The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 06-01r;1 LJ CITY OF MERIDIAN E MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "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 the best of the ability of the presenter. " 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm _--Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: Approve as Amended 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by th"da County Highway District — 1120 S. Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — June 1, 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. 0 (f.k.a. — Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road:' Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from April20, 2006: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Approve 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — June 1, 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. 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-022 Request 4or Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 3 common lots on 9.9;8 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: Recommend Approval to City Council 15. Public Hearing: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White -Leasure Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 15, 2006 16. Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance / Brought Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — June 1, 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. 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Comnlission are expected to be truthful and honest to the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: W Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup x_ David Moe - Vice Chairman C David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: A e1 B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: APprOvc OLS A Mendecl 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: Lcro-nfnj v04 #o G+q CoLmCL1 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivisionjby Farwest, LLC !s l piro � southeast comer aof MeridianRoadand Victory Road: COVYtMC a � e�� 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: QLC(3Mh1Ma Afpyov& l `t'b Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — June 1, 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. 0 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: aCC)mrrnCyjj 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: e„ Ccmnu�(w peu\40 4-0 9. Continued Public Heari g from April 20, 2006: 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 yenugrid east of Ten Mile Road: WbMMCrLCj 10. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: kkCOMM Md A-F„yoV-a_l +o P► I►� 11. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: PACOMMIOnd AVFYOVVJ +pd&g CYLLnUJ 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Appyovt,," 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: QLOOMVY" 14. Pu lic Hearing: PP -022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 3 common lots on 9.98 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4952 & 4202 W. Daphine Street:'V.WMMcrej Ae6unCi 1.Wro� `iv 15. Public Hearing: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White -Leasure .Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: M1.'i nuc PLx6L( C. *LV IVIS ib 0-0,_00 ,_00 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 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. r Y :rr w 16. Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance / Brought F w Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission Meeting: 34 � Nl s 5 r A3 3 U� sX E; y d 3 4tij d& a 3MP fi. d Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 2006 Page 3 of 3 t All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. N Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings a please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. t 4. tF t 4 z r a�. :rr ts, F w fi � S 3 U� F y i 4tij d& a x . n Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. N 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. 4. fie# t Xf. � t z�'%'- A, d } Z$ 4}i}'r ti f.*q4 qy Y v At 3 syy Tr ; t 2 Y Ti z r w4 .?_C�l &4)0 _�+ A V- "PIA ajULs CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA °! Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. 50", t r� r.. a 'Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, .?_C�l &4)0 _�+ A V- "PIA ajULs CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA °! Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho r.. '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 the best of the ability of the b ?N presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: r' Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba ,.. Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3 3. Consent Agenda: aux A. Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: r a B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: ' 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 mr� acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County •. Highway District —1120 S. Locust Grove Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for >" Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC { rs — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: All 9 x3 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. — Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast } comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 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. r ,+ °! v r' a v 3 r a 0 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: 9. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: 10. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: 11. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 3 common lots on 9.98 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: 15. Public Hearing: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White -Leasure Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 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. 7 �. Ug2} Ajx1' e �+ Wit ' kik i'r* NtY f � Yid � i �+ t �i 5 � If R +{ s r. r- r Y xt {a tr" ""U'_d^q 4. k� q'r . Y5 'F Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance / Brought Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 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. Ug2} �i i f Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance / Brought Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 1, 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. I{ f � r. r- r Y tr" ""U'_d^q y4 ,.9 f � r. r- r Z sou TX COIATION REPORT ** AS OF MAY 30 '06 16* PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 'Plf'aSz ' P0S+Arr TjAbGc NO-h-�11aau�s 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 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 the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chalrman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06.023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: S. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06.015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. — Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Meridian PW Vn ng and Za" Commlasion MSOUN Agenda _.hate 1, 2006 Page 1 03 A" materials Presented at puWc meetings shall become pmp" of Ote City of Meridian, Anyone deW'r g accommodation for disabilities related to d= ments and/or hearings Please contact the City Cledc's Office at 8884493 at least 48 hour; prior to the public meetlM. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDit STATUS 01 05/30 1533 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 02 05/30 1535 WATER DEPT EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 03 05/30 1536 2088840744 EC --S 01'00" 003 083 OK 04 05/30 1537 POLICE DEPT EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 05 05/30 1539 8985501 EC --S 00'58" 003 083 OK 06 05/30 1540 LIBRARY EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 07 05/30 15:42 IDAHO STATESMAN EC --S 00'57" 003 083 OK 08 05/30 15:44 3886924 EC --S 00'58" 003 083 OK 09 05/30 15:45 P—AND—Z EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 10 05/30 15:47 FIRE DEPT EC --S 00'58" 003 083 OK 11 05/30 15:48 208 868 2682 EC --S 01'06" 003 083 OK 12 05/30 15:50 208 3B7 6393 EC --S 00'58" 003 083 OK 13 05/30 15:51 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 14 05/30 15:53 20888BW52 EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 15 05/30 15:55 LAKEUIEW GOLFCOU 133--S 01'52" 003 083 OK 16 05/30 15:57 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 17 05/30 15:59 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 00'58" 003 083 OK 18 05/30 16:05 2088886701 EC --S 00'59" 003 083 OK 19 05/30 16:10 3810160 EC --S 01'31" 003 083 OK 'Plf'aSz ' P0S+Arr TjAbGc NO-h-�11aau�s 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 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 the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chalrman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06.023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: S. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06.015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. — Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Meridian PW Vn ng and Za" Commlasion MSOUN Agenda _.hate 1, 2006 Page 1 03 A" materials Presented at puWc meetings shall become pmp" of Ote City of Meridian, Anyone deW'r g accommodation for disabilities related to d= ments and/or hearings Please contact the City Cledc's Office at 8884493 at least 48 hour; prior to the public meetlM. ** TX CWTION REPORT ** AS OF AN 01 106 4 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "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 the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: W Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup ,V'_ David Moe - Vice Chairman A David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: App" er B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: P9Prcwc as Amended 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: P.RCCry y n ft-yj, AFIpW 4 40 64 -LI Cou-ndi 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06.015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subldivislonj by Farwest, LLC A uthaeaass'tl comer of MeridianlRoad and Victory Road: I& Wnmend 1 ftAci 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LkC - southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: 121LCOVIDIer1 "Yom tb nainCCt Meridian Planning arse Zoning commission Meeting Agenda -June 1. 2006 Page 1 of 3 AO materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Marktlam Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's office at 8664433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDfi STATUS 03 06/01 23:17 PUBLIC WORKS EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 04 06/01 23:19 8848723 EC—S 01101" 003 097 OK 05 06/01 2320 WATER DEPT EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 06 06/01 2322 2088840744 EC—S 01'04" 003 097 OK 07 06/01 2323 POLICE DEPT EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 08 06/01 2325 8985501 EC—S 01'01" 003 097 OK 09 06/01 2327 LIBRARY EC—S 01'03" 003 097 OK 10 06/01 2326 2083776449 EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 11 06/01 2330 3886924 EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 12 06/01 23:31 P -AND -Z EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 13 06/01 23:33 FIRE DEPT EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 14 06/01 23:34 208 888 2682 EC—S 01'03" 003 097 OK 15 06/01 23:36 208 387 6393 EC—S 01'03" 003 097 OK 16 06/01 23:38 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 17 06/01 23:39 2088885052 EC—S 01'03" 003 097 OK 18 06/01 23:41 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU 133—S 02.00" 003 097 OK 19 06/01 23:44 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 20 06/01 23:45 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 21 06/01 23:47 2088886701 EC—S 01'02" 003 097 OK 22 06/01 23:52 3810160 EC—S 01'40" 003 097 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "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 the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: W Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup ,V'_ David Moe - Vice Chairman A David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: App" er B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: P9Prcwc as Amended 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: P.RCCry y n ft-yj, AFIpW 4 40 64 -LI Cou-ndi 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06.015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subldivislonj by Farwest, LLC A uthaeaass'tl comer of MeridianlRoad and Victory Road: I& Wnmend 1 ftAci 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LkC - southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory Road: 121LCOVIDIer1 "Yom tb nainCCt Meridian Planning arse Zoning commission Meeting Agenda -June 1. 2006 Page 1 of 3 AO materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Marktlam Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's office at 8664433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. COMMUNICATIONS REPORT AS OF JUN 02 "06 05:00 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES TOTAL TIME SEND : 0062 SEND : 00°23"09" RECEIVE / 0008 RECEIVE : 00"02'25" DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01 06/01 88:18 208-48q-7630 EC --S 80"49" 002 094 0< 02 06/01 14:3? 1 208 345?650 EC --R 02"25" 008 096 OK 03 05/01 23:17 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01"02" 003 09? OK 04 06/01 23:19 8848723 EC --S 01"01= 003 09? OK 05 06/01 23:20 WATER DEPT EC --S Q1"02" 003 097 OK 06 06/01 23:22 2088840744 EC --S 01"04" 080 09? ON 0? 06/01 23:23 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'02" 003 097 OK 08 06/01 23:25 8985501 EC --S 01^81" 003 097 OK 09 06/01 23:27 LIBRARY EC --S 01"03" 003 097 OK 10 06/01 23:29 2083776449 EC --S 01"02,, 003 097 OK 11 86/01 23:30 3886924 EC --S 01"02^" 003 09? OK 12 06/01 23:31 P-AND_Z EC --S 01"02" 003 097 OK 13 06/01 23:33 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01`02= 003 097 OK 14 06/01 23:34 208 888 2682 EC --S 01"03", 003 097 OK 15 06401 23:36 208 387 6393 EC --5 0i"03" 003 897 ON 16 06/01 23:38 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC --S 01"02" 003 09? OK 17 06/01 23:39 2088885052 EC --S 01`03" 003 097 OK 18 06/01 23:41 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S Q2"00" 003 097 OK 19 06/01 23:44 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 0i"02" 003 09? OK 20 06/01 23:45 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01"02" 003 897 0< 21 06/01 23:47 2088B86701 EC --S 01`02= 003 09? OK 22 06/01 23:52 3910160 EC --S Q1"40" 003 09? OK Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 1, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 1, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch, 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. This is the Planning and Zoning meeting for Thursday, June 1st, 2006, and I'd like to start with the roll call attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Meeting: Rohm: Thank you. And the second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and that -- the first item on that is the Consent Agenda. A is to approve the minutes of the March 30th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting and, B, approve the minutes of the April 20th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I did not find the minutes of March 30 in my packet. If I'm the only one, I'll abstain from voting on that. If nobody has it, we should remove it from the agenda. Does anybody else have March 30? Moe: Yes, I did receive March 30th. Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 2 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. I will abstain on that one. I do have a comment on April 20 and that is on page 18, the third time down that my name appears right above Newton- H u ckabay's name, I was motioning to continue a meeting to January 1st. That already being April 20th, that should have been June 1st. I may have misspoke, but it makes more sense if that's June. That's on page 18. Then, one more. On page 71, go to the very bottom of the page and, then, come up three of the printed lines, it says -- well, from the line before. This island -- that should be isn't very noticeable to them. Isn't. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: My only comments. Rohm: Any other comments? Okay. Could we get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Rohm: And a second? Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Rohm: Before we move into our regular public hearings, I'd like to make a couple comments and for those of you that don't attend these meetings on a regular basis, basically, the procedure for a hearing is, first of all, we ask the staff to present the project as it pertains to the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. That's the review that the staff provides. Once that testimony has been given, then, we ask the applicant to give their testimony. That's, basically, their opportunity to sell the project to the Commission. Once we have heard both the staffs report and the applicant's report, then, we take public testimony and, typically, what we'd like to do is we'd like the applicant -- or the person offering testimony to give their name and address -- and I'm going to add something else to that tonight. I think it's best if right at that time you say whether you're for the project, against the project, or neutral and that way it gives us kind of a better idea of what direction you're going at such time that you provide your testimony, so -- and there are occasions where there will be an individual that will speak for like a homeowners association, something like that, and that person offering testimony is given an additional length of time, I believe up to ten minutes, to make their presentation and that is with the assumption that they are actually speaking for a larger body of people that will relinquish their opportunity to speak on that particular project. So, that's kind of the gist of things. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 3 of 64 Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 06-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District— 1120 S. Locust Grove Road: Rohm: And so with that being said, we will start with our first hearing and it is Public Hearing AZ 06-023, annexation and zoning for the Martin Annexation and I'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The first item on your agenda this evening for public hearings is the Martin Annexation. I want to thank Sonya Watters for helping me out on this one. She took this ball and ran with it and did a staff report for this project. So, I will present for her this evening. The applicant, who is ACRD, is requesting annexation and zoning for one acre located on the east side of Locust Grove Road just north of the interstate and the reason that this application is before you tonight is ACHD purchased a large portion of the subject property for the overpass and the existing home that's on the site is going to be taken with that project and they will be reconstructing a home on the -- further to east on this site. I think ACHD is retaining .513 acres and the Martins are keeping .486 acres, so they will have about a half acre lot that they will have a single -- future single home on that will be connected to city services, sewer and water. I think that's probably about it for the staff report as far as I'm concerned. There really aren't any conditions of approval. Pretty standard stuff. But they do to need hook up services when they construct that home. ACHD -- just maybe a little bit more background information -- is constructing a street into this property, so they have access from this local internal street, rather than taking direct lot access to Locust Grove where an overpass is going to be. So, with that I think I will stand for any questions you may have and the applicant is here tonight and she can probably answer some more questions if you have them as well. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one. Caleb, I'm just kind of curious. Am I assuming that ACHD's taking the other two lots to the south for the overpass? Is that -- Hood: I'm not quite sure you can see on this -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe. You can see on this slide some of the right of way lines -- and excuse me for a second while grab a pointer. Some of the -- the dark black lines are parcel lines. So, this is -- whoa, kind a shaky this evening -- is right of way there and, then, you can see there is right of way here. So, I'm not sure -- Kathy may be able to explain a little bit more, but you can see that for the overpass some of their property is going to have to be taken. I'm not sure about the properties to the south. I believe they have already acquired what they need there, but she can correct me if I'm wrong there. Moe: Yeah. I was just kind of curious as far as access to those properties once that's in, because the new road for this property will be cul-de-sac'd to this property, so, therefore, I don't see where their access would be. Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 4 of 64 Hood: That's a good question. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that would the applicant like to come forward, please? Smith: Good evening, Commissioners. Kathy Smith, right of way supervisor for Ada County Highway District. Thank you for this application tonight. If you look at your packets, the first drawing that's marked A, it shows a plot map with how the cul-de-sac's going to be built. Basically, what we are going to be doing is we have bought the pieces from the Markham and Gunder properties already. Those have closed escrow, so they are showing up on the assessor maps. We have also bought from Mr. Nelson to the north, it just hasn't been mapped by the county yet, so that's not showing. We are in the process of working out the appraisals from the Hooglands up on Bentley. We have got a right of entry, so we can have possession of the property, so that the project can move forward, but we still have to come to terms on the numbers. What we are building is a cul-de-sac to come in off of Bentley and it's going to come through here, it will cul- de-sac in. Right now the driveway for the Martin services the other two southerly properties. So, we do this public street and cul-de-sac, it will perpetuate those driveways. So, that's how we solve that dilemma. The dilemma we are at right now is we've had to move Mr. Martin out of the house, because we need to demo it. He can't built his new house until the street goes in with the new water and sewer lines, so -- and we can't put the sewer and water lines in until the project is built. So, we have kind of -- so we have had to move him out, we will demo the house, and, then, once we get the new cul-de-sac put in, then, he can put his new house in. So, ITD has agreed to pay the relocation for him to have temporary housing. This is a federal aid property, as you're very aware of. One of the issues that we have is that we do need to have this approved, because if it doesn't get approved for the sewer and water connection to the house and they have the replacement house built, then, all bets are off on our contract with them and that means we don't have possession of the property and it means we don't have the federal approval to move forward with construction. We have to, basically, withdraw our right of way certification. I have Mr. Brown from ITD here to back me up if you have more questions on that, but, basically, what it does with is a federal aid project, ACHD certifies to the feds that we have a hundred percent possession of all the property. If this doesn't go through, then, we have a problem that, basically, we haven't held up our end of the bargain of making sure they have the ability to build the replacement house. So, then, I'm just letting you know that up front that is a consideration that we have to look at. So, if this doesn't go forward, then, we have to let the city know what's going on with the overpass, so -- Caleb explained that the staff report is fairly thorough. There was a couple things in the staff report that was questions that were raised from the fire department. With this project, when we put the sewer and water lines in on the new cul-de-sac, there will be a hydrant -- it, actually, will be just to the north of the Martin remainder property, so there will be services readily available to this property once it is annexed. The other part of it is is that there was concern about the name of this new cul-de-sac. We have applied to Ada County for the new -- the street naming committee to find out what the new name is. I think we are Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 5 of 64 submitting it as Bentley Court, but I don't know -- we are still in process of getting that done. But it will be resolved. Part of the issue of that is going to be what street numbers are going to be for this Martin property and also the two properties to the south, if they are going to get renumbered because of the fire safety issues. So, we are just working that out with Ada County. And I stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? You did a good job. Thanks very much. And, Marvin, did you want to speak as well or just -- from the audience he said that Kathy's spoke for him. So, thank you. Discussion? Anybody else would -- is there anybody that would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-023. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2006. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subidivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 6 of 64 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: PP 06-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. — Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Rohm: Well, that went rather quickly. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 6th of 2006 of AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. Both of these items relating to -- I can't say it. Zaremba: It rhymes with banana. Newton-Huckabay: Tanana. Rohm: Tanana. There you go. Tanana Valley Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. That's been an ongoing thing in our office, too, and everyone pronounces is a little bit different. I'll call it Tanana, how about that? So, this one is continued from the previous hearing. There was not a staff report prepared for this item. This is a new report, so I will give you a presentation. It's a little bit bigger than the previous application. So, probably spend a little bit more time on this one. It is 182.6 acres, as shown on the map. There are a couple of out parcels that I will just call out real quick. There is one along here on Victory Road. This is the existing grange hall. It's R-1, as you can see, in Ada County. This is Meridian Road. There is also an out parcel along Meridian Road that is not part of the subject application, so these two out parcels -- and I'll talk about those here a little bit more in depth in just a second. I'll also point out on this vicinity map there is an existing private lane, Rumple Lane, that goes back and services some homes back in here. This is the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The applicant has recently acquired that 20 or 30 foot property there. I think it came out to about three acres -- three or four acres, roughly, that is a part of this application today and they are going to be building a public street, so taking where the existing private lane is and tying up -- aligning with the existing -- the name is escaping me now. On the other side of Meridian Road. So, it will be a four legged intersection in that location. So, the request is for three zones. A large portion of it is R-8. In fact, 168 acres is for the R-8 zone, medium density residential. There is a TN -R district as well. I don't have a Comprehensive Plan map in the presentation, but this is a neighborhood center -- mixed use neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. They do have a traditional neighborhood residential district and a commercial district that will they will become more evident as we look at the plat here in just a minute. Here is the aerial shot. There are some existing homes. This is a large home that sits up on a hill on this site. It is part of the subject application. The out parcels also have homes on them, but, again, they aren't part of this application. There are recently approved Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 7 of 64 subdivisions pretty much surrounding this, except for the south. There is the storage units -- the storage coups, chicken coups, that go down to Victory Road, which would be approximately here. And, then, there is a pit -- I'm not quite sure if it's in full operation now or not, what the status of that is. And, then, again, Reflection Ridge is this area here. Sicily Subdivision -- and, again, these aren't showing up, but Sicily Subdivision was here and, then, Tuscany and Roseleaf and -- and I can't remember the name of the other subdivision there. But, anyways, just to point out that this area is rapidly becoming part of the city and historically has been farmed. This slide is an overview. There is not lot and block numbers, but because of the sheer volume and size of this project, I thought this was probably a better visual for the Commission and the public to look at. They do have -- I guess just a couple of things to point out. There is one public street access to Victory Road into the subdivision, that's a collector down to approximately this location and, then, local streets internally. The fire department did have concerns about secondary access. I did speak with the applicant early this week, they -- I saw a rendition, anyway, that shows an emergency access approximately in this location. So, grass creet or something to that effect, because there are more than 50 homes that will be on this single access. So, it would allow the fire department to get into this northwest portion of the development, a secondary means should this one become blocked. As I mentioned earlier, they will be constructing another public street down in this location. I believe they are going to add another public street somewhere here right -- as submitted there is only one that comes into the project and, then, these houses front on this local street. I believe their traffic study came back and they think that it will disperse the traffic a little bit better if they have another access point to the public street out to Meridian Road. There is also a school site within this project in this location. My understanding is that it's an alternative type school. The applicant may be able to provide more details on that, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of four acres, something like that. So, it's not your traditional elementary, middle school, high school site, but it is, I believe, what the Meridian School District needs for one of their alternative schools. And, then, this is the area that's zoned TN -R, as previously mentioned. There are some -- some smaller lots and alley -load lots in this area and, then, this is your large commercial lot, just one large lot at this point in time. There are some specific provisions about that lot. The applicant has not provided any elevations or doesn't really have a plan for that at this time. So, that will be back before the Commission at some future date when more details are available. And, then, the rest of the subdivision is a pretty -- not that that's a bad thing, but it's a pretty standard R-8 subdivision with all the lot sizes and frontages conforming to the R-8 subdivision. Now, I say that -- there is quite a variety in housing and lot sizes. They range from eight to 15 and, then, the existing home lot is quite large. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly how much they are retaining there, but that is a large lot as well. They are extending the stub street from Reflection Ridge that will tie in, so access to Reflection Ridge can also be provided from the new road out to Meridian Road. And, then, there is another stub street that was also provided from Reflection Ridge in this location. What is not showing on this plan is Sicily Subdivision. There is a stub street to the southern boundary of this project, the northern boundary of the Sicily project, that they will also be tying in with, as well as further to the east in Roseleaf at all subdivisions. Let's see. think what I will do now is just run through some of the applicant's concerns. They did Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 8 of 64 submit a letter in the form of an e-mail. I'm not quite sure if the clerk got it to you all, but I hope you have it. It's dated May 31 st. Yesterday. There are a couple of changes that I'm going to run through and if I skip anything, the applicant is here this evening and he can run back over some that he didn't think that I spent enough time on or may have missed. The first one is in section ten and it has to do with the out parcel on Meridian Road. It's a big concern of staff when there are out parcels that you get the infrastructure for the general public and disconnects and sidewalks and landscape buffers and things like that are always a concern of staff. So, in the development agreement section, the annexation section of the staff report, I did include some discussion about constructing sidewalks adjacent to that property. That way you have a continuous sidewalk for that whole half mile from Victory Road to the southern boundary of this project. I think in theory the applicant is in agreement with that. However, there are some things that are outside of their control, such as getting -- acquiring an easement from that property owner to place that sidewalk -- or it, actually, is a ten foot wide pathway on that property or within ITD's right of way. I have heard from him, too, that there is some resistance from ITD to allow them to construct it within the existing right of way, which is what ACHD's requiring for this out parcel here. They have 25 feet prescriptively there and so will be a continuous sidewalk along Victory Road, either in its ideal location or may be constrained and have to kind of cruise up to within that existing 25 foot wide easement. But at least it will be a pedestrian friendly way to get from A to B along Victory Road. So, I guess I would ask in section ten on -- on page nine, that we do need to change that language to reflect, you know, an out for them, essentially, that if they aren't able to acquire said easement from -- I think the Mussels own that property -- from either the Mussels or ITD, that they are not required to construct that sidewalk. But I do want them to make a good faith effort to try to -- to try to get a continuous sidewalk there. So, just to call that out for -- to the Commission's attention. I'm now going to skip ahead to Exhibit B of the staff report. Baird: Mr. Chair? Pardon my interruption, think anybody has in front of them up here. that they have reviewed it for the record. Hood: I apologize. but Caleb mentioned an e-mail that I don't I think it's important that we have that, so Baird: So, I'll check with the clerk and we will try to get that -- Hood: I'm sorry, I should have checked with you to make sure you did all have it. started to ask you assuming that you did. I know Tara did get it, so I just assumed that it would be in front of you this evening. I may hold off for a minute, I guess, and see if she can't get that for you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 9 of 64 Moe: While we are waiting, Caleb, could you maybe give some verbiage in regards to that first item you discussed? Hood: Yeah. And that -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that will become a little more evident when you see the letter. The applicant has actually proposed some language there. It says I agree to construct a pathway across the out parcel provided the owner will allow the construction. If a construction easement is not allowed by the owner, I will be able to construct a path -- you know, something to that effect. I think there is some things here that you may be able to change an I to the applicant or something like that and formulate some -- I am just going to press forward, I think, and there is, really, not a whole lot that the applicant -- not to put words in their mouth, but not a whole lot of issues with this staff report. Borup: Maybe while we are still on that same -- are we going to come back to that, the wording of that when we see the other? When we see the e-mail. Or was that -- was that wording pretty much what we are talking about? I'd like to strengthen that a little bit. I don't know -- I mean I think the concept is fine, but does that mean they can just verbally say, well, I couldn't get approval and so it's okay? If that's the case, I'd like to tighten that up a little and actually requiring a written refusal, if that's what it's going to be. Hood: I think that makes some sense and that's -- it's kind of a fine line to walk, too. mean you don't really -- at least from my perspective is it a make or break deal, is it not in the best interest of the city if that pathway is not there? I didn't feel, you know, that it's a life safety issue necessarily, but I think you could make that finding, too, to say, hey, this is an out parcel and it -- so, it's a little bit odd for me to even include that as a development agreement provision without the applicant volunteering that. It is off site and sol -- Borup: We can talk to him when he comes up. Hood: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Hood: So, if the Commission's okay, I'll just continue on and we can jump back. Maybe when the applicant is up there he can run through these again or highlight them again or some language, but I think, again, there is, really, not a lot to discuss. For a project this big is it pretty clean, so -- in Exhibit B of the staff report -- and this is pretty easy, because the applicant in their e-mail basically just printed off the conditions and comments in the margin regarding the conditions. So, you can follow along pretty well with just the staff report Exhibit B. And condition 1.1.2 has to do with the landscape plan. And the third bullet on there talks about the 20 foot wide buffer along their commercial lot. So, per the UDC a landscape buffer is required between commercial and residential uses and so that landscape buffer here -- what the applicant wanted clarification on and staff is in agreement with is that that landscape buffer does not need Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 10 of 64 to be constructed until commercial starts to be constructed in there. So, until you -- and with that first certificate of zoning compliance or building permit that's issued out there, that landscape buffer does need to be in before occupancy of that building can occur. So, we are okay with making that change. I would ask the Commission to make that change. Going back up, I guess, to the first bullet, it talks about a 25 foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Victory Road. I'll let the applicant speak to this a little bit more. It has to do primarily with -- adjacent to the school lot and there is some issues with the planting landscaping in there and, then, who is responsible for maintenance of that. Right now it would be maybe the homeowners association in putting in a partial sprinkler system and there is some logistics to that, I guess, but I will let -- let him explain a little bit more in depth. So, that's condition 1.1.2. And, then, 1.1.7 has to do with access to that commercial lot. There is nothing shown, as you can see, on this landscape plan. There are no curb cuts shown anywhere. So, access right now isn't defined. As mentioned earlier in that meeting when the applicant came in this week he had a plan that showed just access points in alignment with the public streets and that should be fine, I guess, but the intent was that access not be to Victory Road, that it go out to the -- to the residential collector there. And I guess that would be the comment that -- or clarification and, then, again, this is in the margin when you see this e-mail -- hopefully Tara comes back with it -- that Lot 2, Block 1, shall be allowed access to the local commercial street and not Victory Road. So, that would just be a clarification on 1.1.7. 1 think that that's, actually, for the planning department, that's -- those are the only concerns that they had that are noted in the staff report or the response to the staff report. There are also a couple of Public Works comments that I'll let Mike handle here in just a second to address and I think there were a couple of police -- yeah, the police department had a couple of comments that really quickly I wanted to address. The first one had to do with the emergency access and, again, that has been complied with with the revised plat. Now, I don't have copies of that for you. I think there may be one in the presentation from the applicant this evening that he'll show you that he's complied with that condition. For emergency access to Victory Road. And I don't know that I'll make a comment on 4.2. The police department has some concerns about some of the flag lots and not being able to see into those flag lots. But I liken it to a cul-de-sac lot not unlike these where, you know, this lot's going to be hard to patrol the back side of these lots to make sure that burglars don't, you know, get in there. There is some concern there, I just don't know what a solution is to some of those concerns by the police department. So, just I'd call those out to your attention and I think I'll let Mike take it from here. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report as modified in this presentation and I'll let Mike continue and if you have any questions for me -- I think everyone got the response, so I'm sorry that I didn't wait for that or touch base with the clerk to make sure you had copies of it. Rohm: No. That's fine. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The conditions that the applicant had with Public Works comments -- the first was on 2.5. 1 had a conversation with the applicant yesterday or the day before. He had indicated he didn't want to install the frontage main -- water main in Meridian Road as required in the condition. After further Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 11 of 64 modeling of this with the city engineer, we determined that we could not find a way to route it through the site that would provide adequate fire protection for the -- not just for this site, but for the city in general for a future water system and I explained to them that we are going to need that either in the frontage of Meridian Road or right along the frontage, if you wanted to carve a common lot out of his property fronting Meridian Road. He indicated that we would work that out at some future point. So, I believe he is in agreement with that condition. 2.6 required a flushing station. That's a new condition we have you have probably never seen before. We have a number of blow offs in the city, but they are not in convenient locations. With the Ridenbaugh canal here, a flushing system would be a large eight inch blow off, essentially, for when the water department -- our water department goes out, does their annual flushing, they could move a huge large volume of water rapidly and have a nice discharge point, an empty canal. His only concern was that we go through the permitting with Nampa - Meridian to make sure that they allow that. We are in agreement with that. We just asked him to provide the easements and install it with this main as he comes through. His other concern was on 2.8 -- and I don't think he had a concern as much as just he needed some clarification. This -- like Reflection Ridge, there is some very high ground on this property and it will be two separate pressure zones. It will actually be creating a new pressure zone, a high zone. For redundancy we need two separate feeds for that. One feed isn't adequate, we need two feeds. So, feeding through a pressure reducer vault -- pressure reducing vault would be the first source and the second would have to be a new well lot. Whether that comes from the Tanana -- na Valley Subdivision or to Reflection to the south, it really doesn't matter one way or another, whoever gets their first and wants to plat in that upper zone is going to have to donate to us a well to get that going. I further explained it and I believe he is fine with that condition as well. So, the conditions that he had with us I believe -- they just need to stand as written, as -- after we talked about it and -- but I'll let him agree to that fully. But that was my understanding. And I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mike. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for Mr. Cole. And I could be wrong, but my recollection -- if this is Reflection Ridge, when we were discussing that, wasn't their property low enough that it -- some of it was in the flood zone and does the topography change enough before we get to this or am I not remembering correctly? I see no mention of a flood zone in this project. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is some low -- there is some low topography and hydropography on the Reflection Ridge, but there is no -- no flood zone associated with it. There is a high and low pressure zone on the water system. There is a little bit of a high ground water issue at the very low part where they put their -- most of their common open space, but no flood plain associated. It's a delivery canal. Generally we don't see flood plains associated with those. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 12 of 64 Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just thought of a few more things, a project this big, and there is a couple of other things I want to just point out really quickly and the applicant may touch on these, too. I did want to -- you mentioned Reflection Ridge. They did -- they are going to be constructing a ten foot wide multi -use pathway along the Ridenbaugh as well and the applicant is proposing to pick that up at their boundary and shoot that out to Meridian Road. So, I did want to point that out, that that's a nice amenity in this project. They are also providing detached sidewalks with trees along the internal streets. So, that's a nice amenity as well. It gives a real nice look to the neighborhood as you drive through. A couple other comments in the staff report. Again, back to this out parcel. As submitted, this stub street stops just short of access to this project, so didn't want to get a full blown street to this property, so access in the future to Meridian Road can go away and, in fact, it kind of comes up like this and they have got a long driveway back into this home. But, anyways, that can go away. When this house gets annexed and they potentially subdivide it into a few more lots, access can be provided internally, rather than direct access to the state highway. Same goes with this out parcel here, that the applicant needs to provide a stub street to this parcel, so their direct access to Victory Road, also an arterial street, is provided internally and not direct lot access. So, I just wanted to point those things out and sorry I missed it the first time around, but -- Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any other questions of staff? Not seeing any, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Martin: Members of the Commission, I'm Justin Martin with Farwest. My address is 5606 North Ten Mile Road here in Meridian. Our subdivision's name is Tanana and, yeah, it's really difficult. It seems the last few we have had have been that way. Don't do it on purpose I don't think. I have a short presentation on a PowerPoint just to talk about some of the amenities and the breakdown of the subdivision. The first picture here shows the different groupings of price points or lot sizes that we have in our project. We felt it was important to break up the lot sizes and group them to have a more diverse subdivision in general, a more diverse population, maybe, in the subdivision itself. If you'd go onto the next page. Basically, there is 225 70 to 80 foot wide lots, 137 60 to 70 foot wide lots, 105 50 to 60 foot wide lots, and, then, 77 lots that are smaller, 30 to 40 feet wide. They are in that Traditional Neighborhood Residential Zone that was shown on the Comprehensive Plan. This is a breakdown of how the numbers on the plat kind of turn out. We have 170 -- almost 178 acres. I think the difference between the 180 something that was mentioned earlier was right of way that's being annexed that wasn't annexed prior. Anyway, roughly 178 acres. We are proposing an alternative school site. Wendell Bigham said that that needs to be somewhere around four to five acres. The one we are proposing on the original layout was 4.8 acres. There is a commercial lot on there to come back in front of you later. And 548 single family residences. The single family lot minimum size is 3,200 square feet. The minimum house size is 1,400 square feet. The avenue lot size is 8,750 square feet and our residential density is 3.09. Definitely it's a low end of the plan -- the planned density for the area. Traditional neighborhood residential can have up 15 lots per acre and I think on that section we have 7.7 lots per acre. And R-8, obviously, can Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 13 of 64 have up to eight. And overall we are at 3.09. Some of the amenities in the project are the open space. In the project there is roughly 25 acres of open -- open common lots. That's almost 14 percent. As defined by the city code, we have about 11 percent of the total space as usable open space, as opposed to the five percent required by the code as well. On Linder Road we provided a buffer area of 60 feet in width and the requirement of the city was 25 feet. On Meridian Road we have installed a buffer that is 60 feet wide as well and the requirement there was 35 feet. We kind of carried that theme through. In our last couple projects we have tried to do a little bit better than was required each time. And through our collector way system as well we try and hold 45 foot buffers off to the side of the collector ways and 20 foot -- 20 to 25 foot wide islands in the middle of the road. Again, quite a bit above the minimums required by the city. We are going to also install -- or we will be installing two playground equipments -- pieces of playground equipment in separate locations in the project. We will have a neighborhood pool. I can't tell you today that we are a hundred percent sure where that's going to go, but we will have one, you know, we are willing to put that on record and say that we will install a neighborhood pool. Our fencing that we will put in won't be just standard fencing, standard dog ear, we will use some sort of an upgraded fencing, such as the one shown here, with overlap boards and kind of picture framed on the top with some larger posts and/or wrought iron fencing in the project to try and keep it a little bit nicer than standard. And like was mentioned earlier, we do plan on putting in the offset sidewalks in our projects. We try and do that in all of our projects we do in Meridian. We will have six foot -- six foot parkways lined with streets -- lined with trees and grass. We feel that the view from the road adds quit a bit of curb appeal by having those trees in there. We also feel that you have a safer feeling when you're on the sidewalk with that space between the road and the sidewalk like that. The pathways and connectivity through the project -- east -west along the Ridenbaugh canal, cutting through the middle of the project, we will -- such as mentioned earlier, a ten foot pathway connecting to the Reflection Ridge pathway. Down Meridian Road we planned out a ten foot pathway as well. The other areas that are just darker will be five foot sidewalk. Some of the areas that cut through the -- the neighborhood -- or through the lot and blocks are -- are five foot pathways in 15 foot common areas. Five of those were requested by the staff. We definitely thought that it was a good idea to put them in and we put them in the locations that we were asked. So, we feel the connectivity and the pathway system in the project will be an amenity as well. We do have the school site in the project. Our original plan, the old version in the picture, showed a stub street out to Victory Road. One of the problems with the stub street was it didn't quite align with Mesa Way to the north. We were only able to build a portion of a road. The rest of it would be on the grange's shoulders when they redeveloped. So, we are requesting to delete that access -- the eastern most access on Victory Road. Wendell Bigham with the school district stated that there is not a need for the school site to have that. We have updated our traffic study and they have confirmed that there is not a need for that access. ACHD has approved the removal of that access or that stub road. The grange has -- the grange is a small lot just to the east of all of that in the picture. It's not shown very well in the picture, but it's a fairly small lot and they do have a stub to the east from Tuscany, as well as they will have a stub on their west boundary from us. By adding a road from our stub to Victory Road, we are going to take up a lot of their future space Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 14 of 64 and we feel it's quite the burden on such a small lot for future redevelopment. This is Harris Street, it's our connection to Meridian Road. The old version didn't have the Rumple Lane, which is roughly 26 feet wide by 1,200 feet long. It wasn't on our original submittal. We did just obtain that section of land and by doing that it helped us align with Harris Street across Meridian Road. Based on our traffic study and the comments from ACHD, we added -- we made two stub streets to the north into our -- the Tanana project and did connect to Reflection Ridge at the end of that -- that Harris Street as well. So, we'd request that this new design is a better way and we'd hope we get this version approved. Also in that picture -- and you don't need to go back. Also in that picture there is -- there was a connection to the out parcel and the staff had asked us to connect -- make sure there was better solid connection there of 50 feet right of way for future development. We did do that. The traffic flows in the project -- I throw this page in there just to show that it has the school lot, changed the connection to Victory Road, and it has the Harris Street connection to Meridian Road changes on it and it shows that all of our internal local streets that have homes facing them are under the 1,000 trip per day requirement. I just put that in there to show that I guess we have updated the traffic study with the requested changes we have asked for as well. That's it for the Powerpoint version. I did want to go back through a few of the comments that the staff had made related to the staff report. On the ten foot pathway on Meridian Road, I am more than willing to build that pathway across the out parcel. I don't know that I can get permission to do that. The topo at that site, the right of way is a slope of one to -- maybe a two to one slope. I do have a picture that -- if we could put it on an overhead later, maybe, if you need to see it. It's roughly 30 feet high from Meridian Road at that point and the entire section of right of way, which maybe I could get ITD to let me go into, is basically a two -to -one slope I'm not sure how I could construct around. I'm more than willing to construct across the property if I can get the easement. Worst case scenario, I guess, would be that -- if I can't get permission to do that, I would be willing to bond for it, so that it could be constructed at a later date, if an agreement between the city and that property owner was ever worked out. ACHD does have us do that sort of thing now and -- in the way of give a bond for a future improvement that we weren't able to get accomplished at this time. Borup: Is that correct, that's Mr. Mussell that owns that property? Martin: That is right. That is correct. And I apologize just by -- I just haven't had the conversation with him. I haven't met with him. Dave McKinnon took me out there a couple months back, maybe, and I don't believe this issue came up at that point and haven't had the time to go back and have a conversation with him again, but I do plan to and I will before the next hearing. Borup: Well, I for one, would be interested to know if he refuses. Martin: Yeah. I would imagine he's going to be as helpful as possible. He may have some constraints up there that I don't know of at this point, but, definitely when I go meet with him I could probably see those and be clearer on them the next time. The landscaping -- the Planning and Zoning -- the site specific requirements in the Planning Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • June 1, 2006 Page 15 of 64 and Zoning section of that, the landscape plan, the first bullet under the landscape plan section was requesting us on Victory Road to install the landscape buffer across the northern boundary of the school lot. In dealing with Wendell Bigham, he had -- we had spoken about that and how to deal with it. We do plan on building a sidewalk across that area, as well as the out parcel on Victory Road and also, actually, connecting over to Tuscany across the grange parcel if we can get permission to do that and, if not, we will go in the right of way of ACHD. That's what ACHD requested and we agreed to. As far as the school lot landscape buffer, we would propose that we put it in a 25 foot easement at this time and when the school develops build that area then. And the reason being is that the school is going to have primarily grass besides their building out there as well. They would be able to maintain it on the same day they maintain their school lawns. The sprinkling irrigation system would be, you know, one and the same. They would be able to repair that if it broke, as opposed to if the northern 25 foot had a leak on it or south of 25 foot line had a leak. I'm picturing these areas running together, their lot and our 25 foot buffer I guess is where I'm at and Wendell Bigham was definitely -- definitely in favor of having the system as a separate system on his own. So, it is a request that that's -- that's my preference. That's probably enough said on that issue. The next issue I had was -- was taken care of by staff, basically, that the commercial lot could build the landscape buffer on the west side of that lot at the time of construction of the lot and re -approval at the -- at the body. Access to Lot 2.1, which is that commercial lot, we do have in a new drawing of the layout, including a bunch or the staff changes in request of pathways and stub street changes. On that layout it will show the connection from those two existing streets. I'll just go over and grab a plat for a second. Exactly right, the two crossing streets that cross there, that was -- we just wanted to align those. We thought it was the only place that actually made sense with the islands there. We realize the city doesn't want to have an access or I should say ACHD for sure wouldn't want to have an access out to Victory Road right next to our collector way. The only two areas that made sense visually looking at it for us would be at those streets that are existing, just align with them. So, I would request that we could make that change. Extending stub streets. I had a note on there, but, basically, we are definitely going to conform with what the staff had requested on our stub streets. That was item 1.1.11 was extending stub streets and we did revise the plat to meet that requirement. I was okay with everything else the staff had to say on the Planning and Zoning -- or the planning department section. As far as Public Works, I did talk with Mike about the 12 inch water line in Meridian Road. It's definitely a headache to deal in the ITD right of way and the large road. He was nice enough to come up with an option that we could put a common area on our frontage somewhere, a separate area for a water line, pull it down that, and I like that. If we could keep -- if we could just insert the wording that I have the option to do that or that Public Works would work with me on that, I'm okay with that wording. The flush station he explained perfectly. I'm happy to install those. The well lot and booster station, he explained perfectly. Again, I don't need to go into anymore detail on that. I met with Joe Silva at the fire department. His major concern was a 50 foot access out to Victory Road for emergency fire access. We did install that and -- let me grab a plat real quick. This is the corner of Meridian Road and Victory. This is the 50 foot access we put to this area. The way we had laid this out originally it did only have one access point from here and it made sense that it Meridian Planning & Zoning e June 1, 2006 Page 16 of 64 needed a secondary access. We didn't want to make this a public access, so we are either going to install a gate in there with a knox box lock system, which is what the fire department requested when I spoke with them and I said I would do the 50 foot access, 28 foot inside, and 48 foot outside radiuses, a 20 foot paved path in the middle, capable of carrying their fire truck, provided the police had' the similar comment. I needed to talk with them. And so when I did go talk with Lieutenant Stowe at the police department he requested that there be no knox lock box system and so, basically, is what I'm saying is I will definitely install the pathway, I'll install the emergency access, and they both agreed they are going to talk and decide what we need in there, whether it's removal bollards, knock down or lay over type bollards, or whether it's a formal gate system in there. We will have enough room in that area to have bicycle paths on the outside edges of that, outside of the 20 foot access if there is a gate to go out around it, so there is better connectivity as well. The last issue was 4.2 on the police department's report. They have concerns about the flag lot and when I talked with him I asked if they had seen any good examples that I could go look at to come up with a plan on how -- you know, how we could model those after something that does work, and, basically, there isn't anything that he liked very well and so I can't do a lot about it. I do think that the flag lots are an important piece of a layout. I think they work well in the community. We did end up changing Lot 19 because of a stub road to the out parcel on Victory Road. So, one of the flag lots that he didn't like did get straightened out on our new plat and do have that here as well. The old plat there was this turn down like this and so we have now added access to this lot, so it straightened these out more like a standard version. He wasn't so concerned about this one, he knew that I couldn't do much about it when we spoke about it. We talked about this lot here, this is on a flag lot, and we talked about the possibility of doing some different fencing along there. I didn't make any guarantees. We just basically talked about it and was trying to get ideas for the future, when I lay out a subdivision I know I need to talk to them first, as opposed to waiting for comment. It was a fairly new thing for me to get comments from the police department in much detail and so I thought that was a good thing in general. Last of all, due to some of the changes we have lost a lot or two in the layout. I would still request that we are proposing a 548 lot subdivision and if there is a way without losing that 11 percent open space that -- that we have said we will provide in the project, I would like the permission or the ability to add a lot or two back in, obviously, not taking away from the common space that we have guaranteed we would give and also not -- just not taking away from the common space. I guess you know what I'm getting at, I guess. I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this application? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a point you just made. You brought in a revised preliminary plat for this evening and now you're also now talking that you want to add more lots into this thing. Are you looking for this thing to be continued and whatnot? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 17 of 64 Martin: I am not. I am definitely not. That's a really good point. This layout that brought in this evening has the changes that the staff has asked for and it has 547 lots and if it meant coming back with a new plat that that -- there is no doubt I'm happy with the plat I have in front of you. Moe: Glad to hear that. Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Any of questions of this applicant? Borup: Mr. Chairman, this is probably not really that pertinent, but on -- I was going back to the chart you gave on average lot sizes and et cetera. I'm assuming that included that one large lot in there on those -- on those averages. Martin: That's correct. Borup: So, that kind of skews a lot of that with that one on there. I didn't know if you had ever calculated with the lot there excluded. Martin: That's a good question. That lot is 6.93 acres. Borup: Okay. Martin: And I would -- I shouldn't even guess I guess at how much that did skew that number. You're right. Next time I will come in with that separated. Borup: But there are some -- still some very nice size lots and I do like the pathways and the other amenities there. The other thing I did have a question on -- you have -- and mainly because you have made a point mentioning the school site several times. was rather disappointed that we did not have any type of input from the school district at all and it almost makes you feel like they don't care. I don't know. But in my mind for this to be any type of a plus or amenity to the project, I would assume there was some type of can concession or something given to the school district, otherwise, it's just selling property that, really, wouldn't affect my attitude about the subject division in a positive way if it was just sold. Martin: Mr. orup, I did speak with Wendell today. Wendell said he was out of town. He called me from his cell phone and I was just talking to him in general about the changes to the school lot. I told him there was a hearing tonight and he said that the lot could change fairly substantially and they would still be able to use it, is what he said back to me. And so it's not your standard version, like the elementary schools or other school sites that we have worked on in the past, it's when he has a lot more flexibility in the shape and design of. We -- I guess the benefit for the school in this scenario is that we have sold it to them at original cost and everybody knows how the land values have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 18 of 64 been going as of recently and included in that original cost would be the ability for us to bring the services to it, plat the lot, and bring all the services needed to that lot and make it a buildable lot, provide the power needed, the gas needed, the streets, things like that. Borup: That was what I was hoping for. Martin: And we haven't finalized that yet, but that is our hand shake agreement and we do have the first draft of the contract at our office and I didn't see many changes on it and we are working with Mark Freeman on that. Borup: That's great. You're to be commended for that. And one of the reasons brought it up is recently at a meeting some of the other -- specifically the parks department mentioned one of the reasons they are paying so much for land or feeling they are going to need to is because the school has been paying way more than they felt was justified and -- Martin: Yeah. I would imagine everyone's -- all the agencies that need to obtain land are -- Borup: Well, when they go to -- yeah. Yeah. If the school district overpays, then, everyone else is stuck with the same thing. Martin: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one question, since we have talked about the school site and it's the school district that's going to design it I'm sure, but do you anticipate that they would take their access from your internal road or from Victory Road? Martin: They will definitely take the access from the internal subdivision streets. They will not take access to Victory Road. He specifically stated that he did not need that and, then, we had our traffic study updated along with the traffic study on this sort of a school site that he's got out on Locust Grove, we gave that to the engineer when he was doing it as well. And so we have updated showing that almost the alternative school site's traffic is very minimal compared to any of the other school sites. