiX 17 ~i I '~I +~ ~, ,`' ~Y,,11 ~:e. ~t;~,'.ew^k.~~~ .~{ "~, r i .I ~ 1. I '~ ` ~ ''~' 1 '.s 7. .. Y~`' ~ s t^a~`~-s~li. ~"Af - ; ..r +.~y.r" P 1 i I rk' . . 4' • . ~S i" . v 4 r• rug 'r:..e:.eg~,, k¢ I 1 x ~ .~ ••~~~•~ ~. ~.1 x.~,`}~?. ~~~J:'y~ ,aft '~ 5•. 1 k~. T ^'.e t .Y ~ '~• ~`~~. ...~ .~ ~, 'ws ~?~ 1 1-23`i?v`:p• Y .. •""r,vk3" 'N1 <~ kiL ~iYn' '•L f ~F' }•[~ ~ 'fit Ir j( ~f r. Yr ~,:i ."fr"x^"S~a'i~ r '~*^`e t•..'~t . . . .. - ., • ' ;~;!"i A'~4"~ 21+:°' Y ~ '. I"' '4. ~' ! ~ L F 1 Vii! i ~ ~ r x w~ ' ~.>;; ; { ' 4~ a , i :. ~ .t .- tR a It 'z:~ y,, -~ ~~;,' ~:: r: `_" ~. :;=: ~, `;; VII. 4~;,~~ ~:, ::~ ,., "~ `',', 4i .~~ t~ ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 41 of 82 C here. The application has proposed a detached sidewalk with a parkway on all the local streets within the subdivision. However, ACHD requirements and City of Meridian requirements do require that those are eight feet wide. They were shown as seven and a half feet. So, in order to include the trees within those parkways, those do have to be increased to eight foot wide and those trees would be restricted to class two trees. The Meridian fire department had concerns about parking along the entry road from Locust Grove due to the landscape island and the configuration of the roadway. They did include a condition that there would be no parking from -- and that is East Halpin Street, that there would be no parking from Locust Grove to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo at this location. The open space for the project consists of a -- sometimes referred to as T-shirts. This one really isn't so much one, but you have a larger area of open space that acts as a landscape target for that entry drive into the subdivision that, then, extends with a pathway down the middle of this block of homes and intersects with another neighborhood park in this location. Get to some landscape plans. Unfortunately, they are kind of chopped up, so it's a little bit hard to see -- a lot hard to see. I'll let the applicant -- they have an overall on the board, maybe they can point out a little bit easier there. But we are supportive of the open space design. It does meet the -- it does meet and exceed the minimum requirements for landscape open space and has amenities that will -- that will benefit the neighborhood. I will just mention, too, that the R-4 zone does have a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet and all homes within the subdivision would be required to be at least that size. I think with that I will end staff comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one. In the first paragraph in the staff report you mention that there is discrepancy whether there is ten common lots or nine. Has that been resolved? Wilson: Yes. The applicant did confirm that there are only nine. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'll try this again. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ashley Ford, I'm a planning project manager for WRG Design. My office address is 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. And I'm here tonight on behalf of my client Pacific Landmark Development. As staff has stated, we do have a proposed 88 lots within this development for an overall density of just less than three dwelling units per acre. We are really proud of this development and we worked very hard on this and we believe that this has maintained the delicate balance of being compatible with the surrounding developments in this area and meeting your Comprehensive Plan, which says three to eight dwelling units per acre for this site. We envision this development to be more upscale. It is a single family residential development. The CC&Rs will require a minimum lot size -- or a minimum home size, {. -~ i -.' rh,~' ~+ v t~~k ~ ~ ~"s'°F 'f f c ;ya ~' tom' xr y`..: 1~ q' ~.~ Ar },. xy t L a ~::: tR.a;-y '~_ 3 ~ ~ L~7L ~ ~ ~~ - 4: ~ i yz" ~ a. •F 1 ~1 ~; F~ A F .; 'pN,...j{{ ¢ '. f~'1 ~ 4 Tr ~`I i Fk f• Y ~;, Y, _ ~~~~' w. w E r 3~, ~' ..~,,. * ~ ~~r` ~ _ p~ r- r gym. ~ d~ f:.i ~ L, ~-', x ~ ~ f PY"lei 3~~ - 4 ~ ,~.Jpx .. X~ X~ r ~ ° ~+ ~ ~ i r r, 0',1 h ; - ti 'tr e"t' ~~ r JM '/ j. ,~ ~t ~,y ~_ Meridian Planning & Zoning ,~,e March 16, 2006 t Page 42 of 82 ~ excuse me, of 2,500 square feet. And we will have very strict architectural standards. r ` While it is difficult to speculate what our end prices will be, we assume we will be ~~ ~ starting in the 400,000 dollar range. So, this will be a very nice development. The architecture will reflect that within the controls and I think the landscaping will go above ~~; ; and beyond. What you have in front of you is, basically, just a concept plan that we ~- ~, have right row. We will be refining this even more as we work through the final plat and the construction document base. We will be providing vinyl fencing within the ~ development. The only exception for this will be all the lots adjacent to open park areas ~~ r; ' and, then, wrought iron fencing will be required. We have provided detached sidewalks throughout the entire development and we will provide -- we think this will provide a much more enhanced streetscape throughout the development and will look very very nice. From a pedestrian and vehicular connectivity standpoint, we have worked with both the city and ACHD to provide adequate stub roads and pathway connections. We have proposed stub roads to the connections -- to locations planning staff requested Y. early on and to provide for future interconnectivity to Cardigan Subdivision to the south. '"- which will -- sorry, I forgot Would are proposing an extension of the ten foot pathway ~` -~. , my laser pointer, but will start at the west end of the site from Saguaro Canyon all the ~` way to Locust Grove. It will meander through the large park site through the center T- ~t '~ ~ shirts park site if you will and onto Locust Grove and to the south and, basically, this is :, ~'` '°+ ' the last leg of the Comprehensive Plan pathway and so we will be finalizing this ~ ~ '~' connection. We do understand that we will need to be tabled this evening, because we ,,~:, ;~ do not have an ACHD staff report. We just hope to open the Public Hearing, hear if d - ~ there are any concerns on your part, and if there were, then, we could address those N" ` ~; .' before coming back for our next meeting. We do have tech review with ACHD ` '~ tomorrow. It is my understanding, from what the proposed conditions will be, that there will not be any issues with our site plan and we will be on the consent agenda for March ~'~, 29th. I guess all in all we are in agreement with the staff report. Josh has been great to ~` ,~ work with and makes -- has made the process relatively painless for us and we ~;' appreciate that. And I'm just happy to stand for any questions you may have this ~_~ evening. ~. :-:;- Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~,':; ~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~-~ Moe: Ashley, you had made the statement in regard to the wrought iron fencing, you ~- 'j said will be required? Are you not planning to install that? 4 ~;: , + ~ Ford: It will be placed upon the development -- the home builders at the time and so it will be placed in the CC&Rs and the ACCs that that will be required for each ., homeowner. Moe: Okay. Thank you. ' ~ ~ • ,,~.s ~"s ,$:.,k `.Y ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ h~..* k '~ y.t 3' Tr za#°f' ~?,~R +:'~'tt;.~;ay .~~ I K ~' fr' k ~. ~ -„-x :~~.~ •~ r f. C' Jt~i- '~ 'i 4 i ! ~~ s~'.;<•:...* I .c4 x w ., . t • : . ' y ~ r 4 . e•: ' .~ ,.~ :~ i . ~~. . k .. . try x v . %::.' . ~ z • 3 ~ . _ !! n ~s~'F+' `.'~ :. _. , . , , •:; „... ~~: ~` ~ ` ~ ~ ' i'ce' .'C ~` ~ ~ ~,d~ ~ t~ a P . . ~:a .,. g ° in. .. ; :... ,",~:°i ~ ~ tsa ,~ r( ., a' ' v Y' t ,~ . . .i ' ~ it ~ ~'r"~~iF+m fir. i'~ ~, ~. Try 1 'r ~~ ~9 I ~ . y ~ ` ~ ':5. ~k~{~4~~~~"F''• FS '': }N n .1. ~' `~ ~' a .,~ .~ . ~ : ~ a+i$.° a ..; ~~, xY t'' ~ , ~ I i~'.. c J,~ `I . ;~' wH l 1 x^f ~~d 1'*R r ~~`-,., ..r ~. 3 ,,~ ,? ;. 1 a fy°~' ~" 4 ~ti<~' fbr f".#t TyL~F - ii a h n '"°y@~ 3~'> l S~V ~-` a ,r "s} fi~: ~' ~~~. ~~ ~~~~ r _ r •', F1~ 5'a ! tt ' ~~< +.. sr, r"~YY .~y_< w~ " _.. ... {+ ~~5 r~l Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~' ' ` March 16, 2006 Page 43 of 82 Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant? ~:~. Ford: Thank you very much. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Ryan Tuttle. Tuttle: Thank you for your time, Commissioners. I'm Ryan Tuttle, Pacific Landmark Development. I just wanted to make myself available to answer any questions. I think Ashley covered everything for the most part. And we appreciate staff's time and input ~~: ~ on this subdivision and we are very proud of the outcome. ~ ~- ` Rohm: Good. Thank ou. There is nobod else si ned u for this, but at this time Y Y 9 P ~'"'' ti you're certainly --anyone is welcome to come forward. ~ , ~~ ~. :, Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road right in the middle ~ of this project. I think it's a dam good project, as I thought of our last subdivision proposal, which was passed by this good body of people, and I think our minimum lot '~f ; sizes -- there is no Conditional Use Permit this round, which is -- should be in our favor. The minimum home construction size far surpasses the subdivisions of lessor quality across the street and behind us and I think it's a good project and look forward to your passing this as you did our last proposal. Thank you. I'm in favor. ~> Rohm: Thank you, sir. Discussion amongst the Commission? ~ ~ ' ' re going Moe: I really don t have any questions, other than the applicant -- you said you '~''~`'' ~ to ACHD March 28th? ~.` , h "` r Ford: Commissioner Moe, we are planning on going to tech review tomorrow morning „ ', and planning on the March 29th ACHD commission. ~` ~ ~~ Moe: So, as far as the continuance, you would pretty much be ready on our next :: meeting the 6th, but I realize our hearing is full. So, the 20th would be the next one ~ .<< that -- ~. ~` ~ Rohm: Well, what I'm wondering is if -- if ACHD approves this as designed, why we -= can't just forward to City Council with the assumption that ACHD's response will be in the affirmative and, if not, then, it will be kicked to us from City Council at the point in H time. ~~~ Borup: I was wondering the same thing. I mean normally I like to see the ACHD report. ~~ !, I think it most times is pertinent and could affect, but here they tied into every -- every ~` - ~ yY adjoining stub street and they have provided one extra to the undeveloped property. ' ' ` don't know what ACHD could do any different. Has there been any preliminary ` ' discussion with ACRD staff? ~. ,,,, ~_ ;: ~ ~I k1 r. ~_`' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 44 of 82 }- there has been. We met with them very early on to let Ford: Commissioner Borup yes y u. ~' , , them know that we were planning on -- the stub streets that we were planning on doing Y ' and also there were reduced street sections that we are planning on doing throughout `~ some of the development and parking on one side and just to make sure that they were _ ~:;t / okay with that and we had their buy off at that point in time verbally. Of course, I did try .; ; to get a draft staff report for tonight's meeting, but, unfortunately, they are a little under ;.' staffed and are rushing I think to get -- put things together for tomorrow's tech review. ~~ s Borup: Because people keep quitting. fN,, Ford: I know. I know. ~' K~5 Rohm: Thank you. ~: ` Y>_ . ;„ Ford: Thank you. Rohm: Maybe at this time we will ask our legal counsel if he sees any problems moving forward with this with some assumptions in mind. Baird: Mr. Chair, I think the applicant would have to go on the record and agree to this, '~` ' because they are taking a risk, because if it doesn't tum out as you think it will, there will be additional delays, because it will have to go up to Council be -- possibly be _ remanded back. Whereas the sure thing to do would be to continue it for a date certain, so that you could review the report. So, you can go either way, but I think there is additional risk to the applicant for further delay if you make an assumption about how the ACHD report will tum out. r~;,, Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward once again, please. 44 Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I could just -- real quickly just kind of talk about what was done ~: ~ - in the past in this situation and, then, in the recent past. If you remember Bear Creek - : West, and Knight Hill Center, both within the last couple of months, same situation, ~_ ~ ~ didn't anticipate any ACRD problems and there ended up not being any ACHD '-~ problems on those. But we did continue those out until we had that approval before this ~;, -. ~::~- body gave their recommendation. So, just kind of some history there. You can do as ~.~,~ ; you may, but I thought I'd just mention that. M;- ;' :' ;;' Rohm: Okay. Thank you. { ~~, Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would add that I'm one of those that really does like to see ~;; the ACHD report before we move it on. It's unfortunate that ACHD is having problems ~ ;y and that impacts developments, but I feel it's -- even if it's going to be a slam dunk, it's '~ still important to see it. <~: Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to provide comment? 'c ~' - ::r' ,~ ,~ _~, ., , „~'' '~~I'~' ~.:',a '~ ~~~ ' ~:~p, y_~~' ,7. ti ,4. s-~ ,._ ~ >~-- .. K -. n. 1. .. ., . M~ ~a 'S L ~~7L~ ~. A~, i ~~ f ter.°-, Y i {f,'~' s ~ `S,~i n .t't 1 ~ ',+-i ~~ -' rt`~4 ?c ;~k -` ~ ~ ~s ~''~ J ~~?~ X~" K ~~ ~~: ~ 4 T ~,. Jy , Z J Y ~~ ,y ~~ h~r 1~~~~ yid 7T ~~ 1 ~~~~ ~" dW~'aR+i~ ~~_ sx~ '`~i?~j Meridian Planning & Zoning ~; March 16, 2006 .~ Page 45 of 82 . Y III ~~.q" Ford: We will agree to whatever the Commission deems is best. If you do feel that you n" can recommend approval to the Council this evening, we would be willing to take that risk, just because of the level of conversations that we have had with the ACRD staff r. ~ = and the comfort level we do have that we are meeting their requirements, but, ;:, accordingly, we will respect the decision that you make this evening. ~~~ ' ~~' Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. F; ~, _ -- ~ Ford: Thank you. ,~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? r' ; ,^ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~, Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend that we continue this, but I think it will be a - small enough order to put on the April 6th -- z:, _' '= Borup: I'd agree with that. There shouldn't be anymore testimony or anything. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Because it was a similar situation with Bear Creek West, we . { were able to move that through pretty quickly. y~; I Rohm: With the sole provision of obtaining the Ada County Highway District's report, so ;~ that there would be no other issues open at that -- '~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we do that I would add one .very small comment, {„ h .., .~: probably a typo, and that is that on their revised preliminary sheets, the cover sheet, page CO-1, still shows the original design. All of the other pages, C-2 through C-5, ~~ show the new representation that I believe we all prefer. But the cover sheet is not ~. correct. F;. ,,,,~ ,~~ Rohm: Okay. All right. With that I would entertain a motion. z t; qS~- ~ - :' Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. ,r . ,.: '- ~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Wait a minute. I'm sony. We are not doing that. We are going to continue it. ;~°; Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~ . ~ Borup: I didn't make a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009, relating to Basin Creek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled .meeting of April 6, 2006, for the sole purpose of receiving and assimilating the ACHD report. a.t,=~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 46 of 82 ~i >: ~: _,,v Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items No. AZ 06-011 1.4'.2.., and PP 06-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor ' ~ say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~` Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 ~` '~ acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge _. k~.~ ~ Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: ~_ , Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single- 4' ' family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: "~ -~' Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-012 and PP 006-010, both relating to Hendrickson Subdivision, for the sole purpose of :' continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. ~. ;. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating the Hendrickson ~' ~' Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to allow us to receive `"''~ and assimilate the ACHD report and have full discussion at that time. b. -. ~`` ` Moe: Second. `~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010 to April 6, 2006, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries k, £; •.. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~. .:~ Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 ~, , acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: ~. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single- ~;;~ family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision ] by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: SA ~" ~:'..., ~`,f ?. F_. .-' '.~ 1 1 ~' r ~', "';~ ~ ii ~;',,, C1I } x ' ii : ~ , a (~iw k:!...~ ,:'jr , u,,`1 F 3~ri ~ {:., ~ 5 •. .~~~ y,-.~ g @'~" L ~ ~ _' 3 _ ,p ~~'.j h, i y3'Y F~ ~1 ;~ ~ ••C ,~~ j ~~, qP iC~l~ `~1 .~F ~q J}l ~(~'.~~ .. t t {~,. . h i 44 ~.. e~®w'~ ~ ~LF 4~ + t ~ yz ~ 5~ } L ~ ~ ,~ ~ Y Y Gt¢ '. ]~~':a R '}' M.~ ~ w 44 g..( ~ ¢~3 t ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 47 of 82 ~~~ Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06- ~ ~ 007. Both of these items are related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff ~,~ ' report. ~~:; Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Cedarcreek Subdivision is located approximately one quarter mile east of Meridian Road on McMillan Road. As you can see here it is bounded by Paramount to the north and this is the undeveloped section of Paramount through here. This long narrow strip is a ~: '~ collector road from Paramount. This is Solitude, Amber Creek, and there is vacant property to the west of the site. As you can see, there is one small parcel right here that '~~" is an out parcel. The site is currently all agricultural with a -- I believe there is two ~:; residences located in here. I guess I'm being indicated there is only one residence, but fib.:; there is multiple buildings in there. With this there is a request for 85 single family residential lots and 12 common lots. The applicant is meeting the R-8 standards of the ordinance. Most of these lots are 5,000 square foot lots, with the required landscape °~ ~ buffer to McMillan Road. And all of the connections to Paramount, as well as to the ' ~` east and to the north to Paramount, as well as to a stub street to the undeveloped parcel, which would provide for future connections in that location. Again, this is one of `" those staff reports that has ACHD conditions of approval that are pending. Staff doesn't ~' `' know what else this applicant could do, since they are connecting to all their stub streets } ~~ -.: that are required of the site, but this will go to tech review tomorrow, same as Basin ~_ Creek. Probably would have conditions next week for -- in a draft format. The main ~r issue with this subdivision is the out parcel here. I wish I had a blow up of it. You can y kind of see that this neck right there is left out. This is, actually, most of the -- there is a ~`~ canal here and there is a maintenance road in there that is along that canal. And that ~~,, also serves a purpose of being the driveway for this parcel. In this one you can see the -` L -- their house is right off this property line. My guess is that is five or six feet to that F. ~~ ~ ' property line and their garage is right here, which is almost right on the property line for ,:. what is going to be the future common lot in this location. Now with that there are two other lots in here, one for future right of way and, then, one for the required 25 foot landscape buffer to McMillan Road. Now, if the applicant does -- the applicant will be ~` ' ~ required to adhere to the City of Meridian UDC, which says that they are required to '-` provide that 25 foot landscape buffer, which is, essentially, going to take that driveway :_:~~ access away. So, that will limit the use of this -- this residential property here and they most likely will have to make application to ACRD for another access point to McMillan ~ in the future. Or some other resolution needs to be adhered to. But those are mostly ~.~ off-site improvements that staff has not brought into this staff report at this time. The ~~ applicant's agent is here and I would request that they address that in greater detail. The only real comments that were conditions would have been that this is landscaped, which is what staff is requiring and that the common lot be maintained by the homeowners association. The other comment was that this alley is shown as a '"'~`' common -- or as a common lot. The alley should be dedicated to the public right -- or .- ; as public right of way as conditioned in the staff report. Staff is -- has prepared findings ~~ for approval and conditions accordingly and is recommending approval of this project ~.:=4 : with -- I guess there is some contingencies of hoping to try and get some resolution with s; ~~ this project here and get some off-site improvements, namely, similar comparable C, :.' ~:~ ; . Y Y ,.,.,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 48 of 82 conditioning as what Solitude recently did and Amber Creek, which would be to provide the sidewalk connection at a minimum across the frontage here in order to better facilitate any type of pedestrian access across the front of these properties on out parcels. However, that would be, again, off-site improvements. Staff has not made any conditions, but that could be requested or offered by the applicant and the out parcel -~:~ residents who are here tonight. And at that I will stand for questions. .~ Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one, and if you said this I didn't hear it, but I will ask the question that City Council will ask. Are we absolutely certain that the out parcel is owned by people who have no relation to what we are studying now? °~~ Guenther: That is correct. The first thing that I asked the applicant to do was to provide ;~' ~ deeds that predated 1984 and they give me a deed for this property at approximately -- believe 1981. Zaremba: Thank you. µ o a ~ .~ '~ ~~ Rohm: Any other questions? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, v ,. , please? Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 838 East Winding Creek Drive in Eagle, here tonight representing Centennial Development and the Cedarcreek Subdivision. Staffs done a good job of explaining the whatnots of the project. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Again, this does meet the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance -- the current zoning ordinance as far design, density, compatibility. As staff stated, we are providing stub streets to existing approved stub streets. We do have a tech review meeting in the morning with ACRD. I have reviewed our report, they did get that to me today, and it's a pretty straight forward staff report. We would like to, obviously, continue to move, but it sounds like your advice from your staff is to continue this on. So, I'll leave that with you. But we are confident and receptive of the draft staff report from ACHD. Again, we are in agreement with staffs recommendations. I guess the only outstanding issue that we will probably discussion tonight is this out parcel and I think staff has done the right thing with his conditions or his recommendations and that is that we work with the property owners on issues of sidewalk and issues of the driveway, the existing driveway, and we will continue to do that. The developer has had some discussions with the representative for the Reidermans and I believe they are here tonight, so let them speak and, then, we can continue on the conversation. And I'll stand for any questions you have right now. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. k ~. 2~ :' rK i ~''' ~~~ i ', ~i ~„ ~•5.~a r:- ~1 '~: ... ~ ^k1+.'i ~ - - ~ ~ 4x'~i. ! ~ ~ f ~y'. t „ ~ i~A ~.~,;,~5 ~ X .~ .2 S" t '." f~ f r~ dC y . C" t ~9 - L ,~yra~ aT y 1 'Y ~ k~ hA! ~' r i't'l'U ~`~ ~ ,. r> '- ;,~. Rte: t ~. i ~ f r~i t~5 4 ~ .. ~C. F Fr ~:.1/ ..~4 h ~~ i' ~tjyS r ~~]~ r1 ,. ^e ~, " j E ~., 1' 4 :i nin & Zonin Mendian Plan g g March 16, 2006 e-,(~s~' Page 49 of 82 Moe: Shawn, in the report staff noted that the landscape plan that's been prepared and was not accepted. Is there another one planned or are you just going to take care of r the conditions that are noted? Nickel: What we will do, Commissioner, we will revise that prior to City Council, rather '; ; t ~ than waiting until the final plat, once we figure out -- or get your recommendation and ~~ incorporate what needs to be incorporated, we will get that revised. ~, Moe: Okay. ~: ' ~ ~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~;~,~ '~ Zaremba: Mr. Nickel, I know, as you have indicated, that you have read the staff report, but I just wanted to point out on page three, public works comment, that this. r development isn't sewerable until Paramount brings sewer to and through. I just want I you to be -- to make sure that you have seen that and you're aware of whatever risk ~~~' ~ r; you're taking in delay waiting for Paramount to act. : ' , Nickel: We are aware of that. :, '`' Zaremba: Okay. That was it. _.' < Rohm: I guess my only comment at this point in time -- and I'm sure we will receive testimony from the Reidermans, but I would think that with that out parcel being so "' ` much involved with this project, that there would have been greater effort put forth to resolve all outstanding issues with the Reidermans before this meeting and I would just ~~ = strongly suggest that that would have been my preference to you folks early on. And ~ with that being said, I think we will just close it at that and we will take testimony from ~;, the Reidermans and move forward. Nickel: Great. w ~'` Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. At this time would Carl Reiderman like to come forward, ' please? ,,;~~ Reiderman: Carl Reiderman, 770 West McMillan, the out parcel in this project, and what else. Anything else? Rohm: Just your address. `~ Reiderman: Oh. 770 West McMillan, which is the out parcel. We have tried numerous times, without any success whatsoever, to communicate and have discussions and resolve this issue with the applicant. They have said no to everything we have ~s proposed to them. We have proposed to them to buy us out. We have proposed that ~: f' :::~ ~i !'. ~~ I' • y~' I' '.i ?A T ,- ~. r :t f ti. is h ~.CS~ ~ r w ~a ~h~ ~ t ~ ' •~ ~~~~ktl a ~:~~ ~. 4'~ ~~ -~F 1 S }~Yr J~ 4 i ~~33 ': ~ ~ N ~,~1 ~~ ~, k ~~ ~ " ,e . t~~ ~ d~°: r ar, ` , Y k> ~ i r fu ~:~ ~ ?'~ ~l j t~ : t' IFS ~..~~~ tY ' ~ ~~ . ~ .. .rr~. ~ r , ~.~ {w ,' ,,.•~ r toy„' T 1h F ~~L ~~ ~~ ~ t y 7 ir- i -]- T !' F ~4. ,.r ... £ Pfc. !FY n ~ ~~ yy ~L' y f~ L ~~~.:. yt '1 \ ~yf~ R ~~ ~ w #9 art•{! ' a Meridian Planning & Zoning ` March 16, 2006 Page 50 of 82 we could possibly develop this at the same time they are doing this with them and somehow in cooperation with them. They have turned us down. We have offered to ^~ ' take this out parcel, this extra 50 foot, off their hands, because we have been using it for eight years as a driveway. The owner Chester Dallas -- Dallas Chester -- I'm a little Y; i nervous -- promised to us many many times that he would not cut off access to our shop. That's exactly what they are proposing to do. The landscape plan that we see -- • get my little pointer here. These trees right here block off the doors to our shop. It's on their landscape plan that our shop is there and that's where the doors are. They have been out to survey this many times. And almost feel like they are acting in spite against us, somehow or other. I don't know why. We have tried to negotiate. They just keep .:~ sa in no to us. Paramount has told us the want to do this ditch in coo eration with Y 9 Y p the developers and they got up and walked out of the meeting with them. Paramount has no plans to bring sewer to them within the next three to five years. They have told us that. So, my understanding is the application is null and void after two years. Why would you approve it when he's not going to get sewer to it? That's one of the ~ questions. We would just as soon that he just buy that from us and we could go away. We are not real happy with 85 lots going in next to us, when all of Paramount has much ~;.,~ larger homes, much nicer homes than what Corey Barton is going to be putting in here. So, we are really opposed to this and at bare minimum we would like them to work with ' us, which they have not -- not shown any good faith whatsoever to do that. Any '" ~ questions? Rohm: That's pretty straight forward. Thank you for your testimony. 5 ''~ :~ Reiderman: Thank you. ~; a~ ~` Rohm: Bonnie Reiderman, would you like to speak, too? B. Reiderman: My name is Bonnie Reiderman and I'm at 770 West McMillan Road. And I am the owner, my name is on this property, and we had talked with them in ' regards to buying us out. Again, they wouldn't pay us. The property to the left here, which is -- we are surrounded by it. When we originally bought the property, the owners •'!, of the parcel that we bought said that we own all the way out. Well, we found out we ~~ ' didn't, you know, and so in the meantime we had already had a shop out there, because, you know, we thought where we were at and we weren't and so, anyhow, now x :: they are trying to cut us off and they put landscaping coming down the road there. There is -- we have two shops out there. They have put trees and kind of at the shop. They wanted to cutoff the back of us at one point in time and give us this other side and said, no, we don't want that, because there is encumbrances on it, because there is easements, there is -- I'm not really sure. There is two different easements on the west r J ~ side of us. And so they said, no, there isn't. Well, we had it researched by the Idaho a`..'.A Power Company and they said there is, actually, four owners of that parcel. So, I don't know, I'm concerned as to what's happening to us, because we are surrounded by all ''°s-` ? four corners of this. Okay? Even on the front we are surrounded by -- and so if they go and do this to us, that means where the lane goes down and cuts into our property, there will have to be a cul-de-sac in there. Okay? And which means if we would ever ry: • ~ .. P i le~ S ~~ ~ ~ ~ II 1 : 1 a. .~` `0~ :s a bt ~ Y } ~p I I ~ ~~ V .,.. 9.i ~.x•}c ~Y t tY 'C~ I1 I ii~ I I { a. t c f' '' ~i. "~ .~, dtz ~'"~ r.. ES pl ~ ,.: ,~.; ~ 4h. ' .: .. .,' 'c v n'. ,a . '; ~ ,. d I (~ ~ i ?Aa. N,R ~ "''!'Y~esi "<`' ";ar',e}Qr*.~,5 _ ,r 1.. -~ G~ 1"}'fi . Ch ~ ~. ~r i~.~ } •"'...~;+b"at?, `,tN~•M ~'+~kf.~^` '~$arvd7 3:- p. D~' ~ ')i' ~ ' . ~ .~ ~~.` ~1~ ~ 4 .. FN 1 , . . ? . ! $ d ')~ •'4'~.t ~~•2(., '4`k ~ :e~•5.'.~i.~+'i,%'l.~- St.i° ~ t ~ ..i ~~~ , i i'x~~'i~~v.t~' ~. # 3r 4ti ~ 1 s k:~~•,~' 'e.'ri'p ~ Z. ~•~ t P 1 ~ `~.K~ ~ I I 1. [ I ;, ~. •i ::i ~' ~j ;: ~ :f R ; „~ . . ~ .t% ~R`i'S:c `til. ti .' + F ~ ~~~4 ~ ~ I ~~ ! 5 .1. R , } , ~f a ' } t • • ± . 1. ~Z ~:~ ' .~ . ~, A 'i ,u .. < ' Vii;: v n I'. M 1 .Yq. ~ ` . k «' gr' ~ , ~~ ~ .^y.~~,.' T, p ` ; f ~ ~ i .b ~ A . Y _ ~ e 1 PP > . ~ ,,.. ~.~~ .a`~... 11 `~ ` ~ 1 ~ ' " ~ ` ,~y~., i ~d4 ~ ?. -. i .~ . 4 ~ t '' _:~y« '..~ ~ . h d ~'1""- ~, '~.,',~_ t ~ !~ '; <:'r~ 2 t :Li• i uLu':: Ss ^:~`'.-~ ' ,JiH~: ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ I ~;, •.Klb ,•pe.: sti!<..ar F. ! bk,: ; ~ ~ t %A '. t"=:'i 4 I ~~,-~'. • ! I ~a ' ~«L ~' i'. A 1 ~ ' i3~ ~ , ~ F M~a= , ~ 4 . y y :~p~`P . F `..~.,_ . ~ 't F-_: `r ee ~ .t'•x; ~d ~ ~ %f . t 'q' I t F. ~t~s. • } C9 ~ ..,;%-J v , } '(.• ~yi' ~~' ~I # I~ ~ I ".'i 4'.9oxk~.'^v.3 etj I i t i i it ' ~4 ~ t -.. - ,, :; ..r ~ ~` , ,`~" '= ~ i; : ";. V .ja a ;~~.. ^~ ' f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" • ~ « 7 ~ ,1 r....~.:. '3 L_ . "Va'}'~ ~ 5~r ~ C R `'~>^ F ^ ~ i , . i j . t YS ~ i yy ry6.rs Kw, ~~.F• ~r~+7?}s;`:'.~ S ~ .~. ~•~ 35~i.5~~ ~ ~ :• : ~" I +r } i:~"; '1 l i• ~ .a a . (~,~ , q~ }S I .g, ~ t 1 .:1 F1~ •.~ d _ 1 1 1 s a y , ' .t- £ <i ~xu 5. '1 ~ 1 1 . ` r' tt r?•wc '*1 i~fYer~`. ~ ~ ^ 1 I 4 ~id "r ~A~ t:, n z a F a. •:x ~ I i ' ~IE+ I r ~ . t r :~. I ~,f , ' . ~ { . a ' ; ~ ' t 1 . ,,~:~ ~ .; ~ .i ~. ~ .. v. ..its.*+S' v~.~'s•+r . Via' i .. a. >; i I 4t . . 4 M1 A .,g a 1^r''`.w' i r' (`YA ' '.a I t h. ;; :, «^ •:.Vf,,; 'a1 ~ 4 ~ L. '~' ~i~ d.k~'•',~,Yrf ,n f: At rf } ~a :f i _ ~ I .~ Tl [, s,i?' 1 . { ~'S eta' ~ ~ I ,. ~ . u t } r .} 1 , ` z :}°~"$.• .E Yx, ,~ F,~,w13~..y. ty 1 ~ .; V, y ~ ~ • SI i.~J p1 t i ~ F~ ~t ..~F.,pi+ T~ ` „Cx~~~V 4' 4 f ' ~ ::is ' ~ . '' ` a j;, ~' l i r, . 'i i. 1~ ~~ 3 ~ „ ~ '~ ' ~' ~" ~ ) ~ x ~ d~v ~1 1 ~. d ~x. : + r Y ~~•*`dI !s,TM" ~ d ~ ~ 4;t `•"fi ~ c` d a tX 4• , . k y . .. x ~ _l., Y t 1: ~: S@ i3; ` +.T;~ Y.' 1 ; ' , ` ; y t x 1 i F ~;. ~;. t ,, Fy,^;. _y Ii i ^~{. . o~,r.. ,~~~N f~ ~~ ~ i , 1 it 1,, ., ~ , ~ ~ p + ~ ~k 11 ~... f ., "~ k . - ~~ .< a _,, °, f'. . t ~I ~.. ~, r ~'1 ~~~ ;'~ J~'., ~~i v ~' ~'~ +~ r~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 51 of 82 develop, we don't have enough land to develop to make it worth our time and so it's just -- you know, everything we do it -- it cuts us off our shop, you know, that's our living, you know. I don't know. I'm concerned that he's taking away our livelihood and I don't want him to do that. You know, if he wants to buy it out, we would be happy to sell to him. We don't want to fight with these people, but we want to have a fair evaluation of what's going on. Rohm: Thank you. B. Reiderman: Is there any other questions you might -- Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a couple. You had not addressed staff report's comment about the sidewalk in front of your property. B. Reiderman: I was not aware of that. Borup: Okay. Do you have any problem with them putting a sidewalk along the property that would continue on -- B. Reiderman: Well, first of all -- I'm sorry. On the front of our place we have these big beautiful blue spruce trees and everything. I don't know what's going to happen. We have been told it would be three lanes when McMillan -- or we have been told it will be five lanes. We are not sure what's going to happen. If it happens, they will take off our front carport and our -- part of our -- our office to our house. That means that we have to remodel our house, turn it around, remodel the back of it and, you know, again, a lot of expense to us, because of what this project is doing to us and so -- Borup: But you're talking about ACHD widening the road. The comment -- the question right now is just the sidewalk along there. B. Reiderman: Well, I was not even aware of the sidewalk issue. Nobody has -- Borup: That's what I'm asking you right now. B. Reiderman: Oh. I don't know. It depends on where it goes. Borup: Okay. B. Reiderman: Where is it going? Is it going to take our carport off? What's it going to do? Borup: No. No. The sidewalk would be out -- further out and it wouldn't -- it would just be within that buffer, the highway buffer. I don't know. They'll need to work that out. B. Reiderman: There is not very much -- ~.- ,,- ~y, ~ ~~ t.~ ~ } ~,~ y~ ~y ~Y . 5 - - ~?,. ' ~ :na ~ W .I ~ t i' f ~ 7' ~~ r: a ~ i ~ r^,d ~~? ~'~t;~r Y uYi J ~~ ~ kT ~~ t '} ytlr 5 t' ~.~'} ~~ t~ t ,. ^}+ 102 ~' ~».~._ }! ~ t t' ° - ~' j Y~ ~34?Y, SN4F ~' `? [~~ ~~~ I: JS4 _ ~.; ~ Ck . 1<~{ ~ ~'•~~ a , y_y,. 4~"h~ st~'u p - ... - H.. , ~. a;~: ~- g ec~y~,.~a - ~ - ~~ ~" f~ r q ant \ W'! N-~:" t *`~ s,: ~ ,~~. .S' } ~ i ~• ~~ [ ~. ~~~~ ~ k~yr~" ~,;,~ .~, 1', ~a i ,~. ~~r~~~. ~y Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 52 of 82 `~!I -'. -.: ?f ~~ t _, °~il '' ~ Y; ~ ,~ ~'i h 3 i, ? ~i ~. ~~ ~~I ~i Borup: It hasn't been addressed. It sounds like when you -- when you bought your property you did not have it surveyed; is that correct? B. Reiderman: Well, we were told that if we had it surveyed, we would have had to survey 640 acres. That was an awful big expense to survey -- Borup: So, you didn't even have property pins or anything? B. Reiderman: We had -- the owner stated out there -- we said to the pins and they said yes. No, we did not. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: I have a question for you. What is your current access to your shop that's out on the north end of the property -- northwest comer? Do you have an easement to -- on that strip of land to gain access to the shop area? B. Reiderman: No, we didn't. We do not have easements, but we went to Chester Dallas, which was our neighbor, and we said could we buy it from you and he said, no, but we said can we use it and he said, well, I'll never cut you off of it. And so the previous people that owned that had used it for -- that road for 27 years. We have now used it for going on eight years and we have maintained it. We have landscaped it. We have done everything to take care of that and so I don't know what our next move is. We are trying to -- what your wishes are, sir. Rohm: Okay. Well, I was just curious if you had an easement or if it was by -- I can't remember what kind of -- what's the right way when you have been using it for a number of years? B. Reiderman: Adverse possession. Baird: Prescriptive easement, Mr. Chair. I don't want to give legal advice to these individuals and I would certainly hope that they have sought their counsel on that matter. But it's -- it's not something for the city to declare. Rohm: Right. I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. B. Reiderman: Thank you. Rohm: Doug Eden. Eden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, fellow Commissioners. My name is Doug Eden, 1735 North Mansfield, Eagle, Idaho. And I've known the owners of this out parcel for quite some time. I have, actually, been the realtor involved with them on several dealings, including this particular parcel. We have tried to have communications with the developer for over five months. Over five months ago I pointed out to the developer ~~ ~ ~„ ~~ y~c r yF'~` S ub h ~..7-~y~j~ a ~~`tt1~~ ~ ~r ~` 3 i~..' f5'';,~w,i ! c ,: w, r.-.LS: ~ ~ ~ ~~ z. ~~d~ ~! t' k ~ R a,ti ~~i ' ' ~ a~ 2 r ~' i~, t x'34; fl~yy yy~ t4 _ ~ . ; x';16 %>' . r ~~~ ~~ ~ ~'_' a z t~ i:~ ~ - a,. ;~„ ~ ~~~ f ~~ r fA*~ ~ x ~,,~' ~'~, z z "', ~ fir, ~~ rh i ~~,~,._ ' ~f'~ ~'~'~A f~-.'.tip "'° Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ` Page 53 of 82 -~ that that particular piece of ground right there had been used open and notoriously for ' over 30 years by the owners of that particular parcel. The folks that own it now have ~~'' ~> . ~ used it for over eight years. They were under the understanding that they owned that ~" "~ property up until it was recently surveyed for this development about two years ago. ~~ t°-:' When it was surveyed for the development, that's when they realized they didn't own ~ ~~ ' the property. That's when they went to the owner at that time and said could we buy the property from you and the owner at that time was already in negotiations with the developer and didn't want to cut off another half acre that he might get 100,000 dollars I ~~~ ~ per acre for. So, he said, no, you can't buy it, but I'll never cut you off of it. These folks fT -- and, then, talked to -- we have talked to -- I've, actually, tried to initiate these ~~;;: discussions with the developer and several times I even said to the point was just make _° us any offer, any offer at all. And their exact quote was we are not making you any ti offer. Period. You know, we don't want the house, we don't want to buy the house. We ~~~ ~ don't want to make you an offer. And in regards to this -- this over here, I've actually - gone over with the developer, I have told them this is notorious, this is prescriptive - ~ easement, yeah, I have gone to real estate school also and know this. You can go talk f: `~ ' to your attorney and find out about it and they were like you can buy it from us, but we ~' ~~~ ~ don't have to buy it from you. I mean we don't have to give it to you, we don't have to ~~~~ ' do anything, so -- and as for the sidewalk issue, if you put a buffer zone and a sidewalk, you will be cutting off their only access to the property, you will also be cutting off ;,,: probably about three or feet of their carport, because they have a carport on the east &`' side of the property, in addition to the shop on the north side. So, you will be cutting off their carport and you will be cutting off the upper piece. And it's really a very ill- ~; conceived how this subdivision fits in with this other piece. And the only other issue ~~ ~~ ' have with this property is, you know, we have got -- compared to the last subdivision we "~ reviewed, you have got the same amount of lots and ten acres less ground. Thirty `'-~ percent less ground. These are 5,000 square foot lots. My three minutes are up. Thank you so much. k`. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Shawn, you want to come back up? Before -- let me ask if there is anybody else that would like to offer testimony on this application? Seeing ~` '~ none, Shawn. ~- -~ E:' Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn : , ~~ ,,.~ Nickel. What I just passed out is a little history of correspondences that have gone on 4~ , ` between the developer and the folks in the out parcel. There has been approximately `: eight attempts at talking -- or communications back and forth, including one as late as '¢ " ' this afternoon, from what I understand. And this is -- this is a tough situation when you got a piece of property like this and you have got an existing house that's situated where ~' != it is. However, in -- and if the staff could put up the plan that I gave them. We, actually, ~~' have revised this plan and it was supposed to be in the file. It does show the " landscaping out of this, which does indicate that we are willing to work with the .,, ,`' Reidermans on resolving this. However, you know, a couple of the issues were -- you F: ~, ` know, there was some verbal agreement from the previous property owner as to access p ~ ` to their house over his property. There was an attempt early on at swapping property -- trying to swap this piece here for an equal piece right there, which was denied by the ,'"~~'. ,~ .~ .Se ~ I ~ ,z t ~ <yy` 4' ~. J 4 r ', ~'~' i4 .~ '. t °;~',I ~:~~i ,~i, y., W l i 'k" j C' ~, j,Pl ~'~I, t.~~~,i 3' 7~~'' y ~ "r'~- A ~ . .~ ~4(' ~ j v `F; 4 ~~SSf ~~~ r~ 4 ~i.S~ S - .~.~' . ~ t ~ ~ ~ "nr•r"pv ~ "?~'p~2' ~ 5 w °. ~-,; r i' qa °~~ i_ ~ty# xr '' ,:" ''' K h ~ ~AK s • ,X '~~~ T'ir `~'• ~y art ~` yr ~ { t ..'. Y,~r r :: e::, r r'':' Y'~ ti~''*'S C' `. F:F° \~ Rti~ ti r_h' }~ ~~~,. ~_ 7 gas t~ ~_ „~ _;-t ~, ~ r; F z"_y 4Y is u, ~ ~~~-... i i 7 ti' e' '~GF s ~ K{' ~ m;,£rn,. c ,: a s f-~ r ~' t SJ I, i~ ;r ~ } E ,+~ 4 l Sr.H1mt ~~ _ _ it - YeL.' .n n~lt ~}~~'{.' it 7U I,.iJ 41Y}~ i ~~ ~~ Mendian Planning 8~ Zoning ~~~~-~ March 16, 2006 Page 54 of 82 ~f:i ` neighbors. From what I understand from my developer there was a -- there was a -- an amount given by the Reidermans to the developer that the developer felt was too high ~;; to purchase that property, so there were other things that have been gone on. We have provided a stub to the western boundary of our development to provide for future access, not knowing what is ultimately going to come out. But as I stated earlier, I think }~~' staff did a good job at -- at recommending that we work with the out parcel neighbors, which we will do, as I have indicated on that revised plan. We are not trying to cut them off. We can't be forced to buy a piece of property that is either overpriced or can't be utilized by the developer. If it's something that has to go to court, it has to go to court, unfortunately. I'm hopeful that my developer is going to work with the Reidermans and get this resolved. But, in any event, it's my understanding that we can't -- we could not ~ , extend the sidewalk and line up with our sidewalk, because it would go through their carport. So, I know what -- I don't know what to do on that -- on that issue with sidewalk ~ on a piece of property that we have no control over. Our intentions are to do our proper z" `~` landscaping and everything along our portion of our frontage, which at this time is this piece of property. How that is -- how that ultimately comes out I don't know, but I think we are on the right path as far as the city is concerned, in that something's going to have to be worked out between the two property owners. It's just going to have to be. ~`` ' So, I'll stand for any questions you have or suggestion, advice. ~, ?, . 3~ r~,,; ~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Based upon your correspondence that you just handed out, am I to assume, then, ` ' that the -- the other property owners have not gotten back to you or your developer in '~': ~ regards to that -- purchasing their property? ~;~ Nickel: I think they talked to the developer this afternoon about 4:30. I wasn't involved ~: with that conversation. I have not been involved with most of these conversations. The ~r . , ~;~;~ developer has. Moe: Okay. I was just getting the understanding that there was no communication going on and I read this, now I see that there has been some communication. I don't know how close they are getting to that, but -- Nickel: You know, it probably hasn't been the best communication with either side, but there has been communication from both sides and it's something that's going to have to continue -- going to have to continue on to resolve whatever it ultimately is. Rohm: Thanks, Shawn. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? r~- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 55 of 82 f.l'vY Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. f-. Newton-Huckabay: What's this one? ~ Nickel: Where did that come from? Newton-Huckabay: It was attached to this thing you gave me. ~: ~:, ~. Nickel: Oh. Probably -- Borup: We have all got a copy of that. . ~ Nickel: Oh, it's an old -- yeah, it's a very old plan. , ~` Newton-Huckabay: Well, it looks a little more beneficial to the property to the ~.:- southwest. ~_: . Nickel: Yeah. I think that was the plan if we were to swap the property. That's what it s ' would have looked like if we would have swapped the -- now it's all coming back to me. If we would have swapped this piece right here with that piece right there, that's what the design would have looked like. I didn't realize that was part of your packet. .t.::' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yeah. And, Mr. Nickel, I was only going to comment that believe what was worked on in the agreement across the street about a sidewalk across an out parcel was not that it aligned with their permanent sidewalk, but that it, actually, was a temporary sidewalk even of asphalt totally within ACHD's right of way And it's , , . just to make a connection for people walking and bicycling to school and it wouldn't cut ~. ; ' off a driveway or access or -- it, actually, wouldn't be on their property. Y ~ Nickel: And I -- and, Commissioners, I think that would be appropriate, as long as it's ~~<~~~~'~ s understood that that's what it would be, a temporary sidewalk or pathway that wouldn't necessarily line up with the permanent concrete sidewalk along the rest of the ~ ~: development, so -- because if it did, it would definitely go through their carport. Zaremba: Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what the resolution was across the street. { Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, your recollection is correct. I know that across the ~~'" street was -- in Solitude that had to go around a bunch of large trees as well and they did not create the sidewalk connection that would have been fully within their 25-foot K~ required landscape buffer. Nickel: And the Amber Creek one, actually, was on the other side of a ditch, so -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. -: ~,- ,,.~_ I, ~t4~~l l~ ~f' ~ i i 7 '. ~ 1 r~, 3 4e ~ ~ . ~ ytv ~y >"~~I~ !~ l ~ ~ ~ ~}t M.~ :~t r ~ At ~ ~ w+ A~y ~.. '~ ~y' • y 1 ~ P d ~. rt1 ~L' y~ d 4 a 3 ow ~ , ~~ '~ ~ ~ "i~ w _.,~ r ~ :' ~ t sas SFr k~1r~ l , p ~ ~ ~ ~ , p $ ! ~~ SP ~~~~I ~ ~ $ ~ Y ._ , 3 E 4 i 1 r *~~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ Y . ~~ it Y ~ .~F.{4 } .._.S` j7.° 1 R i ~ r~i.1Y e~' 1 f r~ 1'~ * { ~ 99 . 9 ~ yyg ~ a, 4 ~ k~~ ~ l - p ~ {~ r5 .[} i .~~ '. v: f~ Ft ,. {1~~: ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ t i c ~ ~ ~ Ya"k +~' I ~ ` ~~ c P , w ~. ~ ' ~~*y W ^' g L e z ~ ti ~ ~ -: ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ i z ~,.~ ~ ~ ~ 3Y°}6P a ~ y ~ p t~~ 71 I ~ i 3 P + ~ ~ Z f y +~, ,. ~T~i ~ ~ L F ~, ,. £ ~ x 3, ~ ~' , N~cM1,.: ~ _. , . r ~,~ ~ s ~ - '~ ~ - `Tif }1.) ~ . 4 rP y 1 ~ 1F ~lj EGY ~ ..h~ . i l~i. 4. [ Y ~ r. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 56 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? '~""~ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment regarding this development. I think that the developer needs to work with the neighbor and maximize the design to the west that will most allow the neighbor to develop -- if they don't want to purchase their property, to develop it in the maximum way possible. The connectivity -- and I agree with s Reidermans, that what they have now most likely would require a cul-de-sac, which ~;.,i would take up a huge amount of what's left of their property. I do believe that your client is in the power position in this point and I think that something needs to be -- they need an opportunity to developer their land as well and' I don't think the connectivity that's '`~ ~ provided now allows them to do that and get maximum use of their land. I think some other design maybe similar to the one you have here would possibly work better, but I think at the end of the day we are going to end up with a development that looks really weird, for one, because you're going to have Cedarcreek and, then, you're going to have this little out parcel and what's going to go on that little out parcel? ~~~~ Nickel: Okay. But you do understand that we have no control over that out parcel. ~'~,,'; Newton-Huckabay: I understand you have no control over the out parcel, but you do have control over how you provide access to that out parcel and you can work with that ~r ; ~ neighbor, just like you would work with neighbors in any other development that you ~; <'~ have done, I believe. I mean you have to -- you can't look at that and say, oh, they have a multitude of opportunities left here. I mean we are kind of creating a bizarre in-fill area ,~sg and I think that we are in a position that could be avoided, potentially. x ~'' I ~~ ` Nickel: And not to be -- I'm not trying to argue with you, but if you do look at that sheet s~' that I had on that last page, that did show the opportunity to do that and the neighboring ~. ~° , < property owners choose not to work with the developer on the swap that would have created what you would call a better design or a better ability for them to develop. So, ~ we only can do what we can do, which is to provide them with the best possible access, Fpa:~~, which if you look, that is the best possible access for them to redevelop their property and we have looked at that. We did not -- you know, we did not locate it down here, it's ~~~" not located over there, it's located in the area that could be cul-de-sac'd and would retain their -- their house. So, there is not -- it's not that big of a piece of property that's left over, so there is only so much you can really do to provide them secondary access. ` ' ~ So, we have tried to do that. We will continue and, obviously, we are going to be tabled ~~= for the ACHD issue, so I'll make sure the developer is aware of the comments and we ~~ ~~ will give it another go with trying to speak with the neighbors. ~` ~ Newton-Huckabay: I mean could you give them a stub on the north and a stub on the ~;, ~ , x~"- ~. west -- or on the east? £~ ~ ,~' h, Zaremba: That would make it worse to develop it. ~:. ~ ~:' 4_ i ~z yy~, 4' I ~ y~' ~. ;i, ? AC 5 Y EL nS' ~,~5' f ~' {~~ ~ 5 F 6~~ R `+ ~ ~ 1, 4~+~/ ~.3 s ^1' ;1 ~ R S~ y. ~'+iA 4r~' x.: x~ y _ ''~ a S F, ry i ~ ~T15}h~ - i ~~~ _ ~, ry ; tom, i ~.°f A ~ , ~ S y7~ V L b l ~~ ~ ~ ~ , S , . l ~} tS e'S 4 '~ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 57 of 82 #~ Nickel: It would be worse. It would take out more property. ~:~;` Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I just would like to bring up the overall aerial photo again one more time. I'm sorry. ` Nickel: And, again, I'm not trying to argue with you and we will -- we will look into this before the next meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, Imean -- but it looks to me that in -- I think that Commissioner Rohm made the point early on is that all the right people haven't sat at the same table ±"' and so, then, these arguments and disagreements come to the Planning and Zoning Commission and me personally, this is the type of thing that I find really annoying. ,. Borup: Well, it's only about an acre. x ~ Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and that's fine if it's only about an acre, but my point being is that you still have an acre sun-ounded by development and what are you going to do >..~ with it? _. ~: ;,t; i .1 s; ;: ,~ ,~~~ ~~ ~,~;• .7~I ~I '~,, I ?~ '. ~'I i ~t~~' ~~ Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's what I'd like to address here quickly. What we could proceed on is this parcel is completely undeveloped and this road is most likely going to have the stub to here, because there is no other connection across at this point and, then, there is a Paramount stub at this location. If this is stubbed to the west here, then, they potentially could continue the 5,000 square foot lots across the front and, then, two more lots in this area, which is probably the maximum benefit that that parcel's ever going to get anyhow. That's mostly going to be an ACHD call for tomorrow of how they would like to see that redevelop. Unfortunately, this spite strip is what this is turning out to be -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Guenther: -- and that's the biggest problem that we have and that's why the -- these two -- the applicant and the Reidermans need to work together to resolve how that's going to redevelop. That's as staff foresees as being the biggest problem. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners --and that's one reason I did revise that after looking at it today, because I didn't want to give the impression that we were planting trees and trying to cut them off. Unfortunately, that's going to get downloaded on the -- Rohm: Well, just from my perspective it looks like that's exactly what was taking place, is that they were being cut off. But that's just from -- from my perspective looking at the development as it currently is drawn, so -- t } }k~ i ~` L L ~ .s. rt ~~ ~ C ', ~p ~o~s „ ;:::q~, q ~ rz ; v t , s ,~ y r r 1. C F' [: +'r `5 ~srt~jfi' ' ~ ~ d F Y" 4 ,f. ~ha ~% Fa t- ~~, r4~~ _ ~, ~,+ ~ v ~i ~ :5~ +~ z~z . 4 '" ~s ~ ''`~ _ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' T*, ~ ity~~u'r~ 1 ` ;~~i~ a ~r ~ ,`.~ ~ ~. ~~ .a~. - J V p ;:.k ~ x ~'..CJY~~y , ^ Y i = 1 R ~.' k i y~~ .. Z 't \ SC ~ x.~ ~ eaea'' F`f ~,+~ . ~s '/ .lr~ S , l ` eft ~ , fd2 h;i~'L y.'r ! i1'M ,,y~;~~ 1 .r ~ ~ `~~ j.4,~~yy.F..Y.yJ ~ j . f Y V l1 1 ~~ ` ~ Yi ~ ~~ .X- } ~~ ~~ 1};k rc f art{'. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 16, 2006 `' Page 58 of 82 ~~<. li J Nickel: With this layout no trees on this -- or landscaping at all on the strip. Is that what ;,V, you are referring to? Rohm: Well, with the trees that were shown. Nickel: Right. And, again, that's why I did present that. And, again, we will give it ~" .~ another shot to work with them, but Ijust -- just so you know, when we come back in ~'~~`~~ I two weeks it might not be resolved. It's an issue that might have to be resolved outside of the city. Rohm: I think the -- I think we have examined this long enough. ickel: Oka N Y• I ~, }` ~ °1' Rohm: Both parties know that it's this body's position that you get it resolved. We are ~~~. not here to resolve that for you. E ~; , '`` Nickel: Okay. Rohm: And I think that's enough said about that. Okay. Thanks, Shawn. } Nickel: Okay. Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that I agree with I think what everybody else is saying, that hopefully in the interim while we are waiting for the ACHD report that the parties will resolve this, but I would also suggest whatever happens when this comes back, we will probably have further discussion and where I'm going with that is I would ,, rather suggest we move this to April 20th, rather than April 6th. Rohm: I concur with that. ~~~,~ Zaremba: April 6th is pretty full and we have already moved a bunch of them there, so - -~, :~ ~ -that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, r both relating to Cedarcreek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. ~~ Moe: Second. ''' ~' ~```~ ' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to E` .~ our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. ~ ~' Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. P: e MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by ~.4t.~, ; 2 ~, 4 . ;j, „i, v ~ l ~'~ ~_.:;~ i ,: ;~,, ~". ,~' KGj+T ~9, i:, y, s ~~,I ~, ~7' +~''~ ', >~~¢, t~~'~ u4i r~,', j. ~, #' ~.:.~ Q ~'~.}~`'~(+5~y.i~` 3.~ ~~i 1 r 3: ~ , T fi C~Z ~ (, /J~fz'~~xi ~ ~ } r er ~ . ' ~ `~t t,. y , ~ ~ ~' '`~~f` Ir ~ y f ~~ F~;;~~z4f „~•' ~~~y i 5~ J { ~~~ t ~ ~ GS Y 't. A' -_ M z ~~. 3 y ~.. ::~ .~..t ,~,., ~ ._ r ~.' ._; ,a, ~~~ a~ ~ r ~.1~z E --~~~ ~~ c -~ ~~ - ~yf ... ~~~'' ~. ,, ~ F. ~L y ~.- 7 ~r ~ C'b, ~' #.'^. F._ ~ ~~~ z k ( :l ya ~~jA/f"+t > . o .. r ~ti S` '~~'~dd ~ ~~ - ~~^~ 'b ~ - ~- ~ ~# ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ .t ~ ~ } x - u v r _. ~ it f A^ ~ ~ y~~ o ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 59 of 82 : , America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots ~'''° on 21.77 acres irr a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons ;~ Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06- F 011, and CUP 06-006, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly t~ ~ scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~'"' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, to the -= regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 ::; acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property ~` Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road ~` '` Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. And now the last item on our agenda. I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008 and begin with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is b' ~ located on the northeast comer of Victory and Eagle Roads. It is approximately 23 ~, acres of roughly 50 acres that was part of a Comprehensive Plan map amendment that you guys reviewed late last fall, early fall, later last year, and recommended approval to ~. i h ~z~, ~:~ ~s~~~ dw ~,: r ~'~, y <. ~- ~ .w. r4 r X44"}' y... ~ ~34~ ~~ ~ eft h 3rL1' ~, ,' V~:;-~~'~.yc, ~'l~' .Y '1~~ 5~2 x t ,: 'n ~ bw= . G- ~~ ~~ if 1' .. f ~. ,,4~i Pb~ ~ F.i ~ r,, , - Y ~ ~,. ~ Z i " ~.,,(' ~'1~ x t .. ~ d T iCb ~!"AM~ . n.~ S~ D - - 5~~~rf~'F Y~ r f ~~~ - ' ~ ~ k ~'', ~~ r Fp;,~p, .t t •a'~• ~„ ~ i C~. ~ s ~~~F ~~: fi S ~~ j k ~ p„ a ;x., 415 `~ ' ' 'r x z' "~''~ -;~ t> I 7 1 ~ Y ~. , ~ r {._} • ~;4 Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ March 16, 2006 ~` ` - ~ Page 60 of 82 the City Council. The Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance at that time applied for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation of the ~ property, which included the subject property that's up for annexation this evening, in ; ~ the baby blue highlight, from low and medium density -- this parcel was low. I believe ~ '; most of this is medium, to change those from -- those designations to a mixed use "°~,°" regional designation. This body sent a recommendation onto the City Council for a mixed use community designation. There was extensive discussion at that time with the Alliance properties about the designation -- appropriate designation. Several neighbors from Sutherland Farms and most of them were new neighbors in Sutherland Farms were at that hearing. Some of the existing residents in Thousand Springs on the other side of Eagle Road were in attendance. There was no specific proposal or concept plan 1 at that time, it was just a -- to paraphrase, I guess, the request from the Alliance, it was, ~` " ! basically, due to all of the commercial uses in EI Dorado and Silverstone that Eagle ~~, Road really is not appropriate anymore for residential, that commercial uses belong in this area. The planning and zoning staff actually recommended denial. Like I said, this f - I board forwarded onto the City Council with a provision that the City Council not act until ~ an annexation application be filed by the applicant. So, the City Council had been waiting for the annexation application as you requested they do. Staff had a little bit of an issue, I guess, with -- the applicant did submit an annexation application. I think what may have been the intent was that there would be some type of a development ~.; plan to look as well, because an annexation application really doesn't -- it's just zoning. There is really no concept necessarily with just getting your zoning. So, the reason that - ' I wanted to have this hearing tonight is to see -- if you tell me to press forward with the ~~-`` ~ concept plan that they submitted, I will do my best to work up a staff report. This is the - concept plan they did submit. It will just touch on that real quick. There is a stub street 4 '~ coming into the property in that location from Sutherland Farms. They are conceptually ' ~ ~ showing to extend that street one lot depth and, then, run anorth-south street. This is ;' y an existing kennel in the county, zoned RUT. This is your use exception in Sutherland ~~~,~ ' Farms. So, there is office, other nonresidential uses in that area. And, then, Easy Jet Drive. So, this would be Victory. There was one parcel on the south side of Victory, the ..: other -- I think there is maybe four property owners that own eight or nine separate tax j ID parcels on the north side. The legal descriptions submitted for this whole property t ~ proposed a C-C zone, community business district zone. However, there is an office 1 J zone shown right on the comer, as well as seven or eight residential lots shown , - adjacent to the existing single family homes in Sutherland Farms. Some of the things ~' ~` that were discussed -- and I won't go into it too much, but just to kind of refresh your ~ ~"~ memory a little bit, because a lot of those neighbors aren't here this evening. But there ~`. ~, was some concern of how do you transition from these new single family homes and at least a couple, if not several of them testified that when they bought they were ~ assuming it was going to be residential, because that was the designation. I'm not here '` ' ~ to say that you made a bad choice last time by amending the Comprehensive Plan map, it was simply just to point out that there wasn't a concept plan before and my question to you, I guess, is one row of single family homes enough of a transition to, then, the ~; , commercial that takes up a majority of the site. Something that I envision, I haven't , drawn anything, is maybe just another row of some residences, which it does a couple of things, in my mind. If you remember Brad brought up that he thought -- and based on ~_ ~~:~' • ~ ;~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ Y t [ ~ 1 ; ~ i r ~ - ~ i ~I ~ ; ~~` ~ k ~ ~ t1 C ~ W '. .r ~t7j d I s ~.-- n ;ti ~ e: - ~ ~ f :~ ~ i P ~. ~ ~ ~'t " t i ,-s .1. 4 ~ ~ ~ ~~i a y ~i.l'Itk ~ ~I ~ ~o. a i ; ~ i t f ~]rF1~ ~ a r C' " a ;.' ~ ? PN ~ ~ 4 ~ ti _ '~ .~- w~~ y ~~e"C4 }~' 5 ~ ~ a~st_;.s ~ :~s ~ 4 i ~ ::a .~ a: 7 _ ~ ~ ~ vt~ ,~ ~ . - 1 ~~ - ~ - ~4. ~ a~ ti '~ ~ ~ I Y ' ... ~7 ~ x g "b~ ~tf 7' .:x Y ~ y ~~ - ~ f ~~~'~ ~ ,~.1 ~ eY ~..1 A ~ ~~1'Y~r F ~ ' ~ - J ~: ~^~ M1r.. N~ a°~~ ~u ~ftts~l .. .~~ ~~ 9 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 p I ~~ `~ ! ` ~' fi~~g d~. ~.. 1S- ~ ^ ~i 4 5 Y+ J$ GN.L µ 1 ~ ~ $I _,~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ 4 ~ s _ fkSL ,~. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ March 16, 2006 Page 61 of 82 I~ , ;x,. a study that we had Thornton Oliver Keller do for the city that we already had enough ~' commercial designated properties anyways. Our vacancy rates for office were -- were '" pretty high and didn't think we needed anymore. This, in my mind -- and I agree with what the Alliance was saying at that point, too, that residences right on Eagle Road ~.' ~ probably don't make sense. But some compromise of that -- and in the staff report I'm ~< ~ saying approximately half of the property zoned to a residential zone, that still leaves '` ~ ou some decent size commercial businesses that ou could ut in there and it rovides Y Y P P that -- that transition -- more of a transition, anyways, for the Sutherland Farms folks, "` "' and there are residences on the other side, too. So, I think if we get too much _ commercial in this area, there could definitely be a negative impact on the neighborhood. On the other side of the Ridenbaugh where EI Dorado and Silverstone are, it's not the same situation. You don't have existing residential subdivisions. So, this is -- it's really an in-fill piece that we have got to make work into an existing ~'~ ~°' neighborhood. Granted, most of it's a newer neighborhood, but it still exists. So, just based on the concept plan, again, I didn't think there was enough information to `"' ~ ' : recommend approval, but I think there is possibilities here to recommend approval, just y F:Lf:.Q ee--~~ not -- I wanted to give the Alliance a chance, really, to bring some concepts before the ;;, ~ Commission and the Council has said that, too, that they really want to see detail. I met . ~: ', with -- with most of the Alliance members here on Tuesday, I believe it was, for a little ~' _ while, and -- and staff realizes that those concept plans don't always come to fruition in ~ ~ how you -- you know, best laid plan. They really don't know. They are just trying to get x ;: ;> ' : - zoning to market this and find someone or maybe a couple few entities that can develop ~~ .~ this property. So, they really don't know how it's going to develop and I understand that. ,:~N ~ I respect that. At the same time the city, I tried to explain to them, is looking for some details where we can say, hey, this is going to be a good addition to the city with these ~ '` concepts or these provisions. If it's going to be a roadway system or all of the buildings - z. are going to have, you know, 30 percent windows facing Eagle Road and there will be 5 .= double side architecture, so that the residences aren't looking at the back of buildings, ~.. . x` ` something, some other provisions. Now, I have provided seven or eight guiding ti principles with the application and most of those are pretty good. I think some of them we are going to need a little tweaking. But just based on the detail and the motion, =`- guess, the question to the Commission is -- is this what you expected to see for this area when you said we like the idea of changing you from just straight residential to a ~~., :: mixed use designation, come back when you have an annexation application. I mean is ~:- this all the detail ou reall ex ected to see or were some other -- some details as far Y Y P as, you know, acreages -- because, you know, our policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use areas have provisions for residential, different types of commercial :;, - businesses, offices. Here would just be, you know, all that s zoned C-C would be a little ~~ concerning to staff and without -- I may chime in a little bit later, too, but some of the '~{`` ~, other concerns, I guess, is without showing a concept plan I was really concerned about ~' at least a portion of this lot, primarily the perimeter of this whole lot, and how it relates and how it relates -- these properties are still designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. So, how do you have a C-C right adjacent to low density ~~ residential and what do you do, especially with the strip, you're going to have a ~~' landscape buffer required on Eagle Road, one to buffer, and now you have got -- I ~' "' mean I don't know how much room's in there, but it makes it quite difFcult to actually ~, ~ • ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~ " March 16, 2006 ~ Page 62 of 82 j' : utilize that area for commercial businesses and how do they relate to these anticipated "~{~' low density -- existing low density and anticipated low density properties around that -- that site. So, those are just some of the things that I would like to see addressed, you ~` ~ know, by the applicants and, again, get some guidance from the Commission on, you ~, know, staff, this is what you need to work from and this is good enough for us, we think that it can be approved with this or we want to add a couple provisions, but this is good `~` enough. I think -- 5. ~; '' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, I would add what I remember my `~~'"` expectation to have been and I probably was the leader in discussion with Mr. Forrey ' - the alternatives to making it entirely commercial and he made the offer that there would be residential along the eastem side that I think pushed most of us over the side that -- ~t to say, well, maybe the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be okay, but you're ~ , absolutely right, we wanted to see it. And I'll tell you my expectation was to see an ~~: ~_ : ;~ annexation and a preliminary plat, not just a concept. I was expecting as a backup for ~~~ ~ whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment really should happen or not, to really see, ~~t~ar . essentially, the final detail. And my expectation, I believe, was pretty much as you T~ described it, there would be residential on both sides of this back street, commercial .; ~~` along Eagle, but that there would be some depth to the amount of residential that was `° there, that we would see what the final location of the roadway would be. So, your h.~ "~ instinct certainly matches the way I remember it, except that I would go one step farther and I don't know if the words were ever said, but I was expecting annexation and preliminary plat before we matched it up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. ~` ~~~- v '' Moe: I concur as well. Zaremba: I see other people nodding their heads. ~r F. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? .:.. .:, Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~`~~ Newton-Huckabay: I remember very clearly that Mr. Forrey made the comment that ' there would be one row of houses on the east side. { Zaremba: On each side? '= - Newton-Huckabay: On the east. Zaremba: Oh, on the east side. Newton-Huckabay: I remember that to be his only promise to the Sutherland Farms ~~" ~ homeowners that there would be one row of houses on the eastem side of the property, with -- I don't know if they agreed to a size specifically as far as lot size, but it wasn't - going to be like apartments. Y III ~' y,' ~k~', 1'' ~ ~' 1~~x';i a9,1 (~i' Y'. ~,`~' i ~' ~', i ',:J,I ~i ~~' i y S' 5.~~''. ~ ~ fi ~~ ~ r, ~ ;: : ~~, ~~ r ~~:" J ~P '~k{ r f R ~ ~ 2 Y,~ l '3 '.. ~ ~. ~ . >. UI~t';{ ~; ~ _ :°, ~ i.~ ' ~" {~ . rr w~a~~/'' -;~', ~,c l' `• F$1 ^' ' .t a $ :~ ix r#,r ~~. ~ ~ K Y.~ ? a +r ~. h.~M ~Y E~~ ~ ~~ Yom. ~ i ~ r ~~ ',y'.y1 ~ ~ ~*i : ~ YES l ' V F ~ 6"~a •sy~:.~.n~Yt Y Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 63 of 82 t. ~,. 4'i ;~ ~, ~''- ~= -. :; , r k s~ ~.::~ d: ;: ,_,~~ Hood: Of similar size I think was basically the language. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I want to make -- if I may comment, too, that the one like that I think is important here was -- what was important for me at the time was that this can come in as one development or this can come in eight developments. And I really like the idea of it coming in as one development and I also think this is a critical corner, it's going to have -- I mean it's going to be a very critical corner. We have, what is it, Tuscany something Village and, then, we have got Kingsbridge going in right down below it, and, you know, I think there is going to be a need for services and neighborhood commercial on that comer. And I also think that those -- those other three big lots right there on Victory, once the road expands to the southeast, are likely going to want to expand in some type of commercial and, then, was this not also the property that Ada County was assessing as commercial property or something like that? They had stopped -- I remember Anna sitting here -- actually came to that meeting and said this is the first that had happened, where the county was designating a property different than the city. Hood: The assessor's office oftentimes does make assumptions that aren't based on our Comprehensive Plan. They very well may have been being taxed as a commercial property. I don't know that. An appraiser can look at highest and best, but if you're on an arterial intersection, they, generally, aren't looking at our Comprehensive Plan map either, which is a better guide than the appraiser saying what your highest and best is. But that -- you know, all that aside, Iguess Ithink -- I agree with you -- with the -- you. know, going back to the residential there, you're right on, your memory is right on, but I didn't think that that would be a minimum, like it has to be only one row of lots. And that's my question to you, I guess. If that's -- if that's what you understood you were getting, that's fine, I'll work with that, but that's not -- I didn't interpret that meaning to be that's a maximum. You can only have one row of houses and we want to see the rest of it be commercial, that's the question, I guess, and I -- without having the details in a plat, that's why I want this kind of open forum to see when you envisioned changing this to a mixed use designation, were you envisioning this. And that's my question. Borup: And my -- now that I think about it, my feeling was that that was correct, that would be minimum on the east, and it seems like that was something that Wayne committed to at the meeting and maybe saying he'd need to go back, they need to discuss it and work on a design and I don't know that we knew what we were getting, other than that would be a minimum. And I was not expecting a plat. Newton-Huckabay: I was not either. Borup: I was expecting maybe a little more detailed concept plan. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Borup: But not a plat. i, )'~C: G" ~ Y `FH^ ` { s ~ a- 3 'b f r ~ r: u ~~ ~~ ` Y$ ' '~ A A i :: ~ 7 '~ ~ 1~ 4~ ~ 11q k1 ff ~S ~ ~ y ~ ~ 1 ~:. ~~1.'r~,~. ~ ... ~h Yi /~. ~i' .#, ~:I })J A.-. µ~~~ t ~;! ~~ ~ i :.i K~r ~j ~ ~. ,; m ';Y.4Y~~yl~ . Y>f ;z ~q, ~ \ :. s ~h ~ t ~~. ~ to try~ .. -n Y. ~~ c n _... ... ''kti ~~: 1. b~r'~ a t ~ h ? Y ~~ ' ,2 3K ~R .. ~, x r~,~ n• f • -~,,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning _ March 16, 2006 Page 64 of 82 t: Hood: And I have just a -- to kind of finish, I did this morning -- Mr. Carpenter came into ''' ~' the office and dropped off a new plan and that doesn't show up very well. I have got a '`~~ ' color rendering. It's basically the same plan, however, they have shown how their ~~ access roads can -- their driveways from Eagle can tie back in internally and back to that proposed north-south roadway that I mentioned earlier, so I'll put that up on the ~:~: - I screen, too. Zaremba: While you're setting that up, I admit that my memory is sometimes faulty, but -- now that I think of it, I remember some discussion, whether it went anywhere or not, "' `'F " that along the east property line would be single family dwellings of equivalent to what l they backed up to and that on the west side of that road there might be a higher density ~'``'~' ~~ of residential. ~~ Borup: It makes sense. Zaremba: Before the commercial along Eagle Road. Whether it was apartments or ~': ~ ~~ something else. I thought the subject was open to have more residential than just that ~~'~ ~` one row. ~. ~~. Hood: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, just -- I was going through the c';, minutes of that meeting just before we had this one, just to kind of refresh my memory, %f'` < and that was discussed and at least one, maybe two of the people in Sutherland Farms says we don't want apartment buildings there either. So, it's tough and I don't know what it is, but it just -- and maybe that -- if that's what -- you know, that was a separate hearing. I'm just saying that that was discussed, but it really wasn't a consensus that . that would be any better. Zaremba: Well, among the other discussion I also support the idea of actually identifying different zones, that it should not all be one zone. The zone should be "~~ ~ appropriate to what we think is going to be put there. Rohm: Caleb, thank you, and I think, really, at this point I'd like to have the applicant come forward and just kind of walk us through some of your own thought processes as E ;~ ~~ ~ ~'" to how this -- you envision this developing. ~.2:~, Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Marty ~=~ :~ . Thomason, I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance and I drew the short straw, so I'm making a presentation tonight. Rohm: Lucky you. ~~ <"y Thomason: My address is 2960 South Eagle Road. We came here tonight with the ~`'"~ " understanding that we were making a presentation on annexation application, but the discussion that has occurred so far leads me to the understanding that we really need to r ~ ` rediscuss the October 17th meeting and Ihave -- I have prepared for that, so I will lead you through that. To begin with we are not developers, we are property owners ,t:,a, Meridian Planning & Zoning ~"' `. March 16, 2006 ` ' Page 65 of 82 ~' ;; ~' pursuing the rezoning of our property as a group for its best use. We hired Wayne ~t;~ :r Forrey last year to lead us through the Comprehensive Plan amendment phase, ' ' because our purpose at that time was for a map change, not annexation. The October t. °`~ ~ 17th meeting -- and I'll just direct your attention up here to some slides that we have prepared. We walked away from that meeting with the understanding that we had an approval for a map change with three conditions. And I'll go through those quickly now, ~TM ; > , but, then, I'll describe them later as well. Those three conditions were have another i neighborhood meeting. Develop a development agreement that included our guiding ~~° ~ ~<<~ j principles that we had willingly put forth. And, third, to apply for annexation. And so we ~_ ~ ' applied for annexation, my slide is basically about tonight, assuming we were going to have an annexation discussion. We applied for annexation and submitted our application on January 11th. Six days ago we received a stafFng report that was quite contrary to what we had understood we would be receiving. The initial summarization ~s that we had received was almost opposite of that. Tonight we thought that we would show how we had complied with the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission I in to move into a summa But ':' ' from the October 17th meeting. And, then, I was go g ry Vi`i`' I'm going to be a little off of that tempo tonight. First of all, if I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. I'd like to thank Caleb for his synopses and for his review. ~...~ I know that he wasn't involved with our project at the time and I recognize that also two of the Commissioners weren't here at that time. And so this is probably a very good discussion, so that we are all at the same -- at the same place. Caleb went through ~-~ ~ where our properties were located, but the area is South Eagle Road and Victory Road. . , ~ , The northern most property is my property and, then, I will introduce the other families N`-' here in just a moment. But when we made our application for a zoning change, we did tm:;,a it based on 50 acres in this area and which were -- only our properties are now going ~~ forward for the annexation application. If I could have you move to the next slide, ~`!`~~ please. Thank you. Okay. Here you see where the properties are located. There are ~' " ' five families and ten tax parcels. We have come together because Ada County Highway District is widening South Eagle Road. The families are, starting from the ~'' ~ ~ north, my property, the Thomason family. Moving to the south we have the Rothman "-'~ family. Then we have the Sharp family. The Carpenter family. And, finally, on the ~,; ~~r,; southeast side of Victory Road is the Axlerod family. All of those people are here tonight, thinking we were going to provide evidence -- or testimony, excuse me, of what ~'~~ ~~~ we were doing here. If I could have you move to the next slide, Caleb, please. We ~` ~ ~ ~ have worked proactively with all of our neighbors. Again, we are not proposing a project or a development, we are proposing the right zoning for our property based on where 5~= it's located and the pressures that are happening in that area. And I'm going to quickly ~~~ `'` ~ run through the things that we have done. If I could have you hit the space bar again -- r z or the down key again. We developed guiding principles. We put those forth. Wayne :~~~ ~ helped us develop those after neighborhood meetings, meetings with the planning staff, ;- and with meeting with ACHD. We came to our map CPA meeting with the idea that we ,' S would be multi -- excuse me -- mixed use regional. We changed that designation to , mixed use community. The recommendation that came out of that meeting actually states that. In our development agreement we said we want to restrict not big boxes. And we have created an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on South Eagle. We ~~ ~, ~ have accommodated Sutherland Farms desire for a transition. Our original ~~ r~~' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 66 of 82 recommendation is that we would have a landscape buffer. They weren't interested in ~~ that. The next recommendation was that we would have like size lots on our eastern border, of like size -- of like construction that would be the transition. And the challenge ~" with what's being presented is, well, the transition just keeps transitioning. And in a ~•~ moment Ithink we -- I'll point out where we made the conclusion at the last meeting that is that nobody is going to live there. And I will point that out here in just a second. And F last we are in total agreement with taking the guiding principles and putting them into a ~' development agreement. Our understanding is that following this meeting, if there was R to be an approval to move forward, a development agreement would start to be ~., i- developed, which would be finalized following the City Council meeting and we put forth our guiding principles for the very purpose of going into that. We are not proposing a ~~.~;; project, we are proposing a rezoning. And the annexation request was that this body y ; had recommended that, as the appropriate way to take the guiding principles and attach ~ ~ it to this property on a go forward basis. If I could have you move to the next slide. x;.,. " Thank you. Here is the area that we are talking about and we are located -- actually, let's just go ahead and fill this whole screen out. Ithink it's for -- one more. Thank you. ~, ~~ There has been a lot of talk about mixed use regional and there being a lot of available ` commercial land set aside for commercial land development, but I'd like to address that ,' ' for just a moment. And this was in Wayne's presentation at the last meeting. Where <_ ~ the 36 percent is located, that is 36 percent of the land designated as multi-use -- excuse me. Mixed use regional is located in that area. That's the Ten Mile interchange area. And the fact is that that's probably several years away from being developed. If ~f. " .' we move down to the ten percent, that also -- that's south of where we are located. That's probably also several years from being developed, for the simple reason that ~,, - there are not services out there. We are located in the lower 27 percent. In fact, our ~'° property is directly below that seven, if I can get this to point there. Right in here. ~ That's where we are located. And, yes, there is -- there is a lot of multi-use -- mixed use ~° ~ regional in the Silverstone and EI Dorado, but there is no mixed use community out through here. And the growth that's happening out there is outrageous. Let me just `: lead you through what's happening around us. I'm the northernmost property. My southern -- or my northern border abuts against Kibby's Kennels. That is a commercial " ' interest. It has an exemption to be a dog kennel there. Next to them, moving towards ~: Ridenbaugh, is a Sutherland Farms lot. There is an old residence there. I will be ~' ' commercial. That's going to be just like on the other side of Easy Jet where there is " ~ Sight and Sound, Stone Creek, and another building already going up. And, then, `~"c` further, right next to Ridenbaugh, across from the new department that's been built out there, is another Sutherland Farms vacant lot, in essence. They have an old residence ~'~ `~ there. And that will be commercial, too. The reality is that the east side of South Eagle "'' Road to my property line is already going to be light office or business interests of some ~` sort. We are simply saying that's probably the appropriate use to continue down to ~. -: ~, ~ Victory Road. Now, if I could just paint the picture for the rest of the area. East of us is ~' ''! ' Sutherland Farms. Yes. West of us is the Thousand Springs Subdivision. But let's go ,~,~ . south. We have already talked about the Golden Eagle Estates. We have heard rumors this week that that's going to be more than -- more like light offices and ~~' ' apartments going in there. Be that as it may, let's go a step further south, that's Bob s~:` ~~ ~ ..~i Aldridge's property. He's commented at the last meeting that he was in agreement with rc a ~~ -.~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 67 of 82 this, because the reality is is that the ease is developing faster and is under more ~~ ~ pressure than was originally anticipated. And if go further south, it's a proposed ~.;: assisted living complex. If we go further south in the area that is bordered by Victory and Columbia Road, and bordered by Cloverdale and Locust Grove, that's an area of `~ .4 ` over six miles. Since the year 2001 there have been 2,500 housing units approved in - that area. If we just take a simple projection and say 2.5 houses per acre in the ~~ proposed subdivisions that will be out in that area over the next several years, that's over 9,600 homes. There will be 24,000 people living there in a few years. The reality ~` ~~ is is that Meridian has no mixed use community, no mixed use neighborhood sort of ~< .~k commercial setting to service those people. That's what our proposal was all about, is ~~~ °~ providing that in an area where the reality is that it's already being perceived that way. R°' ~ If I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. And let's just go ahead and -- ~> a couple more times. Thank you. Thank you. We know that realtors are looking at this area. They have commercial buyers that have uses along South Eagle Road, but they ~'`' are not interested in minor arterials where a mixed use community is already set up. Y - They are interested in highly visible areas and South Eagle Road is going to be that. It's going to be a five lane road. Ada County Highway District has already purchased easements along all of our properties. In every case they paid commercial value for ~,,,, those. I'm not sure how they record that in their accounting purposes, but every one of us collected commercial values for the easements that they have bought from us. They '~ recognize that South Eagle Road and the southern area from where we live is -- will be developed in the next several years and they are recognizing the need for that arterial to ~~ be wider. Wayne presented this at the last meeting, that investors, developers, realtors, and public agency appraisers want to acquire the land on I-84 for proximity business ~' ' A ' ' parks. We are r7ght in the center of that. The interchange at Ten Mile is likely going to ~;. be delayed. Growth is going to be continued for us. The funding is probably going to be the issue there. Ada County appraisers already look at this and question whether it's '~ . :~ commercial use. Several years ago when Thousand Springs was developed up to my ~ front door, and Sutherland Farms was beginning to develop, I had an appraiser come ry~ out and I talked to them about getting an appraisal. One of the things he asked even then was should I appraise this for commercial or residential, because he viewed -- he ~ saw that the potential was going to be there for commercial. And as I said also, the ' Ridenbaugh and Eagle Road area is already being used and will be built out for ~~~ business purposes. This is how we left the last meeting and I will go into that in just a ~;; ` , moment. But, basically, we believe that many of the issues that were raised in the staff g report that you have all read were actually resolved at the October 15th meeting and the recommendation that was made, really, we thought resolved the residential issue. We have worked with our neighbors -- if I could have you move to the next slide, please. Oh, I'm song. Let's go through this real quickly, just one, two -- I think -- there we are. In September 21st, 2005, Wayne reported this at our last meeting. The Idaho Statesman reported that we are not building office space fast enough to keep up with ~~°~ j demand in one of their articles. It also stated that a strong housing market increased R~ . ~ demand for office and services. And, finally, the office park growth is going to be on I- . _ , 84, the Eagle Road corridor. This is part of Wayne's presentation. I found it interesting that the people that they interviewed drew the conclusion that this is where the growth was going to be in office park and offices and services. If I could have you move to the ~,;~~ ( ~ '' I ~} 5. ¢ ~ ~W,e. 1 ~~ Y4~~Yl:: if're'p ~..~~~ + ~ 1x • w .% $ ~t ~ J A~ I iP ryia~ ~b2! f. . « ~y_ 'rt 4 q h f i-.~y;•^2~ 1 1 •f. M'. , .. . .. ~'~ .A Sr z: { ~., _<4 .. .. :1' ' ~ .. , ~ i tip 4 ~, i S rs ~ I' ~ ~ ~' . - d - . t1~ .-. ,~f . .h "•f:" " ~. + .FS'., .. .. i i` ~ ` ~. ~ .. .4 .. .'~.y r4x 5 . . 4. ... nom: ~ ~.< r. .~ `~ Xk . .. ... r ..w .~aN.%+r r. ` .1 •~;:. :; c r ~ ~,;t<y"r;~r'~yYr .,•, i"uf`t:•: :' ~ iJ~ < ~ ~, xis ~s "~ ~i~~''~~z• ~• I ~ •~.r. `~'t 3 ~. ~ I ,. r.,r`;' ,~ ~ u~ t ~ ~ r ~ ~' fi~ ''' I t ~ ' c(~ .td 't"I~j¢3.:1,~'s< '.y., 9' ..kfiy; t { ~: ;l .5 ;~. I ; < i ~ r ql . k '..4ui . te L •'•I .f.,:. s( . ,_xya~r*'_ ...4:i. ~'{~ ~ k ~ I i .~ ~ :,~t 3t.e .'~~'.dW.iS4~~~ r al I A ''~ Y~r._ fi. ~~; ;; Yr, r. 4~ c~ i b t,ps I Y. ~' y,' 7 ~i ~~~~I ~. ~'.t ~,' f Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 68 of 82 next one, Caleb. Thank you. This was the summary that we believe came out of that October 17th meeting and in just a moment I will just read the issues that we were working from. We believe that there was a vote recommended to approve our Comprehensive Plan amendment application with three caveats, three qualifications. Those three were a neighborhood meeting, an application for annexation, and a developed agreement. We -- the Planning and Zoning agreed with the property owners that a development agreement would address the future development issues and it would include our guiding principles. And, finally, our understanding was that the Planning and Zoning requested that we make this application with a mixed use community designation. This is where we stand and, again, Mr. Hood's report came to us on March 10th and so we were preparing our response -- or not our response, excuse me. We were preparing our presentation based upon the meeting minute summaries that Brad Hawkins-Clark had done following the October 17th meeting and before I get to that, I'll just read what -- if you don't mind, I'll just quote to summarize a couple of the statements out of that October 17th meeting and not to pick on anybody, but Commissioner Borup, I thought you summed it up best, so if you will allow me, I'll just read what it was that you said. Borup: Okay. Thomason: I quote: I don't know that anybody in this neighborhood or anybody in this room would live in that location with single family residential. So, it looks to me like the choices, if it's going to be, is going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or office. I mean that's the way it is -- that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the way Meridian Road is developing from the south. I think it is one of the realities. Now, that's not to pick on that, we just thought that was the best summary of the whole discussion about this area was going to be moving towards more of a business use. The recommendation, if it's okay, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I'd like to just read your recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thomason: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- and I quote: Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of CPA 05-001, request to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 50 acres from medium and low density residential to mixed use community by the South Eagle Road Property Alliance. There were three qualifications that are at the end of this recommendation and I will just quote those as well, if that's all right. And I quote: And we would like to request that City Council hold action on this CPA until the applicant can make an annexation application and it will catch up with this. So, an annexation application. Which would, then, bind them to the development guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are also asking them to organize another neighborhood meeting. Out of that that's what we have done. We have made every effort to comply with those. We had another neighborhood meeting on January 5th. We presented to the neighborhood our concept plan, which has one row of housing, which we had committed to, and only one row of housing which we had submitted it, if like size lots and similar construction along the east border, right next to z= ~ ~: try R :t ..a' F a'- ~ , ~~ i'~k. 1 ~.. 4R ^ f l`z'ia+ tl)re ~~x i ~ j~i ~ P1 ~ Y i - ~.:.''i i- ~1f S '' ,,fy`L ~ y s r. ~ ~{ ~~~, E+w 1 ,t i1~~ '. ~: ` r 4 ~, ~ ; ~ ~ 5 F 5J~91! i `.~ . .: ~1 ' ~ ? t ..~ _u .e~ f ~ d 'We 1 !' ~ ~ ~ a.. . ~. , } . t.' r, _ '~ r'~ . ~~i ~il~~ ~IiJ N ~< r_ ~, ~. t ~u ~~.~-:.R w' ~; 3; ,. ~4" '~ 0. ~. ¢, ~., f . `a t~' ~~ y Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 69 of 82 Sutherland Farms. We have initially proposed two things. One of two things. Landscaping buffer or residential. They all were in favor of residential and they were not in favor of a transition that included higher density residential. They were in favor of the residential that we have -- are similar to their lot sizes. At that meeting we also -- they all requested a copy of our concept map and we mailed that to them. I personally mailed that the very next day to each of them that was in attendance. The next thing was that we have a -- provide an annexation application and that's what we have done. We did not see stipulations here that we had to put together something further that required more of a development idea. Please understand, we are not developing this land. Our purpose is to rezone this property. The annexation was a request of this body at the last meeting, so that the guiding principles we had put forth could be attached to it appropriately. Our plan is to market this based on its best use with the documents that lays out a clear limit and clear potential for a potential purchaser only. It's not for us to go in there and develop it. I came here prepared to talk about a recommendation for approval, but I'm still going to bring that up, recognizing that the body has -- already understands that there are some issues, perhaps, to continue to talk about. But we believe that now is the time to move forward with a decidedly clear decision. That helps the planning staff that helps us put together the right kind of development agreement. It allows us to proceed with a development agreement. It provides us with a clear direction and clear limits when we market our property. It propels this land forward on its best use and eliminates further delays. Please understand, the development will happen here. All of us purchased our property, because we want a rural setting. The vast majority of us have been there for 20 plus years. We will all find another rural setting. When the road widens, this property is -- these properties will start to sell. Here is Meridian's perfect opportunity to work with property owners who are bringing ten parcels, five different owners, into this annexation proposal or application and this is a way for the City of Meridian to have a coordinated and cohesive go forward on this project -- or on this property. And now I'll summarize, using Brad Clark-Hawkins, because I like what everybody else says, as opposed to what I say, as you have already noticed. This is a summary report we received from him following the October 17th hearing. This is on the final page, last paragraph, section nine, Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. This is how we thought the meeting ended as well. Number one -- excuse me. The Commission recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: Number one. The property owner collaboration and coordination is a benefit to the city, because it avoids piecemeal development and provides fora more cohesive development pattern. Number two. South Eagle Road is rapidly changing. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan could not have foreseen this degree of growth and pressure. The plan needs to be flexible and reflect changes to the area. Number three. There is a higher likelihood of high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along this corridor than residential uses. Number four. The Commission supports adding commercial uses to the city limits where ever it is feasible. We want to encourage people to shop and spend money in Meridian and allowing commercial uses in this area is one option to accomplish that goal. Number five and, finally, the Commission believes the applicant's protection offered to Sutherland Farm ? Yt}j.4P® F ..a r h r~ 1' AY ::'+C a~ .:_ ria~! iki * xi' ~~,a ~ ~ i:~, ~ ~ ,7~ ~ :kr, i ~ i i 3a* b.4'.H% v ~' t -'. ~ z45 R .' ti.-.., t..• t ii _ v ,'fi`t i~.. ~r ~kys i .~ 3 3r ~~ ' ~~ ~~~ ttttt ''' ~~~ . ,~K ~ ~R c. ~~ ~,: ~ - ~~sr. 1 ~ S( 7 t~ '~f i.i. "~~~3~!i"i w~t ~ `~.'y,~`e rG'F ~ ~".'. gait` E~~ r~ tE ~! j - ,fir, t y ,, r ~ =. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 70 of 82 ~: , !I °. ~>> s~:,,,~. f; "° Subdivision in the proposed development are sufficient to address many of the neighbors concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property line with Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Commissioners, thank you for your time. The Alliance members bring this annexation application before you based on our understanding of the request of October 17th. We think the case for the land to be rezoned has been made and the decision, based on a recommendation of October 17th is why we were here tonight. Annexation of this land binds with the Alliance through a development agreement and to the guiding principles that we willingly put forth. And it moves this land forward on its best usage. Now that I have said all that, I'll stand and take your questions. Rohm: Thank you. And I would comment that you did an excellent job -- Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: -- of recapping the past and very much appreciated. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Question of the applicant at this time? `; Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. It was an excellent presentation. And, basically, I think we are already in agreement with that, because Mr. Forrey did an excellent job of convincing us of the need. It's unusual for us to pass a recommendation along to the City Council with strings on it and the reason that we put strings on it is that the devil is in the details and what we wanted to see before we made it an absolute recommendation was some of the details and, again, I state we are 99 percent on board ~' ~ with you. What you're talking about is exactly what most of us envision should happen "'~. there. That's not the issue. The sort of the details of how we satisfy the neighbors is the issue and, again, I think you made an excellent presentation, but we still want to work out the details. ~' PI ~; ., ~. Tf fi~ ~`(' :, , ,::s ~~ ~~ =.~~~a,' ?A i ,m ;1. ;$ Thomason: Thank you, Commissioner. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I just -- just kind of reviewing this, I realize you're not developers and whatnot and you're going to the point that was made in the last hearing, but I'm just kind of curious. Has there been any thought whatsoever within your group -- you're putting the R-4s on the east side, what did anyone envision would be on the west side of that proposed street going through there? Just commercial at that point as well, so everyone living in those housing is going to be looking directly across the street at commercial properties? Thomason: Thank you for that question. Again, I appreciate your understanding that we are not developers and we are also not planners in that respect either. Our goal here is to provide an area of land that has the right kind of zoning that a developer k # ~~ =~ ,.. ~~..f F~ ~ ~ ,..44 ~ ~ ~ _ $[T ~~~~~~ ~~'~ ' rw ~ V ~ wf - ` a ~~ ~~ ~ - t ~~ `~ N f I ,~ ~ 1 v~-t, 'r~r J~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ I~`~ 3 Fr } s. y. ~. '"`K r 'i f rF'i Gd~F 4, h~ 7Y ... ~ ~~~~ fis t X' ~j;V $ ~•~ Rf ` } ~~~ { A, ~4 ~ SY '_F_ _ a Y : ~ c ~. ~ ~~, ~. :; Yv ~zs t~ g? ~„ - .,.5 , 1,t~.., ~ ~. - 4' tt v ~ ti r 3 3~. ~ ~ ., r a { ~~ y~r ~ `'~ ~ . ` iti~! ~ ~-, .~, s. ~,. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 71 of 82 ` ` would look at and, then, be able to see, okay, I'm going to have houses across there _ and when I make my proposal for my development project, I'm going to have to deal with those houses. Yes, we have had discussions. I have driven around the City of Meridian and seen where this sort of thing is already in place. One has a church in one area and it has a row of houses in another and a Pizza Hut across the street. I could answer you and say, yes, we envision that same sort of thing, but the truth of the matter is is that we -- we are not going to propose a project here and we want to have a clear ;; ~ cut development agreement that includes our guiding principles, which does say things like no big box. The mixed use community has certain limits on what the footprint of a building can be regarding -- it has to be 25 percent of the total space and so forth. It i has rules about what the landscaping will be. With all due respect, I -- that's where we ' ~ think we are going when we put together the developed agreement, is to that point, rather than putting out a limitation that -- or a potential that we might see, we are, really, - looking for the guidance of a development agreement to -- and, of course, the planning and development rules to help support that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. `~ Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make the comment that when I went away from this ' heaping, the big benefit I felt like that we were getting from this -- and I stated this before .° ^ . -- is avoiding the situations like we have had at Eagle and Ustick where we have got `"~~ ~ three parcels that are small trying to develop at different times and that type of thing. Basically, in essence, this is the majority of that land that's left between the Ridenbaugh and Victory Road and Idon't -- for me, that was the big benefit, is that ultimately you're agreeing to develop all this together and I guess for me that's important. I am comfortable with getting conditions of approval with this the way it is, because of the alternative if we don't move forward with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is this is -- is this R-4, R-8 on the Comprehensive Plan, is that -- b`' Thomason: It's RUT. ~. w ~~,'' Newton-Huckabay: Well, on Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Thomason: Oh, I'm sorry. ~a: c; ~, '" ~ Hood: Medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Medium density. Which, you know, each one of you could come in with six four-plexes or something. Thomason: That was a discussion at the last meeting, where it was discussed that a -- ' the opportunity to bump up a level existed and I don't know what that means to me, since I already have a commercial interest that's operating right next to me. I don't know what I could actually bump up to. I don't know the rules for that. But the reality is ' ~ F ~ yP ' 1 y fi -Y ~ £ 6 > 4 /N S ` ~ ~~ q' ~ ~' 0 ~ I ~56.~ 4 .YY'S~YFI$ f .: ~ ~ 'L4S hE}n. kk'Y s ~}{rt'~y E _ . r ,y r~. }'}, Y.j ~ ~ :,' . _ ._ S;~,1 -n'' 4 fx x ~ sl . if "~` 4k ~ ~ { , 1 f:`:. a 2• .5 '~.5'~~.. lAyK1 {° 3 i i . _ x !i j o t.":. . 1 ' '" •~;F S• .1 ~ r p i ,.t : i „.~~t `~ ~ ~~9~ .. .4.` t ~, i ~ ] ;~ y 4 v'•~.`;' a ` ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ 4 M4 ~ ~ ~ y'< ~„ ', ~. ~ > ' Y ' .~Y`.L4~ d' ~ " ' ,tr . ' . a4 ~ ,~ 2. k •.. 1~i" } ~. ` ' 1l~4: 7 ~ µ c°'.[~"~YKii'(+~3% 'f A , ~i .. 74 'A x"' :"~eL ~i;.~ .' '~ ~~ ~ f 'f ~~~~'hY~ h ~ '° S . ~{ ~ } ~ p ~ ~ {:r A~~•h ~ x `'', .,~[ ~2 ~ E' y 9x ) ~ .! .F ~ • Z~~ ~,4 ]~i K• ~if41 ' y t ~ ~' 3 r .- .e i 7 C Sq 'Ta 1~f'" ` +'ie~ - %.Fh yid Lfp,frr'~f:~~i .j 'r~^~',~~ I '• '.~; ,`` r I~~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~' I ' ~~~ f ~ Y~ f~ ~ t ', r T ~ I f Y ~ ~ ~, 43 t Fh~' ~ ~ ' i 3l `.l i : " ` .5gf.l _ f:. I ' + . i - . "".i '4 •. ! I . ~: t'H~'k.~ .j': .~ X~'~ 3.:~ r E . •': '. ' ~( ~ ~ 'may R ~~~ . ` s° / ~ r'4 ` F ¢ '~'t's J a~ + ~ * '} " • ' .;; . ;ti ain •~~~; "~' ~ x : ','. . . g ~ i . des:: ~F' ¢ 3 3 1 ' '.1 ~ , , ~~ : ~,c :F~, r., •?r .. I f ~.. Y `F.'=?',1~+~RA~. ,j.... ~f «i fi„yet + ' ~ r. , . . {'h '1• ~s ''~L ~'{1~ :id.{ •~ T'~ ~ e : F . bFi r v , , ~ , ~ , 4 k ' ~ p ' ' I ~, a ~ .'fi!:^ ; . .r s~~ '~~e' 12.~h ~SI~i q pt' F ' ~S7`~aWi i ~ ~ . ¢ : ' ,• -•1.'e ~ ( ,~( }';~,~ :a' , 4,P.=: 4,.a K y c, i i il~', _ I # + , ' f p ~ ' ~y~ y ' F t d. : .;., ` ..~ . •, ,~ , ;p ~ ~ ~ ` i ~ ` ` ~ Y H ,s,~ n ' ~nt~.k'f^:~~F~lI,:. u. '. ~_K ~, , i~'S.W' ,f' 1~ I ' .i y .~ 4 ..,. :i 1 ...Y nit:. 1 ,p9: `.n :. 5, _ : 1. : ~:,w i ~ I' ~ i 'k:7~' ~ ~ {' '.:!'wn.. ,:*.~.isi;+i^: ~ ;~ e,~~ .~• s~ t ) 3 4 ~:} = fur ., t~,'~~=; mi~ ' .,5 .s:y. ;"e~ ns ,~a w ~` r~ ~ _~.`~. - a .I~ ., r~i z 11 ~ k ~'-:. n se S. 97, ~t k ~, ~ i _ , . ~ _ r , ; : 'r:.. . ~F ~~ wvs ~.t~ 1 ~L ~'' b' bit.::. z Yk, a ~•i.: ~~:'F: ~ .Y at ~ r .. '~ ~ :} . 1 ' aq`~ " K"~'~.ty, i,~ TM~~' r b ~ ~:' ~ 7 ~ 4'.;,' :.i `:z',i~ Y. s; ~ ~ ~ • . 1 r. t . •.: , n e ,q, t ~ r:a ~.'v€ € S ,r y, a' ~ ~ 1 f ~, u 4y I ~' ~ ..~` v~+~`e'i~.YX y .. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 72 of 82 ~- :_ ~~ ~~,;:~ ,, .~ `' ; ' I ~~:_ ~, ,: ~~~r { :~ ~; i1~ ~I r~l y~'i', ,~ ~"' k gg b ~7,' ~~ >' Y.. that, yeah, there has already been interest expressed in our land for higher density housing. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But I guess I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I think forme personally that's the thing that I think is really important to me is that we have got now 58 acres that's going to develop into something that's a little more similar to -- I'm going to guess like the Gateway that came through tonight, but on a much smaller scale. Thomason: If I might just make one qualification. The Alliance owner -- the Alliance property owners own 20 -- well, it's 23 acres we will say, roughly. The 50 acres was a recommendation by the staff when we were doing our Comprehensive Plan amendment and it involved some of Sutherland Farms and it involved Kibby's Kennels and the land just a little bit to the south of the Axlerod property. Our property that -- the owners -- Alliance owners represent is 23 acres. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Kind of to wind this down just a bit, I think that you're in substantial agreement -- or this Commission's in substantial agreement with your concept plan, even as it is before this Commission. I see from the sign-up sheet that there were a number of people that signed up that are -- were against your development. Just from that, I ask if you've had an additional neighborhood meeting to put to rest some of their fears or if -- if any of that has taken place or -- would you like to speak to that just briefly? Thomason: On January 5th we held the neighborhood meeting that was requested after the October 17th Planning and Zoning meeting and, again, at that time the big issue was that they wanted to have a residential buffer and that's where we put in the concept map the residential row of houses right next to Sutherland Farms. Beyond that there has not been anything specifically expressed to us. I know that Darrell Hines had wrote a letter and had sent that into the planning staff and one of his comments in there was regarding the light office -- if I could have you put our very last slide up, I think I have our colored concept map on there, Caleb. Thank you. There is an area on the -- next to Victory Road and on the comer where Sutherland Farms is located, where we had initially had single family dwelling or R-4 all along our back row, but when we submitted that concept map to the planning staff, there was a request that came back to us to actually make that entire block light office. One of Darrell Hines' comments was that it -- what he sees on the new map is not what he saw on the concept map I mailed to him on January 5th. And, again, that was the planning staffs recommendation right after we turned in our annexation application. We are willing to accommodate that residential slice there again. I mean that's -- we have been willing to accommodate many things, obviously. You know, our original proposal was for the mixed use regional and it's turned out that it's best mixed use community. A transition is the right thing to do. So, we have accommodated that. We have put in our concept plan, as you can see here, we have a -- there has been mention in the staff report about a roadway that goes through. We have done that. We have identified these access points, because those i r~' ~ ~:, , ~ 1~ ~~~ # A~ `* ' ~ ~y S' • - •,a7e lf~'~ w Yf(F1ry~}` !~ ~~ ~~ 5fk _ - h rgf_r~ - ~ ~ ~z~ > : ~ y ~ w ~_~~ ~ ar~; I }~ i ~ ~~ f ~ ~ , ~k ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~ y ~,, ~TM ,x4, .~ ,ri ' c y ~ sh+ ,~ ~:.~a ,ti ,,,. Y ., _ ~ ~ u~.~, 4 ..~ - ° +~~~, ~' 7~ ~ ~ y r = y :~"~' 47, T r 5 Y ~ Y'1P'3 _ _ yy~~Y ~~` iiN tk ,_ 1 :',fin - L:.fi Ff _~'~ ~.d ~.~ ~ ~~k~~ ~~yy G~" --~~ fp}r ' S ;- f SaNi.~t f rr C' l~, 4 X1;3 t' J' ;.,:~~1 f ,. ;.: ~:: ~` Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • March 16, 2006 Page 73 of 82 were ones recommended by Ada County Highway District. I should just mention about access points quickly. Wayne Forrey had met with Ada County Highway District and one of the things they were concerned about is when the widening project is done they will have 13 access points to our property, not all along South Eagle, some on Victory. But there will be 13 access points to all these different properties. They were excited to see that come down to seven in this kind of a proposal, when it's only dealing with rezoning and annexation and not a project. You know, they were -- they liked that idea. But what we have done here on this final map is we have identified where the business settings would be and, again, I leave those open to the rules that would be applied with any development in terms of the landscape based upon footprint of the building and that sort of thing. But the light office I was talking about is right over here and we at one time, when we submitted this, had this area right here still as single family dwelling, but that was a requested change by the planning staff. And I can't tell you what the logic was behind that. I'm sorry, I wasn't involved with that. I suspect it might have had something to do with the fact that it's right along Victory Road, which is going to widen to five lanes and the property probably across Victory Road is probably not going to be residential, but rather be light office. I suspect it had something to do with they had more vision than I did about what the area will look like. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Again, I would comment I'm absolutely on board with what you're saying. This particular drawing I think is part of what the issue is. Rather than zone all of that C- C, part of it should be zoned L-O. That's probably the gray area. And part of it should be zoned R-4 or whatever the other -- yeah, it backs up to R-4, so it would need to be R-4. And the reason that we want the concept plan or the preliminary plat, which ever one you bring, is to identify those zones. Years ago the city used to zone a big piece of property and, then, use exceptions. Sutherland Farms has one of those. We don't do that anymore. We like the underlying zone to be what's there. And, you know, I certainly can see that my memory is wrong about how much residential, but even if it was exactly this, we would want to see the annexation be for three different zones, not all C-C. And I think that's where we are going in wanting to see the details, agreeing where the roadways are, where the accesses are, and concept plans are flexible, but we think the zoning needs to be accurate to what's there and that isn't very flexible. :~.;~ Thomason: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. It's very straight forward. Thank you. Rohm: I guess in conclusion, I think that some of our local developers could take notice from the work that you folks have put into making this thing move forward in a timely fashion and with good forethought and thank you for all your hard work. << .`A Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ,,,, ?' ' , ~,. a'^ l j.i .' ~'', ~~, II ~~' 4 y ~, j ~i ', ;' ~, ~I, ~~'I ~~ •* `~~, . ,', ~,: r ~, ~ r ,-, r g% ~ f 4 ~~~ y"'G+ ~,~~ ~ Y: ~~: r) , ~~, ,.r f, ~ N ~ ~ n~ 4 ~ Y4~.~'~~. f { h ` i ~ .' ' ~ f , ! '~~ ~ ~S y3~ _ ~~ ~~..~ ` } ~IYh 1 :~'~~ ~, ,y. e y,:T R.. Y 'i ,a ~tfi ?~ t f c;1 y.+ k ~4 ~:' ~ , Ki= i3 ~'~ i4 r n ~.ti 1 ~ e ~ -~r_°._. - ~~~Y~~ ,. h ling Meridian Plannin & Zonin 9 9 March 16, 2006 Page 74 of 82 Rohm: With that being said, I don't think we are going to be able to move forward with f,., ~ this, because we have dismissed everybody that has intended to speak out on this, so " ~ I'm looking for a date that you feel you would like to see this continued to. The 20th? t `_ ; Thomason: The sooner the better. ~' _ ~ Rohm: Would the April 20th work for you? ~t Thomason: If it's okay, I'd like to turn around and look to my neighbors to make sure ,r ,ail that that's an appropriate time for each of them. I don't make this decision alone, unfortunately. If I could paraphrase that just for the record, we started this process July of last year. We had our meeting in October for the Comp Plan amendment and, then, ~_ our concern is if that has any sort of ramifications if we are delayed very long, what those ramifications would be to that Comp Plan amendment. What kind of process we ,_ _ have to go through again and that sort of thing. ~ Rohm: I don't think that that would enter into it. It appears as if from the discussion from the floor that the best date available would be the first meeting in May, which would be May 4th. We can't -- we can't put you on the 6th of April, it's already -- Borup: How full is the 20th? ;~~;k Rohm: The 20th -- the 20th there is plenty of room, but -- r. ~ " Borup: We added a lot to it tonight. That's why I was wondering. ~~ Rohm: I think we still have room on the 20th, but some of their people aren't available to -- : ~' ` ~' Borup: No, I understand that. They may want to decide if they feel the others can F~~~~ represent them properly. f ,, Rohm: And that works forme. }~;> Thomason: We might prefer to go for the 20th and supply written testimony from those neighbors who wouldn't be able to attend. ~~ " Borup: That's what I was going to say. If they feel comfortable that the rest can `fcr"°~ represent them properly, that shouldn't make any difference. ~'r: > Rohm: Well -- and I think conceptually this Commission is in pretty substantial 5 ~ ~ agreement with what you have here already and it would only be that additional ~~ communication with those people that are your neighbors how you address that through your development agreement or otherwise. So, to continue it to the 20th is fine with us. ~. ~, w w";~ .;. ~ ' a. _" ~'" ? ~' I. r'~;?? Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 16, 2006 Page 75 of 82 ~.: Thomason: Since I'm a novice in this process, if I could ask what would the body be looking for in that 20th meeting? '`"~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ~~ = Borup: Very good question. Zaremba: I, actually, was going to ask a similar question of Mr. Hood. Commissioner Borup pointed out to me that one of the drawings in the packet actually identifies zones -- it's near the end of it. This one. And each of the pieces of property shown, granted, as a concept, does have a zone designation. And my question to Mr. Hood is the only x... thing we need to revise this annexation application is actually legal descriptions of those different areas. Hood: Correct. Zaremba: You know, that's going to be a five minute discussion when we reopen the hearing. Borup: And, then, also included in the application some C-C and L-O and R-4 on the ~,r , application. `~ Hood: Yeah. I mean I have got to work up development agreement provisions, so I e think some of that discussion should be had. Now, I may have to maybe do it twice, ~' ` ` because of the neighbors or some other folks that left early or may not be here. If I may, just some of the questions that I have and maybe I can run it by you and if you e;, say, no, we want to go another way, we can save some time in front of everyone else ~• `~ next time. I know it's getting late tonight, but -- because, you know, I have got worked ,. up some of them, I just didn't think that it was enough to recommend approval at this time. So, just access is probably one of the bigger questions I have for the Commission. We were quoting minutes from that last meeting and Wayne Forrey asked _. ~ -- Commissioner Borup asked him how many accesses on Eagle Road and he said he envisioned one between Easy Jet and Victory. And that was for the entire property ~ between Easy Jet and Victory. This is two-thirds of that property and they have got "`"° three proposed. So, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the testimony there. And ~. ` so that's -- and I'm not saying that three is right or wrong, but that's not consistent. Staff -- I would like to see maybe a maximum of two. I understand that they have got streets that they are aligning with and ACHD would allow them to construct those, but Eagle Road is a classified roadway and that's consistent with other plans. So, just to bring it out there. I mean if you guys want to give me a fixed number, that's fine, but just so you ~~ know, that's where I'm going is to limit access points. I don't know if it would be to the <~: one that they originally envisioned, but at least limited from what's proposed. It sounds like that's the biggest thing for the -- if that's all the provisions that you want to put in is just, you know, access points -- and this is a concept plan, just as a disclosure, I think '- ~° `~ it's going to have a tough time at City Council. They are going to want to see some more details. So, if there is something else that they can maybe provide -- and I'm just t 4' r ~', ~~ x~~'", ~ ./ -, H J' 4.'. !~'' d ~4: l}.i 1 ~. ~I'. `~ti ~'I' ~,' q ~ l~ ~~~.'i 3 ,. 4, i H" Y }~ ~` 3 1" ~'.T Y l ~ ~ w ~} T ~ ,~< G 4~ , . J ~~ ~t;, ~ . r Y _{ ~F.Nyry ~' .' ?: y L ~ U ~ ~~~ 1`. - ~.l '.Y~jN v~~ ; ~ S~ ~l W apt ~ ) fed = i ~'~ Sbt ~~ rj t 5~' Ga A ~ .~K. y.'2„~. ~.lFE.yF +~. .. . - < iih~ ~} 1 "i ~ ~ e,' .~ - ~ ,;x::y, ~~! ~~+? t _ y ~5 i ~~ 4` N3 ~'. .:- ~'~ ~K ~~~ `y ` ~?~" '' ~~.v~ '.. ~ s.' Meridian Planning li< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 76 of 82 :'~ ~~ . ,~ , ~~ ~. i ~. k . u ~,I „~ ~, ~y >~:~, ;.:' ~I i' .31 saying that to really help the applicant. It's going to be an uphill battle. The City Council is not -- I do not think going to give them just here is a C-C zone, develop. And they have the seven guiding principles for positive neighborhood development. Some of them are a little bit how do we enforce them type things. You know, they say the intent of the alliance is to do this or that. We really need to require it be that if it develops -- if they all develop together, well, how do you do that? Do you make them form an LLC and have one property? How is that carried forth? And I guess I'm going to have to work with the legal department a little bit on putting some of these intents into actual requirements in the development agreement provisions and I can work with -- with them a little bit on that. But some of the other as proposed -- it sounds like some of the neighbors -- you said there was a consensus that they all wanted to see houses, rather than the 40 foot landscape buffer that was an option before. So, I guess I'm going to propose that that be changed and we'll let them testify and say, hey, yeah, we agreed to do that or, no, we didn't. But that's something that Iwould -- I would make as a change. Or if you have any suggestions, too, if you want to throw them at me for any of these -- these things. So, restricting the individual site development -- and I agree with you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that, you know, it's just something that we don't see very often, property owners getting together, not piecemealing things, we can really look at a master plan for the area. Just wish there was some more details, but I won't go into that, really, too much anymore. It wasn't really talked about, though, and I would bring this up as a separate kind of talking point, is the property south of Victory, how does that -- I mean they are in the- Alliance. Are we going to say that if every -- if all these Alliance people develop together that that person also has to develop on the other side of that roadway? That doesn't seem to fit and I doubt that that's going to really happen, but, yet, they are asking for the same zoning and to really tag along with the other ones that are all part of this. So, that's -- that's something in my mind that -- how does that play in with the rest of this, not only with the rest of the Alliance properties, but those other properties there. With all due respect, I mean Sutherland Farms may or may not have purchased properties there and have these ideas to do L-O or multi-family even I have heard. The Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential. If they wanted to do either one of those, they are going to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan map just like you guys did in November. So, it's not going to be anything that's just going to be a guaranteed use. So, again, if you have any -- those are some of the sticking points that I had when trying to formulate a recommendation. But I will work -- I mean I can work with this concept plan and bring some provisions back and we can discuss further, but if you have any guidance now on the front end, that would be great, too. Rohm: I guess my only comment to that is I agree with your statement that limiting the number of accesses on Eagle Road is always in good keeping and I'm not saying that two is the right number or what they have got on this concept map here, but anytime you can reduce the number of accesses, it makes for better traffic flow along your main corridors. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. ~~~ ~. a ~ t vl. ,.c.x~%~ ~, .' ~~ ~~ r -Yrr~ r~~ -a -d -,:3 ~,K ~. ;; j ,~ ~~~ ~~.~ y4 ;'~c,: ~ . ~ ~~. R~ h ~ n w ~`~w ~ ~ ~ 7b ' ti's ~~~~ ~~ A ~ ~. $~ .tom x rs:, s, at~i~Cr"~ ~~ ~~ ~. , ` } F ~~ Y- ~ 1 L~ $jy~~~ .'ri . 2i~it ] r# ~ l ~ ~~ ~`.~ ~ ~ -,:~£ { ~ + ~ T ~. t~r~ ~if4 a , __ ' ~= ' ~tK~r`~~ yt.~ Sr:{ .;~' .~ ~~ ti, .x _ ,t ~4r, ~r f . ~ p ,- ~~ ~ '~~ {,. r ~~ ~ i ~;, l .:4-vii r ~. ~.~~;~~. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 77 of 82 11 Newton-Huckabay: I want to explore a comment that Caleb just made regarding an uphill battle at City Council. I don't want to, one, direct all these property owners to say, okay, this is what we think we will work and, then, have you end up at City Council and you're, you know, remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and so we ~, ~ , probably do need to consider that it is a very real possibility that no more detail than this q:, could cost you time at the City Council level and get you remanded back to the Planning ~ ~ ~~ and Zoning Commission, based on them wanting more detail than we were requiring, `` which is their right to do. So, I think we do need to -- well, you, the Alliance, need to R-, consider that as how you want to move forward with that, because that is a risk you are ~' ~'~ I, going to take, but their decision -- our decision doesn't guarantee their decision is going -~~ ' ~ ~ to be the same one. And so we do need to keep that in mind. ~<<~ >~ Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: And to that -- to that end, working with staff very closely on your concept may -- may help you with City Council. And I think with that being said, I'm ready to wind down here. ~. Thomason: Thank you. . Borup: Maybe Ijust -- Mr. Chairman, one additional comment, because we are looking ~~y -- for input for them to take. I mean they have got a concept plan here. We do not have a ` copy of that in our packet. But looking at some of the notations I have from Mr. Hood's _ -- on the staff report, I had some of the same concerns or questions, anyway, that he brought up. One was on the zoning and that was my thoughts and Commissioner ~:~: 1 Zaremba mentioned if the site plan that was submitted with the application, if that would take precedence on the zoning, then, it would just be a matter of changing the ~:. application itself. And, apparently, the legal description also. But I think limiting some - access points on Eagle Road is consistent with the guiding principles and it says that -- I `°' `` mean number five was to construct an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on Eagle and -- that's still a lot of curb cuts on Eagle in that -- in a short section like that, so -- I take it that that's something I would like to -- maybe just two -- I don't know if there is a °. -- if that's the right number, but at least -- I mean one may not be enough. ., ~~{.: Thomason: We appreciate that comment and Wayne's comment at the last meeting R: was prior to his last meeting with the Ada County Highway District and the curb cuts that ~;' :. ~w:; you see there, that came out of the meeting with representatives there and -- - Borup: Because they are lining up with those across the street. w` Thomason: Well, the -- no, we had not shown any proposals of roadways on the * - internal side. That's simple the road cuts that they had put in on the plan. So, those ,:r~~~, aren't set in stone. I guess that's the comment I trying to make here. Ada County Highway District, I just got their report today and the bottom line of that report -- because they were responding to something Wayne had sent to them when we were ~, •' ~ ~ w:a~'j~.~~" ~"y~.ty i1~r, ~ ~ 5 Y- t. S 4 ~~~ ~ I S Y ~ ,~y'. f I :' t'C}:' I I r:; c x •F 5 3.. N'g1 ` t ~ ~ I . .R~ ' : . ~ I p~ ~ , ~ E ~. :~ ~ ~ ~M ' r zh.. ~ ~ '" F 3 " `cam, t 'w`e3`' ~<'~`~,, ,:3" y ~ `Y{ ~ x; ..:>',`~,." '~ 2 :,~z; '.'~ '` 1 ~ ~ ~ £ ."4i' i n~.Y:e .A.; ^~t :f'~:"~' !..•,w x,'-i!F.yr,~ .Pn`ik~'k'%~ ' t ' yy ~£~ y ' _~{ ~ I (.. Y ~ ~f :y ~~~AS S% f 'N 1 y ~3 ~~ii9. 1 5 'I v',xr i'. .^ H.: ~'~, lift :-j:: ~:::V. ~ Y i' . E ' I ~ t . I L; <k ` J ~ `. PM.wt 'pTj'F:~- rM. c"$~?fe, i.. ~ is .. h iy ash . # : ' , J ` ~ a ~ I ; { ~ ' ,s -aa y ~ s;~;R~~;3 Z~'.~ , 'de'ar ~ u '~ ;' j' ~ i~ `~. ~ R ..~p5'x;f .Ad .~ ~ ~- ~ _ ,. t.'. A ~~~. ! ~'-'~~. r ~ F ~ ~ T .; ~, ~' (SZ"4 ~ 1. Y 3-k a F, ~2 n .+ ,h,,',~~~,,~7 i~ ~ ~ dx'7' : ; f , . } 'i '~ (~- ~ xyy Y {~±l ~~'' ~ 1 ~J . ~ } ;.ti u 4 x 7 ~ ~ ,t7~o K r i ,315 .F:.:. t~;~. y F:F ~ £ z . [ ~,, ~~eN ~) YT t w^, ~YK31^ ~~' t.... .. . .. e~ ~k l } ~' i~ t,. ra; `~11 >f- >~~ , ~~ _:.: '[~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 78 of 82 still working with this on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The bottom line of that report was that this is a rezoning and annexation, not a project, and so they listed all the other things we'd still have to be held accountable for. But, in essence, they were listing that since it's a rezoning and not a project, they have no problems with that -- with what we had talked to them about. So, the bottom line, I guess, again, is that we were talking in a none project mode and another discussion with them will, obviously, reduce those cut cuts down, because they will be interested in that as well. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Thomason: If I could, I will give each of you a color copy of the map you have now. Borup: The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, is if we had anyone else here to testify that was not part of the Alliance? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't think we were taking any public testimony? Rohm: That is a good question and -- Borup: Well -- and if it would be something pertinent for them to consider before the next meeting. I don't know if it would be or not. Rohm: Absolutely. If you would like to come forward, sir. Borup: And what I was interested in is something that would give some input for the next meeting. Romello: Well, my name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capula Way in Meridian. I mean we have had, basically, a discussion here about the future of this property and at 7:00 o'clock when I first walked in you dismissed all the opposition to this property, so no public statements were going to be heard, so I had people from my development Tuscany, there were people here from Sutherland Farms who got up and walked out and at this point all we have sitting here are people who are for this project and we have some -- we still have some concerns about this project and I feel like it's being pushed through here at the end and they are assuming that there was a zoning change and at this point as of the October meeting, there wasn't a zoning change approved, so -- Borup: Yeah. We all understand all that stuff. Did you have anything pertinent that you wanted to share? Romello: Just that, basically -- I guess not. I mean I guess we -- we have had everybody who was going to come out and say something against this has left at this point and you're, basically, having a discussion about this without any of the people -- Borup: That's why I asked you to come up. pJ~~ , , , f Y~ ~ 3 ~~ kL' ~ 1 r "Z ~~ 12 S ~ p~rG• Y f''~' fL 5.- . ~ ; y ~. 6~ ~: .. ~tiy `~' f ',~t ,,~ Si' ~i '~~' ~~i ,.~ ~ ~~' /':, ~~? ~ ~ Fi k t 3 xr ~.. F''t~' ~' ~ ; ±'~u ~ ~ ~ ~ r s ~F ~ Fh j ~', }.. "~iJ~ 4 is ,_, _ ~ C~`~ ~; ~ t n r -M~„ ~f',r' 7 ~i~ i.f 'hyh y~i r ~'. . . ., . xt -..,.::1 .~:: ~'~, %- ~ " Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 ,i Page 79 of 82 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ Romello: Yeah. ,~ _.0. , Borup: And you don't have anything to say, either, you're saying? ,, ~~_ ' Romello: Not specifically -- not without all the people that were supposed to be here, no. Rohm: We are not going to dismiss anything that they have to offer. That's not the '~ ~ ~ ~: ~, intent of this at all. We just knew that we were not going to be in a position to act on this ~- ~. -- on this application tonight and that's why we gave them the option of leaving, so that , : ' they could come back at a date certain that this would be continued to and still have _ ~~~'' " ` every opportunity to testify at that point in time. Nobody is going to be eliminated from the opportunity to testify. ~' `' ` Romello: Okay. Thank you. . ~~~,•~~ Borup: And I was just hoping that you might have had some input on what they would say, but -- ar ~~ ~~ ,. Romello: Well, yeah, I have talked to a lot of the owners in Tuscany and I have talked Fy , to Darrell Hines just recently and we are not -- we are still not satisfied with the plans. .• As you have said previously, this is a very sketchy development. I mean I could go into a lot of details, I know it's late in the evening, so I'm not going to go into a long i ' ' presentation like they did, but there are some concerns we have about this project and ,'~"'~ the impact on the area and the fact that you're basically putting the commercial that's already existing that was referenced earlier today, was all on a variance, and you're still plugging a commercial right into existing brand new neighborhoods. Sutherland Farms ~; , doesn't have an active homeowners association. Tuscany doesn't have an active ` ` homeowners association, because those neighborhoods aren't even finished yet and ~~~ ,.' I the developer hasn't released us to have that responsibility to even have an ~~~ organization -- Borup: Your objection is to the zoning, then? Romello: Yes. Borup: Okay. '~ Romello: Of course. That opposition is to the zoning. Borup: All right. Romello: I don't understand -- we just saw adevelopment -- plans earlier tonight where people were putting subdivisions into 20 acre parcels and somehow it's assumed that v s. f~ a-, ~,.'::., A; ~,:; ~., 4. ~~ ~, , ~.~_ }?` ~> ~, ~~ 3~'~. -. ::, ~:, ~: ~~ ~~;,~;x ~~ ;, ~~t" .. ~~ 3j' h ~' Q, ~' ~a~;l ~' sk, IC,?~c'. ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 80 of 82 this is automatically the best use for this property is to be commercial oriented and we don't necessarily agree that that is an absolute as far as the homeowners in the area. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does someone else have -- Rohm: Yeah. In no way were we trying to circumvent anybody's opportunity to testify. Romello: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just for the record, I want to restate that the intent of the discussion tonight was to flush out the staff concerns and to let the applicant know that more detail would be desired and that it would be more efficient to have that detail be presented before we heard from the opposition, so that they could be commenting on a more fully formed plan. So, indeed, when this does come back, there will a full discussion of those for and those against and those who are neutral. Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Baird. With that being said, I'd entertain a motion to continue this. Zaremba: One question before we do that. Are we, as a group, comfortable directing both staff and the applicant to work with the concept plan as presented, but give legal descriptions for three different zones and try and eliminate at least one access on Eagle? Is that all we are asking for or are we asking for more residential? Rohm: I think from my perspective, just as you stated it is where I'd like to see them go with the zonings for the three different areas and -- and reducing the access to Eagle Road. Borup: I think we are relying on -- on what the consensus was at the neighborhood meeting. Without that neighborhood -- that's all we have to go by. Hood: And Mr. Chair? Borup: Even though we questioned it. Hood: Commissioners, just to save -- and I talked with the applicant on -- all my days this week are running together. They have a surveyor that's either a property in there or they know one. If it's fairly inexpensive I guess it would be to have those zoning designations. It would be just fine to press forward with the zoning as proposed now and, then, after that meeting, the next meeting, prior to City Council we actually get the legal descriptions here that show those different zones, because I would hate for them to do new legals and, then, it changes something else and they need revised new legals -- so, we can work under the assumption that we have got three different zones that represent what's on this revised concept plan and I would be fine with that. f '. ~ .~ . ~ ti~ ~~. ~~ '~,ta,',5n ~ g., c ,~ ~~ ~ ~ t.}i ~ 4~'ti ~- ~~+1 ` fit.; + . ` ~. ~ i, 'k ~,~~ r'F ;-`~ ,~' ~' T~~ fi 4~. t ~ 4)~f"'}~A l ~ y r.' Y~ of 4 }r h~hy~'afa aft-rS4 ,; i 5 I~ ~.. 1 t ... _ vh 1 ~ ~~QQ rd ~ > Z ~ ~ ' ' ~~ ~ }} yy pp ~ ~ ,~ M~!C, LL l V 4+ k~ lrj ~~ ~ ~~ ~' t~„ i ~ ` ~~ ~ . Yr r s _ ~ , ~ ~~ ~~~£~ 1+e , t - E.... 1 r } ~ ~? .?., lr r ~` f ~~.N ~~'L- C ~~3 a. ~ 1 1 t , : y ~ ~ ~^ : ~ 1: ~ ~ `. ` ~~ , -, y R r.: ~~ ~~. ~' ~ . 4.., Ztfi~1. ~. . k '' 4 .' W~ ~!'~ ~ ~, ~~~'~ ~.~I~I .r:[', 3~. ~Y' SR' 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 81 of 82 Borup: Well, I'm very comfortable with that, too. Hood: I mean I will just make a condition in there that prior to City -- you know, ten days, at least, prior to City Council provide revised legal descriptions for the properties as discussed at the meeting. Moe: I guess my point would be as far as any -- our motion to continue, they can comment anyway, for the simple fact, we still have a Public Hearing to hear when we go back in. So, it's a simple matter of just doing a continuance to the 20th and go forward. Rohm: I agree with that. Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah, I don't think we need a legal description either. I mean the road could shift two feet and, then, they have to do it all new. Rohm: I'm open to a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, recommend we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-008, request for annexation and zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation, to the date of April 20th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I would entertain one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjoum. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjoum. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Good night. y; ~: 3'~ i_ Tr. a ~ t '+T' j ~ ~ ~~~~ ~Y} ~" r ~. L „y ., 5 ?t 1.~ ,~' M .. Y-1L~T: it ~ i ,C; n ~s~ ~+ 4 9; ~ ~ T:;~ ~~,a fiS ~~ t , i. `~. . , -y4s ~ - ~-,. t € ' ~ { , r 3' ~ ,. ~~~ ~ 'r h}h~ ~ n+ ~ ~ ~, ' ` '' x ~ ~f~+ 3 ; ~ h ~ t ~ ri V ~ra , ~ S I 4 rY . ~ r.,~i k ~ ~~ ~ lct y*~;Y r ~ T ~ i> '~ h~ ~~ r, ~ ~a a ~ ~ 1 L . ~ .fve ~}~ ~ Y S;.'~r ;V J ~ ! ~~F k' ~~'~ '_'I ~~ 1 :,ti' w ~, :. 3~: ~''; ~~ ,.~::~ ~' ... ~.. , ~u ." ._;~ ', ~. r. R,,~F.~ R~ .~„ y `t ., t.;:.~ '~,*; _ `_3 ~' . ~" ~.t,sd r ,;. ~i.i6i _,~. .~ „~i, a f ~' ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 82 of 82 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:48 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: MICHAEL RO -CHAIRMAN A' ~~ LJ ,~~ ~~®b DATE APPROVED !/~ ~ `/J "_1 i ~® ~~ s r -, 4 WILLIAM G. BERG Jet., IT~,11' ~~~!~ ,, .! ,Yi;H r~ v!S- ~y i SS f A ~w ~ }E 3.,. ~` k -' l 1 ~,~ t rM lG;efhS o 1q` X'. T {~ ~ .c. ~r ~i ~+ TStti*,~.~,' ~.,~~~ lM~ : t t~, ~ ~" eY ?1 f ao 4 } . W 1 y y a~t,,'~'Y, ~Y J ~ fi ~ ~ V .hi.. ' '..-. f, .. ;7 - ~rkyr~~a ~ !_ r » a y ~~~ ~ s . ~.rh .gip. `~ ~, ~"~fi Lr, ~z~ y ~;~'t S _ <S ~.,: z aik " Pt ~ ~ ~a ~_ y 6 ~ -~ , - 1 ?/~ r - a it ~. rsi ~.~. k ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ - .ray ~~`+ r . ( ~ ~^ r , v ~ ~ ~. . ~, ;~ ,~ ~S ~ 1. `'~ ;s ~r:~sdq 2? ~' ~, ;: , ii, _ i~ ~ ~~' ~": ~; `',, ~; _,~ ~, . r; ti, . ~~ ~? `' i 4 ~~w €'`:, F ~'4 II I y;-:~_ F: i `~ z'' ~~ ~~~ i.i I r~ E ~1 • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~A REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY ~J CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~ CITY FIRECITY FIRE DEPT: 1 CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. .~ {~~ ~ ~~ i F f } _ y'u~ r ~ ~~~ ~, ~~~~ €,i ~ ~ ~~~ ^~; ~ ~~ra5 ~ ~,t3"v'~ ,~ ~; 1 ~~ ~~r ~ 4i - r~ ~ ~~y± z : L` a ~~ ~ ~ '~~ ~r zv','ai;~ ~ ` h . J+ ,~+~,, k - `~6'6 ,~x '~; r c~ ~' '~ ~~~~. .F^__ A4. $( G~~ _ t n far' ~ - ~ 4aS~'A~- S y t ..... ~ ~~ ra ?.k~ fi yiy',J~ r ~" ,~,+' ' ztl. ~ j ~ ~ ~~ e. s ~ ~~ G~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ i ~6.a, i~.z'27 r;'? ,1 ~ ~ ~ y7,r } 4~; ~ ~ ~a 6 ~ I G- .. f,- 9 a ~:,~ ~<: "~ -~ 4::.-.'. ~: ~'. ~: s:<: ~.:, .~ ~:a 4~, ~:< . x5. ~:> ~~~', ~ s-' ~, ;:~' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~.. d.i x ~ u u _ .. ~ ,~~ ~ w. s ; ~~Y » + ; ._.:~, i x ,,, y `' ~ 2~ ~~ ~:. '+L ~ . ~Xi<~. ~, yr [~ ,. r ~~~- ,; k. .~y ~~ : '~ ;rz n 'ri ~~ ~, 'S~ ~, - ~' ec ~r t !, ~, ~; { w C~~ ~' x~. .n~ ri ° a ~a,-, '.,~: ~ti ~ ''' T F...~ @,~;;;,~.. ~~ ; ~ COMMENTS M ,~ !~~ ;. ~M ~ti =~~ ?3 c. ,k,ll y'"''.]~.'. ~~}~... :A ..M1 i„5 <.4i1 +.F '-i~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'C REQUEST Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~ CITY ATTORNEY 'Q CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,, ale {,, ~,:4 ;_~; .,~ },`. ~ F. ..' R'.' ~ i F 1'.' i~M 5 ~y'. i • CUP 06-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Brighton Development ITEM NO. 3~~ REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lots line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~_ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: ~ (~ ~(~~~~ See attached Findings Materials presented at public als: of the City of Meridian. ~ , _~~ K ~ h~ a ~ ' .. `r~ ' r ~ ~ ,~ 'z .,~}~ r n'' Y ~ ~_ ~ Q `~ w ~.r ~$ '.. ~ 4 ~{- ~ ~ i}Z ~ ~ "C l~l'"i`- _ h ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ y 3. - ,5 , ... ./~45k j - - ~ ~ ~+ f t 5 .''V Y~~ ~ _ ~ ~.F rf r ~ ~. ~. ~" tf F ~. Y 4y ~ 4 , . i~. , f k , 1,is l r ~ ~M > ~~ aw`~x y ~. r~'~'. h Cif f b k'~'~~ 'r ~. ~~ ~y ~ R ~ ~' .. ~ i i :;: f; ,L ~g r~4F T y, '` d" ~' CITY of MERIDIAN ~~~~~~ ~,~ `., >~.4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~, ~~~:.H~a h,~. d s- LAW AND ~ ~ ~" DECISION & ORDER ~~~ ~~~~ p'~ i " ~'_~'~ 144 In the Matter of Quenzer Commons Subdivision Number 9, an amended conditional use request to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 ~~ ~3 " Block 29, and Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision Number 9 ~. Case No(s). CUP-06-005 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 2, 2006 ~~ A. Findings of Fact `~ 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 ~.F,: incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) ~ 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) ,.,: 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § "' 11-SA. ~, CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~ CASE NO(S). CUP-06-005 -PAGE 1 of 4 ri' "~ a;.,ir, ~u~,' ~.A,' ,; ~ ~,} i t' ' ~, n~~ ';- ,i e" ~4 +"~'} ~~ "'T _ 1 a s'~ 1 Yf~~: r C 1 ~ y. - - }'?i S~"` ,~¢ ~~ "a : z'~ ~ ~ .. 4 Y,. - k '~~ -~~ S ~^+4J ~<~fo- F+L`. v~~ ~ 2.: ~ ~` .. , ~ F f' fi~L`: ~ * S~ I ~: ~, } ~~~ rr $4', ty ~~ f '~l. ~ n. -qa~i'. t x! 'fir,<. .. -:•q,. . .. , ,~. `.., ; :, ~~r i ,• Dk'~F +~'t'rcY I ~. .,x ~`~' L k~ pyy ~ii .` ~E. t+°~} ~i l ~ • `~ 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental r subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. ; 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are irrlposed. ~~~ 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the ent the Public Works D artment and k u on the a licant the Plannin D artm Cler ~ g ~ P Pp any affected party requesting notice. ;:F~ 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of w`` Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the ;j applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. `` ~ C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan is hereby conditionally approved; and, . ' ` 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff ~r;. Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration ;a t, r~ >;.i,: .iii r.f.' f~, ~` ~il II Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-005 -PAGE 2 of 4 ~a e~ ~r `~~ ;~~: ,, -~~~ :t i,~ Y ,'r sr: 'r~1 I, ~{ ~, iT r*y' "''~ ~~} ~ 4Y.; ~ ~ 4 3 ~ 2 ~f ~^~ ;.R ,~yao.l . - .yi}• ~ ~ ~~ i t ic ` . ~ ~~ ,~ , f~~'~~ LIt 4 ~ h ~ L F :? ~ F ~yJJ~ ~ 'Cl~~a .1~~ ~ ,- 7.: g MS'S,-. . ~ ~ ,~ ~'~ , / f }r~ Fp nB• : =n1 ~{` fN4 3' yr -,:2 '~1F -~•'~}gyp,''. y ~ a ~r s.t f. r~~~,i,s.z. .. .r ~- ~~~4• ~~ 0.. ~ ~~- . ~z • '. '~ Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Y3: 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. ~'' ' Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for '' Judicial Review maybe filed. ~° I '` y' 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of ¢:,R f Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. r.'' F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~'~'` ~^ ' day of ,~' , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE :: ~i !' ~r l.. COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED CHA N MICHAEL RO M ,i a Attest: ! CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-005 -PAGE 3 of 4 ~ - Sm act'7Y~,'? . i,' ` ~I t ;~~i' ~wd'~. ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ _: ~ ~ k~ ; ', ~ .r ;~ 'Pr'Nt' LL~ ~~~ li:, f ~? $ ~ ~ Z~" ~1r12~ '~. ~ 4• ~ ~ ~ f ~ . ty,~ ~, :. ~ ~ ~ : r y ~~ y~ a.;:~` ~~~ . ~ a~~' ..~ ~ } T ~Ff Xh.~. ' om ~ ~ Y . ~.r,. ! t~ ~:.t dS S i l _ ° _. a ~i~ _ y~.] Syfl ~' la k~d'~ c~ i x~ s. ,x 1Y~" ,, ;, r ,:t. Y, r F .~~+ ~:_:. ~T ~} ^:Sr r ,..,t ' ~{ ~ ?f t.~ { ~ ti~~'a n. ~::.:, a ~ ~r~'t, , ~:a, ti` {x _ 4. ... -- T .. .. ~,. t S 4 ;:'l t F "~X; (. . w ~? • _.e1t6Z1111111dd//e.. a pp~~ ~q ~ i ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~. •~ n F Tara Green D ut Ci e ler ```~`' - - ,.~ ~ ~ Y tY~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ _~c ~' ~` Copy served upon Applicant; ,I~e~Yd~hnent, Public Works Department and City ~, ~ ~, ,,~ ~--hnr-1 tts1111 j Attorney. ~~ ~; ~~. E ~ , 7 B ~ ~ ~~ 4ti ~ ~~ ~~L~ Dated: j " ~ ; j City Clerk ', ~~ `' ~'1 a `•_` CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • ' s CASE NO(S). CUP-06-005 -PAGE 4 of 4 :, ~+' ~f. Li, 5~,i h~. :ai 1~ ~.~', ~~ Jk. . a''.' ~i ~~~~'i'. 1.~^' .; x rr- ---, - . - .P r . ~ °~> r ~ ' D;; ~-~ ~ ~ .1Y f.. ~ F r'~+1.{r~' t .." .~Z.'.j5 ; h Z y a i. ,~ ~y x ': ti o-a 3,.' ~ r t nr ~ "~' r ~, ~~~1 r ~a . ~. ~° pp i ~- 1 N r . ~^r, r~. ~ ~ ~+~~i' ~ ,`'> h-: K r ~ ~ ~+~ y G: .~ • ;~.~. "~ ' ~i J1. 4.. .i1 bX l,`1' Sew K}'r~?4 _ ti 4 S ~f. ~ ~. 'I~f: y Y Y , ,~ 'LTt ix M: E ` ~~ ~~' ~~ v,',i ? y .~', t_r ~~ ~ _ 1.Y t .+~ri ~: r . ` n!` t ~ fie ~ ..1 5 T. ;: - ~ t ~.;: ~ h ~~ ~ _ _ Y 1 ~ ~ ~'h ., ~ y ~~~ ~ ~ , ~c ~~ s~. ~r' ~ - .. - FR ' - J, d. _".. `;< ;.t:~ I i ~. ~~,,,~ ~ a ,. ~~r ; ~, 1 ~. ~.~~ I ;,. ,I ,;~~ f' I F'-i :;S. a '' -i Y{ F 'L 1 y't ~. ~ y, .~F §M{eA~ ~ is ~ _. ~ 'xy'~'~ I "T' . X3yYt ( , - ~y SYi ;':e! .1 3 k , ~. _ u~ .. ~k~hr5 ~~~ Y.. -'!', ~~ ( s'' S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN114Ci DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 3/2/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Quenzer Commons #9 s ,.. , „ ~ ~ ~, +4 ''~ Y ~"' ~~ ~r/~*~' rar~ /~y~x+~y~,~/~~~' ~ ~ ~~rsr/~~~ ~i ~~f,/+. / f~ '~ ,~ ,~ q~ ~, ,o.~t~~~ ~' ,, 4 ~~; 4f `x~ r V y _ ,, • CUP-06-005 Conditional Use Permit to amend the original planned development for the Quenzer Commons #9 subdivision to allow zero lot line setbacks in an R-8 District. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Brighton Corp, is requesting a conditional approval to amend CUP-02-007 which was approved for this subdivision to allow for reductions to the minimum requirements for the following: setbacks (front, from 20' to 10' for alley lots & 15' for living area; rear, from 15' to 15' and 5' if side entry garage; side, from 5' per story to 5' with no additional setback per story; and street side, from 20' to 10' for alley lots & 15' for standard lots), landscape buffer (from 20' to 15' between office & single- family residential), lot size (from 6,500 s.f. to 3,520 s.f. for alley-loaded units & 5,500 s.f. for standard lots), lot frontage (from 65' to 32' for alley-loaded lots & 50' for standard lots), and house size (from 1,301 s.f. to 1,101 s.f. for up to 10% of the lots). One block length was also allowed to exceed the maximum length of 1,000 feet. The applicant is requesting that Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, and Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision Number 9 (FP-OS-026) be amended to allow zero lot line setbacks. 2.5UNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject use request with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. Note: the UDC allows zero lot line setbacks for single family attached products where the lot size is a minimum of 4000 square feet. The smallest lots are in Blocks 29 and 30 are 102x38 or 3872 square foot lots. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval I move to approve File Number CUP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move to deny File Number CUP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re-do the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Number CUP-06-005 to (date certain). (You should state the reason for the continuance.) Quenzer Commons #9 CUP-06-005 PAGE 1 .~~ ~ Y: p~ i. t i k %~ ~ M : K/r~t 'ti~J: A^ G~ ~ 5~` ~' k!h r ~ ' 7~' 'i~ t r H ~aY d .'. . ~'~ ~~ ~~ SS~~ ~"~CP:TS'R.. ~. ~ x ~ ;~ ~ ~I~ ~y i. }" ~Y ~, ~~ U ]V Y v ,:: ~ , LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. ~ ~ 3 `~- ~3'~"~'a ~ ~~ "~~" ~' ~" . ~ tai i=. i ~ y. e ~ r , 1~ ~ ' ~' t l #4 x . ~ . "~ ~ ; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 ' I ~; :; ~' ; Fw KA Fri ;~ r i 3, ~'; N~ .~;, ;; j!~,, ~, iy~~', ~~~,I ~, yF~.,, ~ Y '~ r I, .~ i ~~'L~ ~' ~ 1 n',', ?,; t St c~i ~Ii ~~'i ~ .,+. 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: SW SE Quarter of 4n 1 e 31 b. Owner/Applicant: Brighton Corp 12601 W. Explorer Boise ID83713 c. Representative: Jay Walker, Brighton Corp d. Present Zoning: R-8 e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential f. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit Al) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): The applicant has submitted the CUP request to accommodate a new design of garage attachment. The residences will remain detached as shown in the site plan. The proposal is consistent with the underlying district and will provide an alternate design for Quenzer Commons #9 alley loaded single family products. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by UDC 11-X- 1. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning Commission for all Conditional Use hearings. Newspaper notifications published on: February 13, 2006 and February 27, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 3, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 16, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Residential b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Existing residential development, Quenzer Commons. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Already serviced through Quenzer #9. Location of water: AlYeady serviced through Quenzer #9. Issues or concerns: Vacation must be completed. f. Conditional Use Information 1. Side lot lines as depicted on the site plan shall be allowed to be zero lot lines. Quenzer Commons #9 CUP-06-005 PAGE 2 ;~, x ~ ~~. °~ ~~ t c. ~,- ~~ ti.~ { ,~ K.:N SkT'r 4GC _ r`11 b ~ T ~ N~ . ~y ~~,,}} .w, i~~ ~~ G ~ x ~~ 1 ,, 1,.Y~ '.. i r~ y,_= r v ca r . h ~~ t ,~1y ~+ _ ~y~~ ,~kk ~'7~ ~' ~ _ ~v .. ~ yy ixC '".:~ y1 y~ , ~• L~ ~'~ _ J' T 4~ R Y'x , ~ N ' 1 ~ ~ ~r ~ ~~, ~' ~r ~ ~y Y+~r~'~~ _ a• . x ~ ~ ~4 ~~t _ ~ r~, x s ~~ , nvr- ~': ~ ' ~7;/ fifes .~+ aK•r{'~ tt ' .~` ~.. _4 t ~r F. zr ,.:?~ ~' ~ ; a ~~ - N~#YQr;,,y r ~ ,, ~ ~ a ~ 1~+ r,f r .: irk ?~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN11eG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 ' 7. COMMENTS MEETING ~ ` ' 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and On February 10 , departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian ~' ' ~ Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all new comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. ''`'~ 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ~- ; The subject site is designated `Medium Density Residential' on the North Meridian Comprehensive Plan ~' Future Land Use Map which is under progress for adoption. Currently the site is designated a Low Density Residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant has requested a step up in `~ ' ~ density. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, medium density is defined as areas including single- family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. "'~ Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range ;` of affordable housing opportunities (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10) 9. ZONING ORDINANCE f Purpose Statement of Zone: ' MEDI[TM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8) the purpose of the residential districts is to ~t.-',i provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. =,~ .. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and ' corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D. 10. ANALYSIS -'. F a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation "`~~' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning 4 : ~ Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed public use and allowing the proposed buildings will promote the best interests of the City of Meridian. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. ;" Alley Streets: The current Alley to Alley configuration is in the process of being amended as shown on the site plan to accommodate the 36' inside turning radius for fire protection and waste services. Side yard setbacks: The proposal is generally consistent for alley loaded products in and R-8 ~_' ' district. Several of these lots are slightly smaller than the UDC required 4000 square feet but were approved under a planned development of the MCC. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-005 for the Quenzer Commons #9 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to ~i~ this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. ~s''y 11. EI~~ITS ': z, ~; ': E I' '~ ati, {`G I ~,' ;~' ~c' I 1,~ -'4:. ;y ~~ ~yi 1 3 Quenzer Commons #9 CUP-06-005 PAGE 3 ~,:E _,~ ~ ~ ~ . ~-~ .. a:i ~~ - . T~. ~~' ~ f;' :i j~. ~. "~'~ - ~' ` ", t ~' k~ ~~ .. b ~ ~r t t .-'J 1~ F r, 4 F ~ ~ i .~h ~ r - Y 5 ~ r q ~'- n k ~ 1a~~, r, ,~ 4 >~; ~w4' .ii 't, ~x ^i Yf ~,.v F -;'~ ~; y Ti c ~~~ ^ r ~ ,~~ ti~: sr )z: ~~~, i ,}; 4 ~; t ~ y: `~ t h..f ~ & ~.'l' P'G ' i .,A «~ ~ ~ ~ .. - _~`. R ~ .. ~' ,C ~;~.:~ ~I .~ ~-i:,~, i -'',,II~ ,lid ~;. ..; i ~I ~ ~`~~j 3 ',;' °~'1,` } , ~, ~~r<-Y ~a, ,,.~ S 3 li~ i ~' ,, :~ ~,r ~ i1 ~ "'~'',', I j ..r ~, e l x51 ~ .,, h' CITY OF MERIDIAN PL DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Fire Department C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Quenzer Commons #9 CUP-06-005 PAGE 4 C,~ z ^~+ `T ~ h4 t 1~ ~x , z ~. .~.~,~ ~ t ..~ ;~~ " a ~.` ~' ~~, y i +1~ t~,Dr .r 'Sx, '~^ ~ -tib~'~K - ~ r ro M .. ~` nM"4 i7'7 a~i~` ` ~ fT }L ~ :; ~ }'. ~ ~ { _~ `d§ ~7 } _ yk ~ :~ ~ t .~ . ~ ~ r ~1S ~ E~ - ~ J ~~ ~'~~~ i~ -.'~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ - ui:' ~~ mf _. ~ ' p~K ~' 9. ~ ~ I ,Y 1. -y `;T C;{ ~ h~Y"~ L Y~;.... ,~ 4~ .`~~ l . ~',7(yyiy r ~.-_ .y d., Ld _ .. ,: ~:;~~~ r. ~.,.,,;~ .~ ~: ~~r r, l~~' S. q.' i i ,. ~~ ~ t. ~., ~~~;I~~ a- 'ti t ~~ k, . y' ~4, ~ 3 'I r. ~I } ~~~~~~, 4 ~' ?qi'i ' ~i T N N ~ m Gp ,~y~r,riQ \ ~ ~ ~ ,\ C W~~W U ~~~~ \\ E 9 9 °J ~.~-°s: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan A-1 {~ ~ i a. ~ ~,i _ 4 ~ ~ ~ S . i }r4"~C ~ ,_ ,i #~ ~ a _ 1 "~" Y T '~ { ~ W ~ `~3 r1r ~ ~?d%~< . ~~ ~ ~ lue! ~y ~~ :, ~, ~ may 3'~ _ ,,. , , 5ar r, ` ~, Y ~, :; r { ~, „ ~. w~ y~ 7_ y ~¢ [ ~^a Hj 4y~, Y~ fi ` S`c 4 =:.'4 ~, h r . 4 t} ~ 4'+q 1 `,~ r ' !~ eu .- ~" ~ t'' ; ~ ': r.e . ..>. ! ~ ~" '~~'' ~ _ Y`'kt ~ u ~~ ~~ k~ ..E~ ~.+ t 4 ~~E ~ :~~: ~' i ~' ~3 1. ~r' ~" 7 . $t~i, r ~ ~ ~ ,y Y ~ {~^ •_ +1 + ~h 7 d i ~~ ~ +v~7 ~ . v ,r.. ',~"1 ~, ~; ~i ~` r~;~, ~~. v:,. ~, , ~,m ~,~ ~.. ~.,. r~ f~,~ , x~" . ~~ ,~ ~: ~., CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIQG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEG DATE OF March 2, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT l .l Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved Preliminary Plats (PP-02-007 & PP-OS-005), Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP-02-007), and Development Agreement (Inst. No.102078396). 1.2 Comply with the conditions and comments of all City Departments, and other agencies. 1.3 If construction has not begun within 18 months of City Council approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to the start of development. 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT 2.1 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 3. PUBLIC WORKS 3.1 The applicant shall vacate all easements on the interior lot lines that are planned to be spanned by the attached garages. 3.2 Public Works has no additional concerns with this application. B-1 ~ s r ttv k y.~ ~ C w * ~ .~.~, }d..~ ,. 5 ~ ~ l' 1!R j.~'r' ~x ~' ti r. NiV{'.... ~ ~ - ~~ h " `'C'n , '~' ~ .~ L sn.! i~, I,d.g' C J ~ ~'~ ~• ' ~ ~ k , ~, : ~'' '+~r~w,~ar.. v„ `f M1-~; N r~F"r Fi r ~ r , `. ~f ~:' r~~'.' J A ~~ii ~, ~~ .cC~{a z:: X13'',' ~oS i•' V .:w1 N{~ yvr v ~ k f; _ `{ji9 ~W , tk (} ~ ~.+ Z~ qJ ~ .?nth` ~'r~~ ;:: ~` '9, ~~; ~ .is ~- t ~ ~dffi ,~ ~~. ~ ~ a a ~~~~ 4 ~~ y~~-~ y n ~ -•. ~r - _ ffJ~i 4~ i~ ~ r^ ~ S . i 3 ti~~~ii V'5_ . _~ _ . . ,.~7L .ik Y.;, ', CITY OF MERIDIAN PL DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HG DATE OF March 2, 2006 I ' C. Legal Description 423 TtT. Aasestar Place, Barite I8D Boise, Idsfio 637Q.t (263) 3T6-Std ~ I~'aa ( 376-5556 - Ptogext Na. OS-017-00 IDate: April 5.2005 QUENZER ~OM1~I01'~S ~idBl?IlVISIO~N 11T®. 9 F7N~ FLt1'F A)~,SCRIP'1~01~ A parcel of land located in the N !f2 of flee SE 114, and the SW U4 of the NE 1/4 of `5 ;~ ' Section 31, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. [Wore paaticularly described as fellows: x `'' Commencing ore the section corner con-mon to Sections 31 and 32 of said T. 4 N., R. 1 E., and Sections 5 and 6 of T. 3 N., R.1 E., B.M.; ,. Thence Noelit 00°31'35" East, 2659.04 feet on the section line common to said Sections 31 and 32 to the U4 section comer cowman to said Sections 31 and 32; ' ` " Thence North 89°46'20" West, 354.43 feet on the worst-west mid-section line off said `~ Section 31 to the northwest confer of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 8, as same is shown on ~ `~ ~"z the Plat thereof reearded in Book of Plats at Page of Ada County Records. said point f _'`:'- being the REAL FOIQVT OF BEGINNING; ~` ~: ' Thence leaving said mid-section line, South 00°30' 18" West, 308.40 feet on the westerly _ boundary Hne of said Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 8 to the northeast comer of Quenzer ~. ; , , Commons Subdivision No. 1, as same is shown on the Piet thereof recorded in Book 85 of Plats j . ' at Page 9511 of Ada County Records; `~ ~ Thence on the noriherl lme of said ~ ~e°Zer Commons Subdivision No. 1 for ~ the following courses and distanc ~es~ ``~ Thence North 89°46'20" West, 160.00 feet; Thence South 00°30'18" West, 12.54 feet; Thence North 89°46'20" West, 500.65 feet; ~~ Thence South 78°11'11" West, 50.04 fcet; Thence South 82°04'53" West, 111.18 feet, ' Thence South 08°56'23" East, 94.00 feet; ~,: Thence South 04°1548" East, 70.66 feet; :~;, - Qvenw Cnm,"~,.,< No. 9 Firm Plat iksadoe Page t at2 ~ .._ ;, ~~ j?:.i~? d , ~,i C-1 a>~ :1~~ ,, e.. `:.,; ~~., ,,~ '~ i ~. I r;~l'. .1~, _1 ~i, ti" z' J` ~ 1 fit. ss I' ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIQG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 Thence North 90°00`00" West, 269.90 feet; 'Thence North OS°59'14" West, 55.00 feet; Thence North 09°27'34" West. 123.01 feet; Thence North 13°27'17" West, 75.75 feet; Themes North 68°38'14" East, 9.45 feet; Thence North 21°2146" West, 29Il.07 feet, a portion of said line bung on the easterly boundary lime of said Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 1 and the remainder of said lime being on the easterly boundary line of Quenzer Con~ttans Subdivision No. 7, as same is shown on the Plat thereof recorded in Book 91 of Plats at Page L0713 of Ada County Records to the northeast corner of said Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 7, said point also being a point on the southerly boundary lime of Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3, as same is shown on the Plat thereof rewrded in Book 89 of Plats at Page 10305 of Ada County Records; Thence South 89°15'53" East, Z~J.22 feet on said southerly boundary line to the southeast comer of said Cobre Basin Subdivision No. 3; Thence leaving said Cobh; Dasin Subdivision No. 3, South 00°35'27" West, L0.00 feeE (fon~rly described as South ~°36'04" West) to thecenter-ease 1116 th section comer of said Section 31; Thence South 89°46'20" East, 963.33 feet on the ~-wc~t mid-section line of said Section 31 to the real point of beginning. Said parcel contains 9.71 acres more of less. PREPARED BY: Engineering NorWWest, iLLC James R Washburn, PLS Clneazer C°mmnns Nn. 9 Anal Flat [kse.doe ram a °ts C-2 a h~1'a- ~.yn ;~.;m, x r a<' ' ~~' ;, ~~ ~ ~ ~,4 ~"3 +.i to s, ~,,~-~. ry p` ,~~~, .. i ~~~ ~' ~~~.:, r,~,a t~ ~ `;;k `~ ~.-i _ +3{nij ~~' d k L~a .<~g _ ka.: .,i _ 'fr'-~:~~'` ~~'~ ` ~' 3;"b ~. °"~~~~,~ j t ~~ ST;*~6f r t .-;'. F ~ ~ :: f ~ ~ 4 Y ~ E ... ~:. .., ~~s~ ~ ~_ ` w ~„ 5 n ~"C - ,fix; -.., ~ ~,- ~ ~ ~,°w{"~~ , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: ~i 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Vehicles should not interfere with internal traffic flows or traffic flows on the adjacent properties. All proposed building setbacks and landscaping meet the minimum standards outlined in the 'F J UDC 11-2B, and with associated platting conditions of approval. The Commission fords that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission fords that the designated Comprehensive Designation is Medium Density Residential. The property is existing residential zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive ~, , Plan ~3 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the '. general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of x' ~ the same area. .~ The Commission is generally supportive of the site plan design. The Commission believes the applicant has designed to accommodate the mixes of uses as well as shown compatibility with ~`"~ future residential uses. The Commission fords that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other ~ uses in the eneral nei borhood g and with the existin and intended character of the area. ~ g 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed setback lines use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. } `° 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. ~;;,, ~~ r `~ {~. + ~~' nl~.l ~ xl x .4' a 4', ~c~~" i, r a; f, ~~tj~ i l~ ~t'.I 2 i ~:', f' ~ D-1 a ~q ~ ~~~ 4 ~ ~t ~ Yl, Y.~' y,l .' ~R ~~ '~ ~ j 7. ,%~ c n ~-. ~.~ a~'1, ~ w i, rYn ~~ ~ t ~' r a ~;. 4 S U. "~ ~' ~ ~ '!a ~~' ~~ 4~ } `r.{' ~ Y ~ -may ~ ~ ~`k ~~~ x K~ .: ~~ ~' ~ ~"~Ixp.F;. ~• ~'i y 'tf%:~ ~,s~ ~ ~ x` ~, ~ ~:' ~_ _ t y '` ~' '; ; .. 3 ;ua ~y ~~~ ~`' SB~t ~ ,~=~ ~i ~.~ ~aG ~- 1 f Y~, ~ ~s ~ .r•+F $e ~31t t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: N ~ }~~ r' , j ~Yf ,~ ~; ` . ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF March 2, 2006 ,~ The Ada County Highway District Board of Commissioners previously acted on the CUP/PP mmission and ~:,;a applications and has allowed the alley loaded products for the rr~~ect. Tke Co Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. ~,~.: I '~ ~ 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The - Commission fords there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the ''`'~ proposed zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will not increase with the approval of use in f.,t,;; this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, . ~ I scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. ~'`'~~ The Commission fords that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems associated with this proposal that should be brought to the Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. No hazardous features were identified on this site. e AZ 05-067 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 MediumHigh Density residential zone for Casa Meridians - 1777 Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached StafF Comments /Memo CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ r. ,'{ F! ',, M1R'? _~ 7 '-a . ~, . .~,~, ~~ ~~ :~, ~::; ~~ ;.::; ~~ If^ "` ~' _'~; _,w--:: j,~f5~{` .,{;y ~; ~^~ ~.. .~<;~ ~"` ~ " :i~i ~"~ _ _ ~;u =.~7; i..Nji ~~. '~ r' ~, :~~ _.?,~ -,~ ~,,,N `~ rT; ,?~ .~_ ~.` i'~fat s't~`~c 0 o CUP 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 -Conditional Use Permit for a 32 unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 zone for Casa Meridians - 1777 Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes in AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Comments in AZ Packet /Memo CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached REVISED Site Plan Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a=~; a, A~YfA f.+ ~ r~ ;~i~ ;, ; a'' - ~;=~.~, ;~ ~i;~k ,~JI1 IY.J PP 06-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Landmark Development ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006 -Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zonefor Gateway Marketplace Subdivision -southeast comer of Ustick Road and Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes See attached Staff Comments OTHER: See Revised Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat®rlals pr®sented at pubtlc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. .,ERA r _~ ! ,, - -; b d ~.~1,~~~ t j ~.. ~ a~'~i.. N Y r. ~ :vi~~et~ =. ~ ~~ ~ ,+ ~s ~~ .t.hi „~ •• +~.1~ ;. ,r ~'g 4i ~~ ~ ~ . 6~. , ~ ~ - + r S #f.'~.. . ' ; fi g S ~, d. ~ N "V f 1. Sff + . ~~`~ ... ~1 ~ti ' . ~ -`'S ~j ~ ar~'t0 Y S ., y .~ e! ~?m ~ Y~f`1w. t f r' F~ i'~ 3 4 ~" . ~: ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~+~ '~ ~ ~~ ~~~ +K fS7 ~t ~ ,;:; ~ ~i ° 4:': n 4 ,yY r ~ ~ ?C. ~ q f, ~ - ~ ~a , s T n ~ ~. ,~ ~ Q_ i:~ J ~ o e ~ Q CUP 06-002 .,;rna MERIDIAN PLANNING 8r. ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 _ APPLICANT Franklin/Strotford Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 7 ~~ °; b.; REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006 -Conditional Use Permit for ^ ~ an Equipment Rental, Sales 8~ Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt kF~'"~~` Equipment Rental -483 East Franklin Road Y AGENCY COMMENTS :: ~ CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes ~ .? CITY ENGINEER: ~~ , CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report _ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ';,~? '~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ` ~^r CITY SEWER DEFT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: _` ~.~,+ ,;; ,~,~ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: w ,~ _ `~`~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~~~ *~~'~ IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: - OTHER: _ ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: s =' ~; Emailed: Staff Initials: ~~~ x t Materials present®d at public meetings shall become property of the Clay of Meridian. :-~ %'.. : ~,~+1 ;~ti +ie t t: M~ - _ ,r ,, ~:. .,. ~~~? - ~. .. :t e o AZ 06-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Big River, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Cardigan Boy Subdivision - 5450 and 550 Larkspur Way AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Memo from Staff CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properfy of the City of Meridian. ~~r ~;, W ~ i~ I P:r' I ' . ~, i r ~t; S ~, , ~,~ 1 ~i P : :~ ~1' 7 ~,~ :~~ ti =~~~ ,~t~ ~f' ~' .e ~. s ~~ Y~~'. ~~~,I a ~~ ~', '7~' C 'i ~I rkgy~,i i ,.{ v~I~ PP 06-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Big River, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 Zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision -5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way 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: COMMENTS See attached Memo from Staff in AZ Packet No Comment CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cffy of Meridian. a`` '~f7£t~' x fir. x t - . r ~ rri ~4. .~,V.~._ r. . ~.z ~~.+n+A h4 •, 1~ i + ~ C ~ , #~ ~=~ '~r ~~ ,.,. ~"~ Fc' a ~~ a ~~ ~ ~ 1 +~ k ~ K 5~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 l ~ ~~ 5 , JM~ ~ .r,t d a ~ ~;:~ ~ ? LL ~T . . r .~-; ,, i~~T L '~ 13 Nip ~ ~ ~ w ~y1 ~p+~ ~ :` 4 „.`AH ~ ~.~ Gt G {$~! ~ ~ ti r~ 45 ,, ~rr ~yi i c .~ { ` ~ ~,.,, n- t ' ~`'' 'r J ~ ',: ~ t S b - '~ ~~rx29~¢ .,q- - _ 4~..,a.. ~;3 Y_ ,` ~: F wk a '~i rt' ,.:: Y r' +°r ;9 ~_~., ~VY,..~1r /.F,+ }ff ~: ~~ i" r ~:-> ~.,. ,:; ;f. "<:4 ~sL.'. ~7F1o t~".ri' v .:.'1~'.;~J;; ~.~: ,. ~. ~~ . ,~ . `' !y :; ,'. ~:.: :Y ~~~,.. 0 e AZ O6-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development ITEM NO. ~ REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision - 5603 Norfh Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: IVO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: ' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments . NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clay of Meridian. }~ ~~`;i ~/ i ~~,fc f -$: _:.. Y. %. ~: ~~; :; ~~~'~+ ~> s~ ~~ ~~ ~.<~_. ~~h ~g w 6~ ~;~-, _~; T"'~~ ~ i 5~~ °_' '~~3 ' ..ti, w ::_~, ,.~.. t._.,4' 5. F'y .:r y~,i ;r ~<~ ~ , ;t '` ?r;~ ~`' y :.# PP 06-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development ITEM NO. REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 88 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone far Basin Creek Subdivision - 5603 North Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Merldlan. ~,»; n~s:,_ z '::; 5 .: !. ^6 M ' AZ U6-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONIN~EETING March i 6, 2006 ~ APPLICANT Kingsbridge Properties, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision - 4240 East Bott Lane ,: ~;. ~~ =x ~?~~: r.- °; ~~ rf..' ~: ;'..P . ,ti A:~{ ...,;;5 „ "53 y'•~ ~:ii ~: ~~~- 4 ~: r,,~F;z .: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Memo frrom Staff CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ,~;~ . . _ i PP 06-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Kingsbridge Properties, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 18single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision - 4240 East Bott Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Memo from Staff in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See COmmentS in AZ Packet I SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. }:.~' - ~~ a t~ ,. o ~ e t;ti - .1 r 4 ,~ 22 J AZ 06-009 s . ~* ; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 ", , APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~'4 ~'~~ REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek :_:~ `'' Subdivision - 470 West McMillan Road ,, AGENCY COMMENTS - `~~~ CITY CLERK: _~~~' :,~ ~~'~-' CITY ENGINEER: ~ «; ~~^~.. ; - CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 4 CITY ATTORNEY -`,,',~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~y> CITY FIRE DEPT: u:~ =~,~ ~~ ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: -: ,. ~; ='=:~ :; CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: x:' :~~= MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ,` `~.~~ SANITARY SERVICES: s,fi~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments ,'' -~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ,~_ ..~, SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: %~~~ IDAHO POWER: '~` : s INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: .; p,: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: ~~ 7 1 ~. rt~~ Emailed: Staff Initials: ;r` ~, AAatertals presented at pubBc meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. -~'~,~ -~;,, ;:: ;~'~; .: , ~; ,~~`: ~~ti +i H:. ~;,i 1. ~~, ,;t '~;~;' ;;r~. e ~.r'. 1 ^• ~. ~=~~s ~~' :,~ ~. ;:,.,: ~. ,k. , 7, , i : . ~y ., a. ,,~ ;~ ~;w :- ~ .r.: . ~, y .~, ". ~; :3 . ,~.•i '. : t ~ ., I~ ~~Y~~Y i ;;a.: `, ,:, ,;, k~3 .~ ~ `i.3!py __, ~~ `: ,'~~r. ':7 '- 4,"r , ~ . =a'~ ~~ 0 0 PP 06-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Jl' REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 85 single, family residential building lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision - 470 West McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. e o AZ 06-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision -south side of Pine Avenue east of Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Memo from Staff CITY ATTORNEY I~ I CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: IVo Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Joseph Risi Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pres®nted at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. I' s~~~r-. 7 ~~ _f i .y ~~ ~_: i ,, ~;. ~ ;~-', 7 ,~.t~~ ~'` ~~ • v PP 06-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 7 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Rd. AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Memo from Staff in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Comments in AZ Packet 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: OTHER: See letter from Joseph Risi Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. ~~ ~~t~ ~~ i t '''.:`~; ~; ~ *~y 4 ~'; kF~~ t ~+~p S~F ~ ~ yu. A-Pr~n/lt 3 y ~`K l~~ t Y.~ Ft }1 ~}T4~ . _ M ~ _~ J 1 ~. f~ p 5 9 r^?1.1 H , ~( •'. .~ wL,k' w~ ~ ~~ a b;~ 4 ~ a r ` # . y~„ s ~.r ~ } m ~' ~, r '~y~`.. -,.W { ~ ~~ [[ i ~d ~+ ILLr~I ~ '3~~r,~> ~: ~~ ~ .~ y,: ~~ ar ~-' 1 i , ti "4pp1i ~' ~ ~ t1`1 .l, f ~.: ~: ,~ '; (~ s s ~~ h z ~; yt '44 tt j~.~'..i: ng r A ~~1A' ;;., 6: `? ~', tra:~; '~"- 'r;1 .:~'. t-~ ,:; ~~ ~ "rte' ,~,~;. ~~•~` CUP 06-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. ~ S REQUEST Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivsion AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Memo from Staff iln AZ Pocket CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT; CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Comments in AZ Packet SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Comments iin AZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Joseph Risi Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ctiy of Meridian. ~: ah. ~~~.:a z„ ~.; -i_~=.M1 ~,.' `6 ~~! ti~ r ,~ ~,,::, ~;;: ; ~:_ u; ,, . 1, '~ K,C rY ti ~:~, ~,' ~ C >.~~$ ;~ y t i ,~ n~' i I+~ 4(f;~, a i 1 i. ~ ` ~ -f Y.~f ,'~ I Vii. ~i~l~ I .,~ M1IC~ ii 1i AZ 06-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance ITEM NO. ~ 9 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 23.29 acres from RUT to C-C zone for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south Sides of Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See altaChed Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting and letter from Sutherland Farm HOA Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat®dals presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Cify of Meridian. ~ ~~~r t ~,. ~4 ~ t ~ ~ ~. rk~~ ~, i~, tyo r a ~+,~: ~ " ~ r Y~ ''. 3 ~ ,~;.4'; r~ ~r~~ 4 ~;.'~ „ Y _ ~ ~. ~ ~ d x~ .. ~ ~1, .- ' ~~ ,~{ . 5~~.~~K?~, - _ t _ ~x ~ pla: ire , ~~ Yi ~`f ~ i' LL ~~y' l ~ . ~ ~ ~, w, ~.n~,y4 ~,.r ~~' ~t~~~i, z~~r ~ x h~`~': r ` ~ ~~ ~~ - ~ tvf. ~. ~ ~' J Std. ;1'~ ~ C~ l Y~~,'. ~ ZA ~~ ~ ~ `1; 'ham ,lWy~~ ~ W~~.. ~!' V '1