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 19 of 64 Moe: Just one more on that same subject. So -- and have they seen your new design with the cul-de-sac to the east, as opposed to the road going around? Martin: He has not. Wendell has not seen the new design. He did state that it was okay not to have that access going out to Victory Road and we have sent this layout to Ed Daniels at Hummell Architects and we just -- we don't perceive any problems with it. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Martin: Thank you. Rohm: Rich Chaney. Chaney: Hello. I'm Richard Chaney. I live at 448 East Observation Drive in Meridian. I'm here representing the Observation Point homeowners association, along with Mert Logue who should be able to get a chance to speak here as well. We were in opposition of the Tanana Subdivision as it currently stands. Our two main concerns are very much interrelated. Dwelling unit density and traffic. I should note that we have a petition here that we will leave with you from a large number of the homeowners in Observation Point and so the information I'm going to give you is -- is in that petition. Basically, Observation Point up here is R-4 zoned and Tanana is primarily R-8 zoned, which in itself is not a major problem, but what's been done here with Tanana is to locate the commercial and the highest density housing directly across from Observation Point. The traffic is a concern, because we have got 548 homes sites here that are served by one primary artery of traffic and, then, another minor traffic artery down here. That's going to generate quite a bit of traffic through here. In Observation we already have a problem with cut -through traffic and high speed traffic. Any cut -through traffic that we get here just exacerbates an existing problem that we are already trying to address with Ada County Highway District. So, these are two very big concerns. In meeting with our homeowners, we have decided that we can withdraw our opposition to Tanana Valley, provided that we get a few remedies to address these concerns. One would be relocating the commercial and the highest density housing over to closer to Meridian Road. It really makes sense, because up here on Meridian Road across Victory we already have Double D, we already have Victory Greens, we already have commercial and higher density. In addition to that, we believe that there should be a main artery for traffic put in here that would attach to Victory Road that would go well with the stop light that's going to be put in at Meridian and Victory. It would bring a lot of this traffic out directly here, reduce the cut through. We would propose that this second major artery be relocated to the east, somewhat offset from Standing Timber Way to reduce any cut -through traffic through Observation. The area between the two entries, as they would be lined out, could utilize this -- this green space. I think that also goes into solving some of the other problems from fire and police about secondary access by making two major arteries along Victory Road for the Tanana traffic. And, then, we would also like to -- in addition to considering Tanana, that we look at additional traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 20 of 64 calming measures for Observation. We have already been petitioning Ada County to get a traffic study done there. So, we would like those improvements in Observation to be put in to further mitigate any additional cut -through traffic that happens as a result of Tanana. And so I believe Mert has quite a few signatures on the petition. They are under many different covers here, but I -- I don't know who I need to give these to, but we have the signatures there, so if there are any questions to our opposition -- I'd also like to make sure that Mert gets a chance to speak. He's also the president of our homeowners association. I'm a director. So, we wanted to both make sure that we were here. Rohm: I assure you everyone will be given an opportunity to speak. You can go ahead and just give me the petition. We will have the clerk make a copy for each Commissioner and -- are there any questions of this individual? Okay. Thank you. Chaney: I guess one final thing. I understand -- and maybe I'm wrong -- that if a petition goes through without appeal, if Tanana Valley doesn't get an appeal, that it can bypass the Meridian City Council, and we would like to make sure that our opposition is noted, so that Tanana Valley actually gets heard by the City Council. And maybe I'm off on my understanding of those rules and procedures. Rohm: Once this body completes hearing this project and makes recommendations, it will, then, go to City Council. Chaney: Okay. So, it will be heard? Rohm: It will be heard again. Chaney: Okay. Very good. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to clarify, there is a section in the Comprehensive Plan that does say if a developer comes in and does a traditional neighborhood design, we kind of give them as the carrot to do those types of things, you would have the authority. This does not -- it has a lot of those concepts, but it's been determined that this is not consistent with that diagram that's in the Comprehensive Plan. So, this will, in fact, go to the City Council for their approval as well, so -- Chaney: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb. At this time I'd like to have Lorelei Smith come forward, please. L. Smith: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Lorelei Smith and I am at -- from 2830 South Daybreak Road in Observation Point and my comments are, in fact, very similar and reflect the -- the concerns of the homeowners association from Observation Point and the major concerns are with the residential zoning density there, as opposed to the neighborhoods that are directly across the street in both -- both Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 21 of 64 directions. When you go across Victory into Observation Point and over to Meridian Greens, the zoning is for larger lots and across the street on the other side of Meridian they are also zoned for larger lots and our concern is that the very high density of the townhouse size lots are directly so closely associated with the Observation Point Subdivision, as well as the location of the business and commercial lots directly across from there when it -- as pointed out by Mr. Chaney, it would seem a much more logical position to have those -- the business lots placed closer to Meridian Road where there are already business sites in effect. So, it's really just more concurring with the homeowners association assessment, which you have as part of that petition. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. All right. That is the end of the list of people that have signed up, but at this time it's open to anyone else that would like to step forward and provide testimony. Logue: Commissioners, my address is 574 East Observation Drive. Rohm: And what was your name, please? Logue: Mert Logue is my name. My comments, you know, pretty much mirror what the petition is supporting and the thing that -- I can't remember if it's Commissioner Borup or not, but they kind of referred to, you know, considering the large home and 6.9 acres, I guess, that's included in all the calculations to make the density figures come into the smoke screen here a little bit and I'd really like for you guys to take that under serious consideration, because, you know, when we are talking about traffic -- and I know you guys' job isn't traffic, that's ACHD, and I was involved in those meetings when they reviewed it and submitted their study and I understand, you know, what the report's saying with the alignment and just trying to make things flow, but when we are talking this kind of volume and the two arteries that are outsourced and the one going onto Meridian and what's there and what you have to deal with with the traffic that's coming out of Kuna and the loads that's coming on that road, the major arterial is going to be Victory Road and, then, with the density that's there it's just going to compound that and I feel the neighborhood commercial property where it's located is just going to influence that as well. If you go across Meridian Road, what would be the northwest corner there of Victory, there is subdivision going in there as well and I see the TN -C property, I'm assuming that that's what it is, is all pushed to the frontage of Victory Road and they have designed it so there is access, you know, through the subdivision into the commercial property, which makes a lot of sense from my point of view. If I'm a -- if I'm a businessman, I don't -- I don't know that that's really attractive for me to put a business in a commercial property that is tucked in and off Victory Road where I really don't have any access from traffic. So, I really hope you, as a board, take a look at the true picture of what the density really is here and take that into consideration about trying to realign this to make it look a little better. I know that when Observation went in Meridian Greens had a huge objection to Observation, because they wanted to push their density levels up and Observation ended up bringing the density down in order to accommodate those people that live in Meridian Greens. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 22 of 64 Borup: Just -- Logue: And, lastly, I have one letter that I submitted and wanted to make sure that you all had that, I personally wrote, and make sure that's that in the packet. Okay. And that pretty much addresses all my other concerns as far as the speed and the blind hill that's at Observation that should be considered in this as well. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one. Do you happen to know what the density of Observation Point is? Logue: You know, I don't, but I could find out. Borup: Okay. Logue: It's an R-4 zone. Borup: Yeah. I realize that. Logue: Okay. I know that there is -- Borup: And I remember when it went in, the -- Logue: Eighty-four homes is what's in there. Borup: And how many acres? Logue: They are about a third acre lots, if you was to break it down as far as the square footage. Borup: I don't think so. But you -- Logue: Well, I believe the plats -- you know, with Observation, if we brought that down and compared it to what's there, I mean it's obvious that the density -- Borup: I remember when it was before in the public hearings. So, this one -- this subdivision does come out -- I mean as a whole is three units per acre is the density in here. Logue: Yeah. I understand that. But also it's got a nice six point, you know, nine acre lot that's in the middle of that that breaks down into that figure and so that kind of skews it. I mean you got to -- Borup: Well, it skews it on -- in maybe what the average lot size would be with those numbers, but if that lot wasn't vacant there would be more lots in there, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 23 of 64 Logue: That's true. But I don't feel that that changes the issue with density, you know. Especially when you take a look at that and compare it to every other subdivision that's around that. I mean they are pushing a lot there to get what they want and I really think it needs to be taken into consideration. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I have a question for you. Did you folks meet with the developers of this -- Logue: Yeah, we did. I went to the neighborhood meeting and one of the things that -- you know, he explained it all and our concern was the density. I mean we realize it's going to get developed and the developer said that, you know, it's the City of Meridian that wants this. It's not us. I mean that was a statement that was made at the neighborhood meeting that, you know, we -- you know, we are just doing what the city tells us they want and so we don't want to have any objections when we go through, you know, Planning and Zoning or the city, so we are going to do what they want us to do. And that's what we were told at the neighborhood meeting, is that the city wants the neighborhood commercial property and that's where they want it and the city wants the higher, you know, density and they adopted some new policy and I'm unfamiliar with that and that's why -- and that's why it's in the plot. I mean the developer said at that meeting that, you know, it's not us, it's the city, so -- Rohm: Thank you, sir. Borup: And I think what they were referring to -- that is what the Comprehensive Plan shows. Logue: That could be. Rohm: Again, there are no other -- oh, please. Sullivan: My name is Lisa Sullivan. My address is 817 East Glacier Bay Court and I'm in the Glacier Bay Springs Subdivision right across the street -- or right next to Observation Point. And this is my first view of the plan and I'm actually -- we are just in the process -- our homeowners association hasn't been established yet, so we don't have anybody to group that together, but I would agree that the high density housing is - - and the commercial property is not feasible where it's located and I know Observation Point and probably our tract is considering the value of the homes overall, because of the high density, would probably hurt its value. The concern of the traffic, dealing with it already, I agree that it's going to be definitely a problem when you consider most homes now have two cars per household and so you're talking over a thousand, you know, potentially per day coming and going, especially at high traffic times. But my -- I just want to make my comments that I agree that the high density housing needs to be maybe revised of where it's located and also the commercial property. Any questions for me? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 24 of 64 Rohm: Thank you. Comments? Oh, excuse me. Zaremba: Response. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come back up, please. Martin: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Justin Martin again, 5606 North Ten Mile Road. As far as the density goes, we did try and follow the city's Comp Plan. know that they put years of work into those things and try and make the plan the city could somewhat follow and we do put a lot of stock -- when we are looking for land or looking to buy a property, looking to acquire property, we pay attention to what the city has planned for in those areas and try and pick in a location that we are not going to go against what the city's looking for. And I did do the math on cutting the 6.93 acre lot out of the project and it would move it up from -- it was 3.09 before, it would move it up to 3.2. So, basically .11 is what it moved it up. Next no change in the way of -- it is a change. Next to no change in the way of what the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning areas that we are in allow for. As far as the cut -through traffic in Observation Point, I did drive through Observation Point to get to Overland Road and it's, basically, a mile and a quarter or so front -on housing winding through Observation Point and, then, through Meridian Greens to get out to Meridian Road. It doesn't make any sense to drive on front -on housing and that kind of a distance and try and hurry yourself along and we all can realize that it's unsafe and I'm sure that people do do it. I guess is what I'm pointing out is that I would hope most people would recognize that that is unsafe and they wouldn't be doing that. Our traffic study did show no cut -through traffic going straight out of our main collector onto Victory Road into the project to the north. If Victory Road -- as things build out there it's going to be difficult to cut across two directions of traffic to get into Observation Point. Anybody that's coming out onto Victory Road at a rush hour time most likely is going to be turning right. If they want to get to Meridian Road they should be going to Harris at the back of the project and going out to Meridian Road that way. ACHD is going to build a signal at Victory and Meridian Road this year. We did give up -- anyway, we gave a piece of the land for that to help move that project along. I think it's good of ACHD to be trying to stay ahead. I know it's difficult. The homeowners at the ACHD hearing commented that most of the backup traffic comes from Meridian and Overland -- the intersection of Meridian and Overland another mile to the north and the traffic backs up so bad that's what encourages people to cut through their subdivision. ACHD's comment was that in 2009 they were going to upgrade the signal at Meridian and Overland and as far as our project further back at Harris Street and Meridian Road, we did agree with ACHD to provide a bond for 50 percent of a future signal there as it becomes warranted or as it becomes available to construct based on alignments and things like that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Is that -- that isn't the half mile there, is it? Martin: It is. Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • June 1, 2006 Page 25 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that the half mile? Martin: Do you mean to Victory Road, the -- Newton-Huckabay: No, the -- Martin: -- the Harris Street? Newton-Huckabay: -- that's half, Harris Street. Martin: It is the half mile. Newton-Huckabay: It is. Okay. Martin: And that's why it was fairly important for us to obtain that small Rumple Lane section is, because Rumple Lane, really, was right on the half mile and we were just withheld from the half mile by a tiny bit and, anyway, all the agencies, obviously, would like to see a half mile access. ITD's standpoint as of recent on the project that we have done has been trying to control their access points to the half mile section to allow for future signalization, instead of -- instead of a bunch of accesses onto the road, they think that it's safer that way. We also have the same theory with our connection to Observation Point. I do understand the theory of not liking the higher density project right across the street from where they are living. I think the longer term theory it would be best to align those accesses for the point of future signalization, if it ever become necessary, and as far as commercial and the higher density down on the corner at Meridian and Victory Road, I think that that does all of a sudden make a need in our project for accesses to Meridian Road or more accesses to Victory Road. They made the comment of moving our higher density and our commercial over to the corner and at the point we -- if we designed something like that, I think it almost mandates having accesses to those roads from our point of view, because of the higher traffic and the issues with the commercial lot tucked away inside a subdivision too far. That's it. I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? When do you project build out of this project? Martin: That's a really good question. I haven't been so good at guessing that in the past. Some of the projects that we projected seven years on in the past took two to three years and so I guess I would like to say that we start construction on this project in the spring or sometime in the winter and that -- Newton-Huckabay: Of '07? Martin: '07. The end of '09, 1 guess. At the current rate and the current absorption rates of projects in the valley, a two year build out would be -- would be fairly obtainable. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 26 of 64 If the market slowed to an older pace, I mean it could take five years. You could get down to 50 lots a year and it could take ten years, potentially at a fixed year ago rate, but two years is probably the more likely scenario. Borup: Somewhere in between. Martin: What's that? Borup: Or somewhere in between those. Martin: That's right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I finish -- Rohm: Absolutely. You got it. Newton-Huckabay: What type of housing are you thinking of putting in the most dense area there on the north corner of the -- Martin: That's all single family homes. No attached homes. No apartments. No duplexes, some of the things that are allowed in those sort of neighborhoods. We are doing single family homes. They are going to be more narrow. We do have some alleys -- alleys on the back of the smallest lots and they are going to have alleys so the garages will be facing back towards the back of the home and so the front of the home will still be really presentable from the street by not having it all garage in the front on the smallest of the homes. My best guess is that those would cost -- would be that those lots would be somewhere around 60,000 dollars and that the end product -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I was just curious about the type of home. So, you see detached, row house type? Martin: I do. And so there is definitely good examples around town and there is poor examples. Some of the good examples have been done by David Turnbull in the community here and as well as other communities and that's definitely what we like and we do -- we do have fairly good CC&Rs and control, we review every plan that's submitted before it's constructed on any of our projects. So, we have fairly decent control over those sorts of issues. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're envisioning, then, a Heritage Commons type product? Martin: I would. I would. We sure don't want to build something that doesn't have value, that's for sure. Or long term value. Newton-Huckabay: And I think my last question would be in that commercial area -- Well, actually, I have two more questions. What are you envisioning you're going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 1, 2006 Page 27 of 64 marketing that -- that property to? What type of business? I can't see it being any type of a gas station type -- well, it's TN -R, isn't it? Martin: It's definitely going to be a neighborhood friendly business. You know, if it were at the corner -- the intersection of Victory and Meridian Road, then, you could see it being a more regional type of a use. It's a neighborhood friendly use. You could see it as a dentist's office, you could see it as -- you know, there is a bunch of uses, but more of a neighborhood use. The staff had me add an access path to the back of that lot for more foot traffic coming into it. Its intent is definitely a neighborhood use. Can't give you much more feedback than that. We didn't design anything on there and bring it to you now to try and get it approved, because we can't see that far in the future. But by no means is it going to be a residential -- or a regional use where we are drawing traffic from all over to this site. It's going to be a neighborhood friendly use. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are looking at -- I mean I would envision this would -- if it says the way it is today, develop as a -- more of a pedestrian friendly -- coffee shop. Martin: Right. So, it would be small -- small retail shops that the subdivision could use. Nothing large. It could be offices, for that matter, small business offices. Yeah. Coffee shop. Good example. And so, honestly, we haven't got that far along. I can't give you a good answer, except to say that its intent is a neighborhood use and you guys will definitely have another shot at making sure that's true. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And my last question -- can you go to the -- where you can see the school site? I was -- and this may or may not be feasible, but to me, coming in here and having to wrap around to get to the school site seems a bit awkward. I was wondering if it might be more feasible to access through here to get into the school site, rather than come completely into the development. Martin: I think that's a very good point. My only concern with making that more of a straight shot would be we would be encouraging people from the other subdivisions to drive through our front -on housing more often. The school site is definitely an alternative high school site. We talking about 50 trips per day on a traffic -- on a traffic study and one bus running morning and night. So, it's not as you would picture an elementary site where they really need a collector right near them. Newton-Huckabay: Is this the half mile? Martin: And so the connection -- Borup: That's the mile. Newton-Huckabay: Is that the mile? Okay. Martin: And so my only concern is that the straighter we make streets that connect with the rest of the mile section, we turn it into a problem of exactly what Observation Point Meridian Planning &Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 28 of 64 is concerned about now, is people actually cutting through their subdivision with front -on homes, because it's more straight shot or it goes faster than when traffic's backed up on the arterial roadway. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I hardly think that breaking that through there is any different than breaking it through right there. That's my point. I mean I see what you're saying, but if you were coming here and come across and up, it's not really any different than right there. Martin: Sure. Are you suggesting that I would delete that other one and add one at the location you were -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. That's what I would do. Yeah. And I mean maybe that's not feasible. Again, I'm not a -- I just pass judgment. Hood: And that's a good thought. I had a similar train of thought when I looked at it, but I wasn't looking at taking the first entrance in, it would be the second entrance in up and up. So, it's not -- and this -- actually, they have got landscaping along both sides, so you're not front -on housing, it's, actually, a road that's more dedicated to traffic and you don't have people trying to back out of their driveway to actually take access here, so -- Newton-H u ckabay: Oh. Okay. Hood: -- you bypass the first road, take this one -- and, then, you do have a -- you know, a short block that you run by to get to, but that -- at least that was my train of thought when looking at that. Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough. That's the end of my questions. Martin: Anything else? Rohm: It doesn't look like it. Martin: I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. I'll ask you first. Commissioner Moe, do you have any comments? Moe: You're starting with me? Rohm: This time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, actually, I -- going through the plan and whatnot I actually felt that - - again, we are -- we have a neighborhood center situation here again and those are fairly new to this Commission and it seems that we get quite a bit of discussion from the audience in regard to how we are placing some of these. Quite frankly, in reviewing this Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 29 of 64 project I actually like it quite a bit. I think there is a lot of diversity in it and I think the applicant has done a very good job and I'm in favor this project going forward. End of comment. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Can you skip me? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: And come back to me? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'm feeling real comfortable with it. I know I had a lot of questions prior to the hearing and I think a lot of those got answered and the project. The only comment I would have -- and I understand the concern people have on traffic and density, that's always -- that always is a concern and -- but I think one of the things -- at least us as a Commission needs to take into consideration is the Comprehensive Plan. That's one of the things we are bound by. The Comprehensive Plan map -- maybe one of the staff could answer -- or help me here -- it shows that as designated as low density and maybe it made it, which would be three or less per acre. So, it may have complied with that as an overall. Whereas this project is medium density, which is three to eight per acre. So, they are at the low end of the Comprehensive Plan and that's -- that's the guidelines that -- that's been established -- I mean this particular case since 2002. That's the expectation that someone -- developer would have to go by is that they would expect to be -- need to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and they have stayed at the far low end of that, which is really as much as they can do without asking for a -- for a -- I guess it would be a bump down, rather than a bump up. Usually, we hear it the other way around, people are trying to be more dense than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. That's the only comment I have on that, other than I know -- I do have a - - can share the concern on -- on the cut through. I don't know that it's that convenient. wonder if anyone's ever tried timing it. I tried it once, it wasn't worth it. I got lost in Meridian Greens almost, but -- because the road -- there is not a very good straight shot, depending on -- if you're coming from Overland anyway, but -- I haven't tried it -- haven't tried it at 5:00 o'clock either. So, it may be different then. That's all I had. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Well, I agree. I had a number of questions before we started this evening and they have all been answered to my satisfaction and as has been pointed out several times, this not only complies with the Comprehensive Plan, but it's at the low end of complying with the Comprehensive Plan. The medium density would allow for easily two and a half times as many dwellings as this applicant is asking for. I had my questions answered about commercial area and the applicant has seemed to have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 30 of 64 been cooperative with staff about accesses and pathways and landscaping, which are often issues of contention. And I think I'm satisfied this is a project that is appropriate for the area and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Just a final comment on all of this. The Comprehensive Plan was developed in, what, 2002? Zaremba: Approved in 2002. So, four years of work before that. Rohm: And there was -- there was a huge amount of work -- body of work that went into the development of that Comprehensive Plan and each and every one of us had an opportunity to participate in that Comprehensive Plan development and from a consensus standpoint these regional commercial pockets, if you will, are something that were overwhelmingly endorsed by the community as a whole and the intent is is that, really, they will help reduce traffic from the standpoint that if you have got some small commercial pockets here and there, as opposed to everybody driving into town to get services, they can obtain some of those things right in the neighborhood that they live and that was the whole idea behind having these small pockets and I think that overall they have been pretty well received where they have been developed to date and so it's not that there is anybody on this Commission that doesn't take your concerns -- you know, we don't take them lightly. But I truly do believe that the small commercial pockets ultimately benefit each of us as we move forward. So, that's the end of my comments. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Before we proceed, I would ask one more question of staff, and that is at the beginning of Exhibit B, conditions of approval, quite often when there is an annexation and zoning there is a restatement that the development agreement is a requirement and I don't see that on this page. Should we add that or the fact that it's in the discussion is that enough? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you sure can add that. I mean 1.1.1 typically has -- it says you need to comply with the accompanying annexation and zoning application. You could read into that the associated DA with the annexation and zoning application, but if you think for clarification that needs to be put in there, that would be fine, too. Sure. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make some comments. Borup: It might be too late. Better hurry. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 31 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I just -- we will not -- this doesn't require a Conditional Use Permit if the commercial comes back through; is that correct? Am I reading that right? Hood: If you look -- Newton-Huckabay: Did I just miss it? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Members or the Commission, on page ten -- I remember drafting something to that effect. I don't remember exactly how it turned out, so you will have to bear with me as I scan those bullet points. Newton-Huckabay: Here it is. Hood: Oh, that future uses in the area -- a re -subdivision. So, you will see the subdivision and at that time we need more details. So, yes, it will be back before you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Generally I'm afraid I, too, am in agreement. I think this is a nice development. We see a lot of developments come through here that don't get the detached sidewalks. The pathway system is definitely above what we are used to seeing. I like the dense project up in the -- up in the northeast corner. We have similar developments in Heritage Commons. They can't keep those -- they don't stay on the market very long. A lot of demand for that type of home for babyboomers, et cetera, who are looking for not a lot of land and a nice place to live. I do not like the six acre area in the middle. Those of you who have -- I don't like it when they leave those big pockets like that in the middle of a development. I think it's -- unless, of course, you're going to donate it to the city at some point as a public park, then, I suppose it would be okay. But I -- that, to me, when something's built out, generally does not look nice. Is it a deal breaker for me, I would say probably no. I would have liked to see other access to the school. How you would accomplish that -- again, I don't have to design them, just get to pass judgment on them, so -- other than that, I look forward to see it come together. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, question of staff. Caleb, do you have a date on this revised preliminary plat? Hood: Commissioner Moe, I do not have that. I spoke with the applicant about this very thing and I told him to hold off on submitting that, because I hate to draft a report, get one last minute, and, then, have to update everything I just wrote in the staff report. So, I said if you agree to make the changes, bring it to the Council. So, I don't -- I don't have a copy of that in hand. Again, that's because I -- I don't like to have to revise the report to reflect now that's not a comment, because what I'm basing my comments on they have already complied with. So, the original submittal date is what I have been working off of. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 32 of 64 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may not be remembering this exactly right, but the applicant took us through a drawing that the purpose of the drawing was the pathways. That appeared to have all of the changes that have been asked for and discussed. If we referenced -- I mean as part of the public testimony we could reference that as being the changes we expect to the plat. Am I correct about that? Hood: And, again, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, all of that is verbally in here, so, again, back to 1.1.1, you know, you could make some reference to it, but they are all covered in the following conditions, just that's your visual and this is in the black and white. So, it's up to you. Again, that's why I work that way, because this tells you what he has to do. He's gone ahead and made those changes before it was even required by this body, so -- and that's great, too. It's just I don't update the staff report to reflect that, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Borup: Yeah. I don't see any conflict there. There is no conflict there, then. Rohm: I think the point is the applicant's in agreement with the staff report and that will, then, adjust the plat accordingly. So, that makes sense to me. Borup: Mr. Chairman, except for maybe three areas and that's -- is my understanding. And, Caleb, you agreed with all -- I think their wording just kind of reiterated what you said and they were in agreement with everything and from what notes I had, the road along Meridian Road and you're okay with their -- or the sidewalk along Meridian Road, you're okay with their wording on that one? And, then, the other was on the water main. I think the agreement was it could be -- it could be within -- they said they had a 60 foot -- a 60 foot buffer. So, somewhere within that 60 foot buffer is what we are talking about? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, absolutely. guess I didn't study the landscape buffers. If they have a 60 foot landscape buffer and a pathway through there, that would be an ideal location to place a water main. I think -- wouldn't want to nail them down to that. I think if we just add -- include a 12 inch water main in the frontage along Meridian Road, then, add: Or an acceptable alternative to Public Work's standards, and that way that gives them some flexibility to either put it in the landscape buffer in Meridian Road -- I think that would be -- Borup: Yes. That's what I was looking for and I think that -- so, the only thing I think we haven't discussed is the landscaping along the school site, if that sounds okay, their proposal, was I believe -- if I understood it, their proposal is to put the sidewalk in and, then, let the school do the landscaping. Rohm: Do you have some thoughts on that, Commissioner Borup? Borup: That was my thought. We haven't discussed it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 33 of 64 Rohm: Do you think that they should put the landscape in or is it satisfactory in your mind to just put the sidewalk in? What are your thoughts? Borup: Well, there is not a -- it's not a separate lot; isn't that correct? It's owned by the school district. Rohm: I believe it is a lot within the subdivision. Borup: No. I mean there is not separate landscaping -- landscaped lot or -- Rohm: I think -- Borup: Mr. Hood maybe could clear -- I should already know that, but Mr. Hood's got a clarification. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, the submitted plat didn't show any landscaping there, whether it be an easement or in a common lot. For residential subdivisions we do require them in a separate common lot. For commercial or even school district properties, it can be just an easement within the build -able lot, so it would be an easement on that school district's lot in this subdivision would be okay. Borup: If there was landscaping or the sidewalk would be in easement. Hood: Yeah. They can put it within -- there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer required and that sidewalk can meander with that 25 feet. Correct. Moe: That is what the applicant is basically stating they would do. They put the sidewalk in and leave the rest to the school district to take care of, so that they design their irrigation to the -- Borup: And that makes sense to me. I don't know who handles weeds and weed maintenance -- so, to me that's the only thing that's maybe up in the -- Rohm: Well, I think that if the lot's owned by the school district, the school district will be required, by city ordinance, to keep the weeds down. Borup: I guess that's true. Rohm: Makes sense to me. Hood: Mr. Chair, I guess just one more thing back to this discussion of old plat, new plat changes made. The other change that isn't talked about in the staff report that is new that I was made aware of I believe after the staff report even went out, maybe the day before, but is the other access near the grange not being there to Victory Road. I'm not -- I don't think it has to be one way or the other, but just so you know, the plat Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 34 of 64 submitted did show the public street access -- the second public street access right at the grange property. That location probably isn't ideal as mentioned by the applicant, because the grange would be responsible for constructing, basically, half of that street and it's a smaller site. But that would be a change that maybe -- I guess just to gauge, if you're okay with them taking that access out or not, would be a change. And, then, they also showed two public street access points down to Harris Street, which is the one that goes out to Meridian Road. So, originally they just showed the one and, then, the revised plat -- or at least some renditions -- they did have two access points. So, just so we are on the same page. I don't have -- either way I think it still works, but this one -- this is the submitted plan and they just had the one that came down and out. And in the revised plat I don't remember if it aligned here or aligned there, but there is a second street so you can get people from here taking that one, people from here taking that one and out. So, those are some of the other changes that were made that aren't required in the staff report, but the applicant has made those changes since, so I just thought would call those out and see if anyone had any problems with those changes as well. Moe: I guess I would just make -- asking the question basically with any modifications to a motion, maybe just put something to the effect that revised -- modify the revised preliminary plat as shown during the open meeting, something to that effect, so it's on the record that we have seen -- Borup: That was my assumption. Rohm: With that being said, maybe it would be appropriate to close the Public Hearing on these items at this time. Would someone like to make that motion? Newton-Huckabay: I will make that one, but I won't make the next one. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I did want to make note I was glad to see the signal bonding on this development. We don't always get that. That's nice. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just since we are in discussion -- and Mike leaves the room. What exactly was his point on 2.5 under the -- on the water main? Was that just or as -- Borup: Just that -- yeah. Along Meridian Road within the buffer or other acceptable -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 35 of 64 Rohm: Acceptable to staff. Newton-Huckabay: City standards. Borup: And then -- so, then, you got the other two -- 1.1.2 1 think was -- Moe: Well, I guess what -- Borup: Sidewalk would be as the applicant reworded or -- Moe: I would put both of the -- the first and third bullet points could stay. You know, their response. That's kind of the way I was looking at it. Newton-Huckabay: Say that again. Borup: You mean the staff report would stay? Moe: No. On 1.1.2 the applicant's response to the first bullet point and the third bullet point would be added to the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: At the -- Borup: Well -- okay. Moe: Do you see where I'm speaking of? Borup: Yeah. I thought -- and I thought Mr. Hood said that they had already reached agreement on that and it wasn't -- it was maybe redundant. Moe: They have reached agreement, but it's not noted within his report. That's why I'm just -- Borup: Do you mean the applicant's comments would stay? Moe: That's correct. Borup: Yes. Yeah. Moe: Okay. That's all. Borup: Well, actually, I mean all of them were okay. I thought those three were the only ones that was up in the air. By the two public access points and all that stuff was in here, too, and etcetera. Moe: You know, those are the only -- those are the only three within that that I will be making points on. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 36 of 64 Borup: Okay. Moe: I think. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, it sounds like you're maybe leaning towards a motion. I'd ask you also to look at that -- Borup: We hope so. Hood: -- development agreement provision for the out parcel on Victory Road -- or, excuse me, on Meridian Road. It's the second to the last bullet point on page 11 and just -- it has to do with the applicant being willing to construct the sidewalk or the pathway along Meridian Road adjacent to the out parcel, just -- Moe: Well, can I read you what I was anticipating doing there? And I'm back on page nine of that where you note the sidewalk. I just put after the -- after what you've got in here, I just put note: If the construction and easement is not allowed -- now I have got to go find where I was at -- is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant will bond for the future pathway improvements when allowed. Because that's what the applicant said he would do. I see you're not -- you don't like that. Hood: He did -- he did volunteer that. I would hesitate, though -- and I'm looking at legal a little bit here -- to hold a bond for an improvement on an out parcel. That is going to be -- I mean when do we cash that, if ever? I mean how do you -- it just seems a little bit ugly to me to put a -- to require them to bond for something in front of someone else's property, when that property, really, should be responsible for that construction when they develop. I like the idea, again, in theory, but it really creates more of a headache for the city as far as tracking that, holding the surety for whoever knows how long. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I don't want to lose the fact that the developer volunteered to do this. I think it's something that we can work out between now and the City Council. Perhaps the appropriate language would be to put: Or bonding or other mechanism acceptable to the city and we can -- maybe in the meantime make contact with the property owner and find out if it's allowed. If it is, then, we don't have to worry about it at all. If it's going to be a future thing, then, we will figure out some way to make that happen. I know that the City Council loves it when someone steps up and volunteers to do this, so I'd hate to lose that. So, if that gives you sufficient alternative language, that would be my suggestion. Newton-Huckabay: Did you get that? Borup: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Martin, if you -- if Mr. Mussell does not feel like he wants to comply to that, I'd be glad to talk to him. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 37 of 64 Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Commissioner Moe, I think we are ready. Moe: Hopefully I am. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2006, with the following modifications. The first one would be that the -- that to please note the revised preliminary plat as shown during the open meeting. Next item would be item on page nine, section ten, dealing with the sidewalks, at the end of that paragraph put: Note. If the construction and easement is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant will bond or provide other methods for future -- or provide future -- excuse me -- or provide other methods as the city agrees to future pathway improvements in there. Next, under the Exhibit B, page one, item 1.1.1, where it starts out the preliminary plat label just at the end of that, would you also include a sentence that just basically states that the development agreement -- or enter into a development agreement would be that. Under 1.1.2, also in Exhibit B, bullet points one and three would include the applicant's response to the staff report as part of the motion. And under public Works Department, item 2.5, add to the end of that that basically states: Or other acceptable city standards. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of Items AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013, to include all staff comments and public testimony, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time we typically take a 15 minute recess and we will reconvene at 9:15. Thank you. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time we would like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the first thing I'd like to do is make notice that Item No. 15 on our agenda for CUP 06-015, Conditional Use Permit for Walgreens, will be continued, because it wasn't properly noticed, so if there is anybody here that intended to speak to that, it probably won't be -- well, it won't be heard tonight. And so that note -- with that being said, we will continue, but we are going to change the order just a little bit. We have got an item that I think will go rather quickly and so I'm going to move it up on the agenda and it is for Public Hearing CUP 06-016, a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 38 of 64 Conditional Use Permit for Bearly Grown Child Care and I will open that and start with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners of the Board. Bearly Grown is located in the Brockton Subdivision. This is an area of light office, as you can see, and there are offices in the area there. To the south side is the Meridian fire station and, then, there are other subdivisions located to I believe is west -- and let's see here. We have got Summer Ridge across the road here. This is Heritage Park up here. And, then, a rural plot, not really affected too much by it down here. Bearly Grown is originally from, I believe, the Arizona area and they have been in Boise and they are moving their business out to this particular site. This is the Brockton Subdivision Plan. The site that we are looking at is down in the corner here in the cross -hatch. There is an existing fence down here, between it and the fire station. That is required with a day care facility. They will also be building other fencing along the perimeter, a nonscalable six foot fence. The police department would prefer that it is an open fence, so I discussed with the applicant's representative Mrs. Moorhouse types of fencing that might be appropriate for that and we are going to kind of look into that a little bit more with them, because they had been proposing to use a solid six foot cedar fence similar to what was back here by the existing. They do have cross -parking and drive access here within the subdivision and they have about 11 spots here and here for both employee parking and parent pick up. We would like to condition that they post signs on the islands, perhaps, pardon me, here and, then, I think -- I want to say up here closer down here by their site entrance, that parents park their cars, rather than leaving them idling in the drive here to pick up children. The concern is is that if you have children running out to cars that may be idling that there could be some potential accidents. And also it's blocking the drive, so that if anybody is in these other businesses and trying to get out through that drive aisle that it may block it. So, that's one of the other conditions that we would suggest. As far as the building itself, many of the materials meet the Brockton Subdivision guidelines and, Caleb, maybe if I could have you go down. This is just some of the landscaping that they are proposing. The subdivision has landscaping over here. This will be grass through here and grass up here. This is the majority of one playground area for the children. It's a large site and I don't think they are proposing any playground equipment over six feet tall. They have a lot of experience through their business. So, I will let the applicant -- or the applicant's representative speak to that. And this one will be a smaller lot for the youngest children, so that they are kind of separated from the older children, just to minimize any conflict between age groups, suppose. Oh. Gosh, Barb was going to put in the newest elevations. Okay. We are going to put up a hard copy here of the newest elevation. One of our suggestions had been more definition for the elevations and it was submitted after the report went out, but some changes were made to the elevations that call out the character a little bit more of the building. So, for the Brockton Subdivision most of the photo elevations that were provided for Brockton show arcades, if you will, around the entries. This one they have provided now. Get my pen here. Before this was not called out in the first submittal of elevation and now they have called out that arcade and it looks like they have got two different perspectives that they might use. They have also included some more plains here in the lines and just some more definition to the roof line than originally Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 39 of 64 was submitted. They are going to use the field stone on the bottom and the stucco, which is within the Brockton Subdivision guidelines and, basically, they have already complied with the condition that they call more of the architectural design and character of the Brockton Subdivision. So, that's already been met, it's just that we didn't have it in time to include in the report. And at this time I think -- if you have any further questions. They are proposing, as far as service, I think to serve approximately 58 children. Pardon me. Yes. A maximum of 58 children. So, with that I don't think there were any other staff issues. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just had one question on -- on page six under the analysis, bullet number three and bullet number five and the -- the decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of clients and hours. Staff recommends up to 58 children -- we are 7:00 to 6:30. And, then, in bullet five it says on residential districts, adjoining adjacent residents, the hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through -- are those contradictory or am I just reading them wrong? Veatch: I think what it was saying was the applicant has said that they would like to operate during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to -- I believe it was 6:00 p.m. and we thought if -- when you say that, of course, you may have parents who may be a bit late picking up their children, but we want to add any time onto that -- I guess in the second where it says 6:00 to 11:00, that's just a general guideline for a facility. So, they are actually proposing less hours of operation than what would be allowed. Newton -H u ckabay: Okay. Veatch: And we can just modify that to reflect their hours of operation. Newton-Huckabay: My preference historically is to go with the 6:00 to 11:00. That's what we did with the day care center to the north in the Heritage Park and, then, you don't have a compliance issue down the road. Veatch: And, really, the site doesn't affect any residential neighborhood as such, I don't think, because there is the road to the east, the fire station to the south, and, then, part of the Brockton Subdivision to the west, so -- Newton-Huckabay: That's right. That's my only comment. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any additional comments or questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 40 of 64 Fish: Hi, I'm Katie Fish. I own Bearly Grown Child Care Center. My address is 3920 North EI Senor Way. Basically, what we are just proposing is to relocate our business, where we have been currently in Boise, relocate to the Meridian area. We have gone according to all the conditions that have been put up to us. Willing to do anything. Sorry. I don't really know what I'm doing today. Rohm: Well, that's all right. I think mainly if you have read the staff report and if you're in agreement with the staff report. Fish: We are. Rohm: I think for this type of an application that's typically all you need to do is just say you agree with the staff report. Fish: We agree with the staff report. Rohm: And ready to move forward. Fish: Okay. Rohm: And would appreciate your approval. Fish: We appreciate your approval. Rohm: There you go. Thank you. Fish: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: The staff report does mention the east elevation, which is not supposed to look like the back of a building, since it faces a -- what will be a major arterial. And my question is this elevation is not quite what I think we had in mind as the view from the major street. Fish: In actuality, this elevation -- for some reason there were a lot of windows left out. There should be at least two more windows put on there and I did speak with my builder this morning and she said we don't have any issues if maybe a dormer wants to be put up or a gable, that's no problem whatsoever. Zaremba: You can do some of those things? Fish: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 41 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. Fish: Okay. Anything else? Rohm: I think that's it. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Fish: Thanks. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-016. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: For discussion I would make two comments. One is that I absolutely agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that we should state the hours as -- what was it, that their permissible 6:00 to 11:00. That does not mean that they have to be open those hours. They are welcome to pick hours that are less than that, but I agree that they may end up having to stay late for a late parent or they may want to have a parents meeting some evening, so I think the flexibility is important and they can close when they want to, if they don't want to be open those many hours. The other is just a comment. Would you index back to the first slide that was shown and I just wanted to make sure it's clear. This is the piece of property that we are talking about here, not the one that's highlighted. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: I think we are. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Veatch: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Zaremba, you had mentioned the windows on the east elevation. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 42 of 64 Veatch: And I just wanted to clarify and it -- the applicant seemed in agreement, but we could add more windows on the east elevation. Zaremba: And I think she suggested a dormer or two, something to break up the thing to make it more attractive from the street. Veatch: Okay. And so just on that east side will reflect that. Zaremba: East elevation. Yeah. Borup: The other two buildings in there look real similar and they just added a gable on them on the east side. Veatch: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move to approve file number CUP 06-016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006. And the site plans labeled C1.0 dated October 14, 2004, and April 14th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. And that is on -- have the right place. On Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.5, 1 would change that sentence to be the hours of operation shall be contained within 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And I further move to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on June 14th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-016, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 43 of 64 Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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: At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings for AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all three of these items are pertaining to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There are actually two other applications that were submitted concurrent with this application. You do not need to make action on those, just thought that you should be aware. Anna gave the presentation on this on April 20th, as I was out of the state, but just thought I'd let you know that they have also applied for a private street and a variance. The variance I'll touch on real quick. We do have -- and hopefully I will check with all of you and make eye contact to make sure that you got the letter dated May 31st, 2006, from Hawley, Troxell, Ennis, and Hawley, from Geoff Wardle regarding this project. It outlines their comments regarding the revised staff report, so, hopefully, you all have a copy of that, because I will be -- oh, no. Okay. All right. At least one. And I think legal's got one. May 31st. HTEH top left corner. The city clerk may have stamped it, too, received some date, hopefully. Baird: Mr. Chair, actually, the one that's in my packet is April 20th. You say there is a May 31 st letter? Hood: Correct. It looks like the applicant's representative may have some additional copies. Baird: We can get some copies made. Rohm: We have got them. Hood: Okay. I think I can proceed anyways. Really, just a quick refresher. As I mentioned, you know, it's been five, six weeks now since this was before you, but just to refresh your memory, we are looking an annexation and zoning of 21.7 acres. The revised preliminary plat does show 116 residential lots. Originally, there were 122 residential lots. They have lost one four-plex lot and -- let's see if I can do the math real quick. Five townhouse lots. So, making those revisions -- and the staff report -- the revised staff report for June 1st is based on the revised landscape plan and preliminary plat. I think I may just jump right into the comments here, because there was -- I read through the minutes from the last hearing and there was some pretty specific comments and I think most of them have been addressed by the applicant in the revised plans. Does everyone now have a copy of that letter anyway? Okay. The first part refers to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 44 of 64 at least comment number one refers to the variance application and they are withdrawing -- I guess if the Commission would accept their -- they do not need variances any longer, so if you want to accept their withdrawal of that variance request, I think that would be appropriate. The second comment has to do with revised the preliminary plat. It was just unclear to me in the plat and landscape plan that they were showing covered parking. It's my understanding that they are willing to provide that, it just wasn't tabled very well in the plat, but their intent is to provide 399 covered parking stalls for the four-plexes as required by city ordinance. Number three, they are going to provide the parking pad. Number four is one that just needs some clarification. I think their can be an agreement reached, it's just at the staff level we are hesitant to grant a substandard setback from where public utilities and drainages -- or drainage easements typically go without having something in writing from those utilities. We are still willing -- and I will let Mike maybe touch on this a little bit, because I think he's made a modification to his condition in his portion of the staff report, but, essentially, what it says is unless otherwise approved -- or as approved by Vick Steelman, I think, provide setbacks for the four-plex units. They are proposing -- originally there was a five foot setback to some of the four-plex units adjacent to the private streets and here and now they all are at least seven -- some of them greater than seven, but there are some of them that go down to seven for the utilities and typically -- I mean that can work, it's just that there needs to be some coordination there and I guess that's where I'll pass this off to Mike at the end of my presentation. Some of the other things that were talked about at the previous hearings were amenities and there are at least a couple Commissioners that commented on some additional amenities. They may show up a little bit better on the -- please offer concise remarks is right where I was going to go. But they do have a half basketball court that has been added to this area. And they have also added some picnic tables, which don't show up on this one, but they do on the preliminary plat. So, a little picnic area here. Let's see. What else. The pathway running along the backside of these is now within a common lot. Before it was proposed within the back sides of these condominium -- four-plex lots, now it is within a common lot owned by the HOA. Staff made a comment in the staff report about having another connection to that pathway here, so that the only access into that pathway isn't right here, that it allows a circular area for pedestrians anyway, or multiple access points into that area. And some additional open space was also added. So, I just wanted to point those out for you. Let's see. Lot 29, number seven -- I guess I'm skipping to number seven. That was an old comment from the previous staff report. It had to do with this was previously Lot 29, this four-plex lot. Staff had a comment about their trail system and getting access from a townhouse. This is facilitating that a little bit more. There are sidewalks here, but they have added a pathway here, it just kind of makes movement easier for pedestrians as well. I think that we are all in agreement on that, at least the staff and applicant are on the same page. Dumpster location, there is not an issue there. Eight. The revised ones are fine. I think that comment just didn't get updated. I may just stop there for just a second. Some of the last comments are old and they are based on the original submittal. I have not gone back to the police department, I have not gone back to SSC, I have not touched base with any of these other agencies regarding their original conditions. The revised plat appears to comply with those conditions. So, they are still in there as conditions, but they have, really, complied with them as shown on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 45 of 64 these revised plans. So, I'll leave that up to those specific agencies to verify that they are in compliance. But as far as I can tell they don't to need make any -- any of those other changes in there. So, that applies to SSC, the police department's concerns over Lot 1, Block 1. Originally there was a four-plex lot that stood out here that has since been removed. It was isolated. Planning staff had the same comment, just -- I didn't want to take out the police department's comments. So, I guess the only thing that has not been changed or that -- that has been called out since the beginning of this application is the double fronted lots for this four-plex block, basically, and kind of that -- that lot that is -- it juts out I think is the language that may be in the staff report, into that drive aisle a little bit. So, that hasn't changed. That is -- they have added the variations as you can kind of see on the building setbacks, is another concern that they weren't all straight in a row. So, there are some building setback variations to both the roads. So, that helps a little bit I think. I guess the other comment, going through the minutes, they did submit a color rendering of the entire project, as well as -- I don't remember which Commissioner it was, but they requested color renderings for the townhouses and the four-plexes. So, I do have those and I can slow down, but I just wanted to show you that I do have those if you want to study them in greater detail, I can sure go back to them. So, staff is recommending approval of the project as revised. The preliminary plat was revised by Treasure Valley Engineers on May 19th, 2006, and a revised landscape plan prepared by Jensen -Belts, stamped by myself on May 20th, 2006. So, will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Hood: I was going to pass it on to Mike. I forgot about that. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I had a conversation with Greg Anderson from Treasure Valley Engineers regarding the setback. Public Works had concerns -- especially with the five foot setback. They have got -- I haven't gone through and studied the plat in detail, but they have indicated that they have -- all lots now have a ten foot setback, except for I believe it was Lots 14 through 26 have the seven foot, and I believe it's -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's these lots here. He said that he had had discussions with a designer from Idaho Power and that they could find a way to fit their facilities, either in that setback or in the parking lot -- the parking spaces. If Idaho Power joint utilities, in fact, are fine with the seven foot setback, Public Works can get their facilities in there and I just would add one condition, 2.2.5, that prior to signature on the final plat for those lots that had the seven foot setback, that they submit something in writing from Idaho Power that they are fine with that seven foot setback and if they submit -- if Idaho Power is fine with it, that's who we really were looking out for, we wouldn't have a problem with that. And I'd stand for any questions on that. Rohm: Thanks, Mike. I think at this time it would be appropriate to have the applicant come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 46 of 64 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 877 Main, Boise. I'm here on behalf of American West Homes, the applicant. And Caleb has done an excellent job of going through what comments we had submitted. Caleb, could you go back to the color rendering? So, rather than put this up, we'll just look at this. We did take your concerns and your issues to heart and the issues that you raised at our meeting six weeks ago we have addressed. There was the concern expressed about the path along the Ten Mile Lateral being within an easement. That is now within a common lot. There was concern -- the police department expressed concern about a unit here and the fire department had as well. That unit has been removed. And we also addressed the police department's concern that this area not be too attractive, because it's kind of stuck off there to itself and, obviously, the geography here and the confinements of the laterals does confine this site to a certain extent, so we have done that. We addressed your additional concerns about the variance. As Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, that, you know, much work went into the UDC and that, you know, we need to conform to it. So, in doing that we removed what had been a pathway along here and have changed it so that there is no variances that are required. The lots now have been enlarged, the substandard lots, and the setback issue has totally gone away. Now, what that has done is that's meant that we eliminated a pathway here, but as Caleb indicated, we are amenable to having a condition to improve that connection right there along the lateral. That's a condition of approval which ought to be added, because it makes sense, it's just one of those things that slipped through the cracks that nobody caught as we looked at it. As suggested by the Commission, we added a basketball court. We added a picnic area. We added a second tot lot here within the townhouse component. Now, to address the concerns about the lot sizes, as you will see, there are some empty lots, vacant lots which don't show footprints. That's because these are larger townhouse lots and in dealing with staff and discussing with staff how to proceed with this, we have come back with a larger lot size, which requires, obviously, a larger footprint, so we are going to have larger units. We, unfortunately, do not have them to -- we do not have architectural renderings for those. But what that has done, that resulted in a loss of five townhouse units and that's where those units went. Additionally, there had been a -- one of the multi -family condominium units which had been inserted over here, which was removed and replaced with -- with more common space and more -- more of the amenities you expressed. The biggest issue, obviously -- we believe that we have addressed all of the technical issues. The preliminary plat has been revised to reflect the covered parking, to reflect the changes that have been requested as to garbage and those other items. As Mike pointed out, the only seven foot setback issues are, really, right here along this area and we have diligently worked with Idaho Power to make sure that they are satisfied with that. We think that we have a resolution. We don't have any concern with the condition of approval that's been suggested by Mike tonight. That's totally appropriate. We would ask that -- and Caleb raised the issue, that it was a condition of approval suggested by the police department, which dealt with a version of the preliminary plat submitted in October of last year, which had to do with, you know, lot one, parcel one, and we are comfortable based upon our discussions with staff that this will not cause design issues down the road, but I guess we do need some clarification to make sure that what we have done meets the spirit of what the police department has Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 47 of 64 requested, because, in reality, we have a parcel that is constrained geographically and you have an area which is off there by itself. In order to meet your fire distances for the roads, we removed that unit, we removed some of the other stuff, and we have put the trail there, which, then, connects on up to the sidewalk along Pine, but it is what it is and I believe, you know, earlier tonight you heard some discussion about how do we address some of the concerns the police department has raised and they are just design issues, which are driven by geography, which, unfortunately, you know, preclude you from having necessarily the perfect situation. That brings us, really, to the final issue, which Caleb pointed out. You had expressed concern about the double frontage of these units here and we have evaluated this site and we have evaluated what to do about that concern, because, in reality, the concern of double frontage here is really no different than the issue raised up here, that you have lots that front on a private drive that back up to a -- a major thoroughfare, Pine Avenue. Now, there you do have a 20 foot wide buffer. We recognize the importance of that, so in coming forward back with a revised plan, we directed our landscape architect to enhance the amount of landscaping right there. We also directed Treasure Valley Engineering to modify the location of those, so that there is greater modulation. But, in reality, when you have a project on a site like this, which has -- you know, is constrained and is not a nice square -- you know, rectangular piece because of this, we have some design issues. And the design issue that we have is in trying to provide a greater buffer and transition from the R-8 zone over here to the higher density and industrial over here, you find yourself with some constraints. There was some discussion about, well, could we relocate this, could we double -- could we change it so there were other units there, but what that starts to do is impact this central open space that you have and that we really didn't want to take away from the open space that's there in the center. We believe that this is a plan which conforms with the UDC, that this is -- this is a design issue, it's not an issue that's necessitated by the UDC, it's not an issue that contravenes the UDC, but it's really necessitated by the site. In order to address that, like I said, we have looked at some alternatives and at the end of the day, as the discussion was held at the last hearing, you know, in a multi -family condominium project like this, these private streets in here really function more as, you know, driveways and parking areas, not necessarily the type of thoroughfare that you would have. So, with that, you know, I guess I would stand for questions at this point, because I believe that we have attempted to mitigate this issue to the best that can be done at this site. We have eliminated any need for a variance, so it creates greater -- greater variety in the types and configuration of the units. As depicted by the schematic that Caleb has shown, we have come forward with, you know, two different footprints in the multi -family condominium component of the project, with two different elevations. So, you have diversity there. We have also taken into consideration your concerns and issues with how do we enhance the value of the waterways and one of the other things that we added at your request was a better connection here at this point to insure that this walk -- this pathway here provide a greater connectivity and value. And the same we did with here, to insure that this was a path that would satisfy your concerns. Finally, I really do appreciate the work that staff has put in on this, because we have met with them repeatedly, both Mike and Caleb have been -- have been open and helpful and we have had, you know, very -- very constructive discussions. It's through their direction that we have come back with you Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 48 of 64 tonight. We are fully in support of the staff report with that exception to the police condition as to what was formerly lot one, parcel -- block one and with that I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm somewhat interested on the double loading areas and whatnot in your elevations, as far as front to back and whatnot. Are we going to see some diversity there? My biggest concern is the project to the west, it looks like a major barracks out there and the last thing I want to see on this project is anything like that. So, I'm very concerned about overall and I did like your elevations that you showed, but I am curious as to what you are doing front to back on the double loading area. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, Caleb, if you could go back to those elevations. I do have our -- America West Homes principal Joe Reice here who may be able to answer more of those questions, but in meeting with staff, they expressed the concern that there be a diversity of materials and there be a diversity of styles and here are the front elevations of one of the four-plex footprints. Caleb, can you go to the next one. Because this is -- these are the ones that are located there on that parcel. And so what you see there is the front that we have -- we have really taken into consideration the direction that we received from the Mayor when our client first came in about the concerns of the barracks on the west. We have really tried to come up with an elevation which is not barracks like at all, that has a true diversity as to design and has true diversity of the materials. Caleb, if you could go -- do we have the reverse elevations or are they just in the package? Hood: I do have black and whites here that I can -- I didn't get any color renderings of them, but I do have black and whites for side and rear. If you can give me just a minute, I will pull them out. Moe: And along that way, would I anticipate that we would see a couple variations that the elevation will be -- yeah. That would be fine. Okay. Wardle: There is the rear elevation. And as you can see, you know, we have really tried to make sure that these are livable. You have a lot of glass. You have -- you know, you still have the dormers and change of elevation on the rear side, that it's not intended to be, you know, nothing but siding and air conditioners, but it really tries to blend in. Moe: But based upon what the other Commissioners showed me a minute ago, that's a lot different, so -- just to expand one more time, as far as the elevations, we will see the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 49 of 64 different -- you had about three different types of elevations in that area there. I assume we will see all three in there, we won't be picking just one; right? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we are committed, we have two different footprints with two different elevations for those footprints. So, you, essentially, have four different -- you know, four different looking units and it is our commitment to make sure that they are, you know, diverse, that they are not all the same, and that's why we are committed to the elevations that we have presented to you. Moe: Thank you. Wardle: And I would also note that for the townhouse units we have depicted two different elevations that we are committed to and, then, obviously, with the larger lots that's going to come in with something with a slightly different footprint, so you're, in reality, going to see probably three different types of townhouse units, four different types of multi -family condominiums. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Apparently not. Thank you. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Rohm: There are two others that have signed up to speak to this and they are both for the project. Are they part of the development -- that's what I thought. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Thank you. Discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment would be that all of the items that were raised last time appear to have been addressed and my opinion is it's a better project than was first presented. I think it complies with what we need it to comply with. Rohm: I think you're right and if the balance of the Commission feels the same way, maybe we could move forward. Newton-Huckabay: I do not. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you have got the floor. Newton-Huckabay: Can you put the site plan up again? I, myself, had really hoped to see -- and I know you said the design constraints and what have you, but had hoped to see something different there in that middle leg of the development, so -- but -- Rohm: You're referring to these? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I went back and read my comments and I tend to -- I, basically, thought that it would look -- I think it will look funny when it's done. But I had - - I had thought that those units should be facing the other way, so that you had a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 50 of 64 townhome development and a multi -family development, you know, on the west and the east. To me I felt that it would be natural -- that one down the middle would be a natural divider of those two type of homes. I don't feel like I am being very clear. Am I clear in what I -- my comment? But as -- I guess as long as I'm on record that I -- that that's what I had hoped to see, we can forward it onto City Council for whatever -- and I will vote in accordance with my feelings on it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other comment? Could we get a motion to close -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 and PS 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006, with the following modifications: Exhibit B, page one, prior to site specific requirements preliminary plat, add an annexation and zoning comment that there will be a requirement for a development agreement. Details of that are found on page 12 of the staff report. On the second page of Exhibit B, add a paragraph 1.1.13 and that's a requirement to add a pathway at the southwest corner that will connect with the multi- use pathway. Exhibit B, page four, there is a paragraph 2.3, directing them to work with Idaho Power on the common trench and I would add to that a statement that if Idaho Power is comfortable with a seven foot, they will provide a letter to the city stating that. And Exhibit B, page seven, the police department comments, I would give the police department the opportunity to revise their requirements after seeing the new plat. Did I miss one? Moe: I do have a question. In your motion you're going for PS 06-005 and that is not something that we are answering to, are we? Staff? The private street. Borup: Did you mention that one? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 51 of 64 Zaremba: We didn't actually have it on our agenda, but it was in the -- it was in the statement about approving it. I could delete that, since we haven't discussed it. That's a City Council issue, not ours. Moe: Exactly. And, then, also the variance, they are willing to drop the variance. Do you want to make note that we are in agreement with that? Zaremba: Yes. I would add to the motion that the applicant is dropping the variance as no longer necessary. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion carries. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: 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: 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 related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am following up on this application for Joe, who is no longer with us. The staff report you have is, actually, from April 20th. I will refresh your memory just briefly, give you some of the specifics of the project, and, then, maybe we can go home. So, this is an annexation and preliminary plat for a 28 acre subdivision, proposing 85 single family residential lots and 12 common lots. They are located on the north side of McMillan Road and on the west -- just west of Meridian Road. See if I can find some of the specs for you. I can't do that density in my head. We are looking at -- they have 5.7 percent open space, 4.34 dwelling units per acre, and the main reason that this application -- it shows up pretty well on this aerial view, that this application was -- has been continued for a couple of times now -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 52 of 64 was to discuss this out parcel and the strip that runs on the west side of said out parcel and it is part of the subject application, but there is some -- it doesn't make much sense for part of the subdivision to be over here. That was one -- the main reason that this body continued it. Also, there were some -- ACHD hadn't commented at that point in time. Those comments have been incorporated into the staff report. Really, that's the reason. I went through the minutes, but just briefly. I did not read the whole transcript, just looked at the motion and went through them. I do have a staff report here and I'm a little bit familiar with it, so if you have any other questions -- I guess I should show you what the plat looks like. I will try to answer them the best I can. Rohm: No questions? I think at this time we are all anxious to hear what the applicant has to say. Nickle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nickle, 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. As you recall, we were sent back to work with the neighbors and try to figure out that strip there on the west boundary and the developer has indicated to me today that they do have a verbal agreement with the property -- the neighboring property owners on that strip. What we are going to do is we are going to submit to the county a lot line adjustment and, then, deed that property over to the neighbors. That was an agreement -- a verbal agreement made by the developer and the neighbors of that property. In addition, there is some other agreements the developer and the neighbor have as far as piping, irrigation ditch, some fencing and -- anything else? I guess the neighbors can get up and can -- if you want to talk about it. But, yeah, I think we have got everything worked out. What our plans do -- what we are planning on doing is immediately submitting that application for the parcel boundary adjustment to the county, probably do that next -- early next week, get that in the process and, then, I don't know if it will catch up to the City Council, but, if not, staff will put -- stated that they will put a condition that prior to the approval of the annexation that will -- that lot swap will take place. That way you're not annexing that little strip and it will remain in the county, along with the neighbor's out parcel. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. It appears to be a good remedy to a problem that everybody felt uncomfortable with. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you, Shawn. Carl Reiterman. Reiterman. Sorry about that. Reiterman: Carl Reiterman. I live at 770 West McMillan Road. My wife and I own the out parcel. We have had quite a few conversations with Kevin Amar and -- I assume he's the developer. He said he was. And we have agreements to -- he's going to give us the 50 foot strip and fence the property on the two sides that he has, give us -- and the road, they are going to put all the utilities, so future development can be there and we have talked about a sidewalk in front of the property, right in here, and it's going to be right in front of our carport, but I agree with the need to have accessibility on the sidewalk, so we are going to -- it's going to be in our front yard, but that's the only place it can be, short of being right on the street, and at 50 miles an hour down that street, the sidewalk would not go there. There is also trees and a ditch right at the street, so -- but Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 53 of 64 we have talked about it and discussed it and pending it coming out in writing and being acceptable, it's fine with us. We have come to some agreements and so here we are. And I appreciate the council -- Commissioners helping us work this out. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Reiterman: Oh. Future thoughts of what we could do to develop the land. Nothing pending right now. So, thank you very much. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. Reiterman: Okay. Rohm: Bonnie, would you like to -- do you have anything to add? From the audience she says nothing. She had signed up, but has no additional comments. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? At this time, Shawn, would you like to come back forward? Hood: Mr. Chair, just real quick before Shawn gets up there. I was going through my notes from the last meeting -- well, the meeting before last when there was actually a hearing. I did have a DA -- Joe did not propose a development agreement with one originally, due to the homogenous nature of it, but I think that one probably should be performed on this property, just because of what's happening with this property boundary adjustment. I did have some wording for you, in addition to requiring the applicant to enter into a development agreement, and it goes: Prior to annexation ordinance approval, the applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded property boundary adjustment from Ada County, with the Reiterman's parcel that shows all of the applicant's property being combined into one -- and then it stops. So, in effect, it just have them submit a recorded property boundary adjustment with what -- it sounds like they are both in agreement and the applicant is proposing to sell, bargain, trade, give, whatever that strip to the Reitermans, but that that actually be a part of it and that it happens before we annex the development into the city, so you don't have the Reitermans owning a 50 foot swath of the city and, then, you can't even get the property boundary adjustment done, because you have got one jurisdiction with one property line and -- so it would create a mess. The other thing, I guess, I would recommend now, based on -- and that's why I wanted to do this before Shawn got up there, was the -- there is some discussion in here about the sidewalk adjacent to their parcel, but it's not - - Joe did point out, as the same with is Tanana, you know, those breaks in developments, but if they are willing to construct it adjacent to the out parcel, I think that's something else that could be put into a development agreement, but I just wanted to see if you had any comments about that or if the Commission has any feelings one way or the other. But that's probably the best vehicle to get that sidewalk. So, thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 54 of 64 Nickel: Mr. Chairman, again, thank you. Shawn Nickle. The issue over the sidewalk, the developer has agreed to provide that sidewalk and what we will do is we will work with the Reitermans and ACHD on the placement of that sidewalk. Again, as the neighbors have stated, there is a lot of mature trees, a portion of their structure would be in the way if we were to extend the sidewalk and line up with where the permanent sidewalk would be. So, again, in the past, if you recall, what we did across the street in Amber Creek, we kind of got around where that -- where that -- the ditch was and had, actually, a temporary sidewalk in front of a portion of the out parcel. So, again, the developer will build that, will coordinate that with the neighbors and with ACHD. So, with that any other questions? I think we have got everything worked out. Rohm: Thanks, Shawn. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thanks. Nickle: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I guess my only comment before a motion be made is the significant issue that this will carry forward was the out parcel or the side lot or whatever and it appears as if that's no longer an issue. So, thank you all for cooperating with each other and it appears as if that's made just a much better project. With that being said -- Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20 and the preliminary plat labeled C-1, dated 21 December, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. On Exhibit B, page one, prior to site specific requirements preliminary plat, I would add annexation and zoning requirements that the developer will enter into a development agreement with the city, we can use the specific wording that Mr. Hood mentioned, but the two items to cover are the little strip of land west of the out parcel and the sidewalk crossing the front of this out parcel. End of motion. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 55 of 64 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for all coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 3 common lots on 9.98 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prato Villas Subdivision by Kevin Harris of Briggs Engineering — 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street: Rohm: Okay. The next item on our agenda -- I'd like to at this time open Public Hearing AZ 06-022 and Public Hearing PP 06-022, both for Prato Villas Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Prato Villas Subdivision is an annexation and zoning of just over ten acres. As you can see on the map on the board, it's north -- just of McMillan Road and east of Black Cat. The yellow, which represents city limits -- everything in color is city limits, represents Volterra Subdivision. So, as you can see, this project is adjacent to Volterra and that's their path of contiguity to the city. There is an existing public street that loops -- I guess it -- it L's back in from Black Cat to McMillan. You will see here in just a minute on the preliminary plat they do not propose to have any access -- direct lot access to this road, although they are just local roads. There is a public street that comes in and, then, they have got their access internally. A stub street was provided from Volterra to this property. They are extending it. These are two of the five acre lots that were platted. I guess he didn't put down when Black Cat Estates Subdivision Number Two was platted, but they are two platted lots in Black Cat Estates Subdivision Number Two, so there are some remaining five acres. We have -- just FYI, I've talked with quite a few of those people out there about redeveloping their five acres, so you will probably be seeing more of -- in the area in the near future. Here is an aerial view. You can see some of the estate lots and the homes along those lots -- it looks like it's two lots. Here is the aforementioned preliminary plat. The applicant just before the last hearing did submit to me a hand drawn revised plat that depicts staffs concerns and I guess I'll get to those here. Let me see if I can -- this is another one of those where I got the applicant's comments yesterday and I hope you all did, too, but we are 0 for two so far, so I won't hold my breath. But, basically, the -- the applicant's comments are -- I guess staffs comments -- the density of this project is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. It is shown as low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Staff recommended that they lose two lots to be consistent -- the Comprehensive Plan does say up to three dwelling units per acre. The applicant has agreed to remove two lots. There was some discussion in the past 48 hours about what do you do with that area if you lose the two lots. Do you just give a portion to all of Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 56 of 64 the other buildable lots? Staff recommended that they actually provide some, quote, unquote, usable open space for the 30 homes in this subdivision. The open space being provided is in their roadside swales. To count towards open space, trees are required in those detached planters. I don't think ACHD is going to allow them to have both their swale and trees in there. At least that's what has happened in that past. So, to meet the five percent requirement for open space, staff and I think the applicant, based on this, is -- we are on the same page that they are using about half of these two lots, which are just over 10,000 square feet each. They are going to add to the back side of these -- maybe if I just throw it on. So, as I mentioned, the two lots that are in the center -- now the lot lines are kind of going together, but they are -- here is a separation between the two lots and the middle lots four and five. What they have done is take just over half of that and made a common lot out of that and, then, added portions of the six adjacent lots to do those areas. So, they increased those lots -- can't read it from here. It looks like those are up over ten or nine eight or something like that. But they are up near the 10,000 square foot range anyway, which is pretty consistent with the rest of the lots in the subdivision. So, I think that that actually complies with what staff had envisioned when making that comment and I don't remember which comment that was in Exhibit B. I may be able to find it here real quick. 1.1.3. A maximum of 30 dwelling units and, then, incorporate a common park lot for the homeowners association. After I drafted this -- if there is a change, I guess, that I would recommend you make, it would be that -- something to the effect that, you know, at least half of those -- those -- that 20,000 square foot, roughly, or -- is dedicated towards a common open space. That was just not a little ten by ten common lot or something. I don't think they would try to do that, but just so you can get some usable area, didn't put a square footage on it, just so you can quantitatively or you accept this one and say a 12,000 square foot or something like that. But I think at least -- at least ten -- ten thousand square feet would be a decent size. For 30 homes it would be a decent area that people can go and walk their dogs or do something like that. I guess the other question I would have -- or clarification from the applicant would be if there are any amenities, if they are going to put a picnic bench in there or a gazebo or a walking path or something like that. It's not required, but just a question, if it's just going to grass with a couple few trees, would just be a question, I guess, because that's not on the landscape plan, but, anyway, I think I will stop rambling and stand for any questions that you may have on this. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one clarification. Caleb, you said a lot of the properties around this one you would -- will be coming in soon, you suspect? Hood: We have -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we have had preliminary discussions with a few of the -- and I don't even know if they are owners or potential clients or if they have options on the property or who they are necessarily, but we have had discussions with a few of the property owners in Black Cat Estates Subdivision Number Two about developing -- redeveloping their properties. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 57 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Harris: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kevin Harris, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. First off, I apologize to your staff for giving them that late revision. My clients are from out of town and this is, really, the first time we had a chance to get together with and do something up real quick. But, you know, that works for us. If it works for your staff, that's great. As for the use of the open space, I guess per square footage, you know, 10, 12 thousand, that's fine with us if you're going to condition it to that square footage. Using that open space -- we don't have a problem putting a pathway through there and add some trees and bushes. One thing I will say is that we have a couple gravity irrigation lines that run through this property and Settler's Irrigation does not allow any trees to be put in their irrigation easement and before on the plan we had the easement running through our common lot, our landscape buffer, and we really don't like the idea of taking the trees out of that, which Settlers told us after the fact that we made this -- the landscape buffer there. So, now that we would be proposing moving that irrigation easement up this side and through this open space and, then, reconnect over here. It starts right here. So, up this side and through here. So, where ever we can put trees and landscaping in this open area, we definitely will. With that I'd stand for any questions. It's pretty straight forward. These guys are wanting to do a nice subdivision. The lots are great size, you know. So, I'd stand for any questions. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just a comment, you know, since you're talking about that area. Again, just my personal feeling. I don't see in that location where a pathway really has a lot of benefit. I mean they are probably looking at, you know, maybe throwing a football in there or whatever they are doing and it's such a short distance, that a pathway -- I don't know that it serves a big -- probably some type of trees or something would be nice, though. Harris: Sure. And they agreed to that before I walked up. You know, put some trees and bushes in and landscape it and if your staff wants a path, we can do that. If not, that's fine, too. We will work with your staff. Borup: Yeah. I don't think the staff made it a recommendation either way. Harris: Okay. Borup: They just were wondering if you had something in mind. Harris: Definitely a landscape for sure and grass and trees and shrubs. Rohm: I think it would be more usable without a path. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 June 1, 2006 Page 58 of 64 Rohm: You can play badminton or any number of activities. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Who plays badminton? Rohm: They sell those things down at Target all the time. Zaremba: Horseshoes. Rohm: Volleyball. Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. I digress. Zaremba: Mr. Chair and Mr. Harris, I know you said you looked through the staff report. I just want to make absolutely certain that you understand the Public Works statement that sewer will not be available right away, maybe not quite on your time frame. Harris: Commissioner Zaremba -- Zaremba: You're willing to deal with that. Harris: Absolutely. We understand that and, you know, hopefully, you know, it gets done faster than Public Works is anticipating, but we know that that's up in the air, so absolutely. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Harris: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just one clarification point. I went through the applicant's letter again. I just wanted to let the Commission know -- and it looks like they didn't get the landscape plan put in here. The applicant does go on record to state that there is a 35 foot wide pressurized irrigation easement along the frontage there of Daphine Street and there is a bunch of landscaping shown there right now, but there aren't going to be any trees. So, I didn't want it to be misleading and think that one should probably be amended to state if allowed by -- you're to change -- with your change you don't have it running along there anymore? Okay. You told me it was moving, but I wasn't sure if it was going over there. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 59 of 64 Harris: Yeah, Craig. Our gravity irrigation easement did run along the front here and this is the landscape buffer that we were proposing, you know, with trees and landscape and a berm and after the fact I talked to Nathan at Settler's Irrigation and he stated that he did not want any trees in their easement. So, in the letter I did state that the proposed trees in this landscape buffer would have to be revised, the landscape plan. That is prior to the copy that we have seen a minute ago changing that easement. So, this landscaping should be able to stay the same, which we want to landscape it very nice with trees and shrubs. So, that is our -- our proposal is to leave it as it is on the landscape plan. Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Thank you. Do you know if the easement associated with that canal is a recorded easement or is it just a prescriptive easement that -- Harris: Prescriptive. Cole: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Harris: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-022 and PP 06- 022. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-022 and PP 06-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-022 and PP 06-022, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006, with the following modifications: On Exhibit B, page one, prior to site specific requirements preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 June 1, 2006 Page 60 of 64 plat, I would add an annexation and zoning statement that the developer will enter into a development agreement with the city. Details are in the staff report on page seven. Starting on page seven. Within site specific requirements preliminary plat, also on page one of Exhibit B, I would add to paragraph 1.1.1 that the preliminary plat being approved, shall be similar to the hand drawn modification shown at the hearing of June 1st, 2006, showing two less building lots, with six other lots enlarged, and a common open space between them. And also the irrigation easement moved to that common open space. And another sentence on that same one, that the applicant will supply new preliminary plats ten days before the next hearing. End of change. End of Motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval AZ 06-022 and PP 06-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White -Leasure Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: The last item -- well, at this time I'd like to open the open Public Hearing on CUP 06-015 for the sole purpose of -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue CUP 06-015 to our next regularly scheduled meeting of June 15th, 2006. And the applicant I believe has been notified that they need to provide notice. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing CUP 06-015 to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance / Brought Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: Okay. All right. The last item on our agenda is a continued discussion of the procedures of meeting ordinance brought forward from May 18, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I believe that we had quite a healthy discussion and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 61 of 64 purpose of continuing this discussion was to give everyone an opportunity to take the proposed ordinance back and read it in its entirety and possibly add additional comments at this meeting, but for the most part I think we went through most every item. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Except for Commissioner Moe. Moe: I think one of the reasons why it was held up is because I had not seen it. I have read that and I have nothing further to add than we had already gone through. Rohm: That was the comment that I was looking for. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I remember one discussion and I don't remember what the end of it was, but on page three, Item B, time limits and proceedings protocol, item number six, applicant rebuttal, talked about that having that be ten minutes instead of five, which is what we traditionally have been using. Borup: That's what my notes show. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, with that would you be willing to strike the balance of that -- if you're giving them ten, then, there would be no need to increase it to a reasonable time, because you're saying the ten is a reasonable time. Rohm: I think that's -- Baird: And it's always -- it's always in your discretion to give me. You don't have to put that in there. Zaremba: Works for me. Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to say, we could have projects that may warrant more, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I agree with you, though, because there is an assumed -- Zaremba: Well, item seven covers that. We can increase time limits. Newton-Huckabay: But a lot of times we don't have good compliance with the time limits anyway, so I think if we are pretty clear in our ordinance, it might help. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 62 of 64 Rohm: Maybe we could add something to the ordinance that has a rock up here. Baird: Again, that's the discretion of the chair. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Borup: Then, did we still have notes on a couple of those typos? It says any of the above rules. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's my understanding that Bill Nary took very good notes the last time and all we did was print out the original copy for your review tonight. So, all of his notes have been -- will be incorporated and what you would forward onto the City Council. Zaremba: Okay. So, this does not incorporate those notes? Baird: That's correct. Zaremba: There were things we talked about that aren't -- Baird: Bill was called out of town and I was unable to locate his notes before tonight's meeting, but be assured they will make it to City Council. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: The concern -- I expressed this last time. The concern I still have is how do we determine at the beginning of the meeting how long the meeting is going to last, rather than halfway through, but -- Rohm: And I think we are all in agreement that it's just an estimate, but if we can state something like up front, there may be people that can opt out -- Borup: Well, if we do it up front, then, we have got to stick to it. If we think we are going to be done at 11:00 and we are done at 8:30, we go home early, I guess. Rohm: I guess we go home early. Borup: But we have also sent six other home. Newton-Huckabay: You say that like it's a bad thing. Moe: All that does is -- Borup: Well, no, we just keep postponing it and, then, end up having a special meeting, another meeting during the month, which I'd rather not do. Meridian Planning & Zoning 119 June 1, 2006 Page 63 of 64 Moe: The fifth Thursdays of the month. Rohm: Speaking of which, are we still on for the 29th of this month? Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, will be out of town. Zaremba: Yeah. I think we won't have a quorum. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- I was looking over at Caleb and he's indicated -- confirming that that has been cancelled. Those items have been moved to other agendas. Rohm: Oh. Zaremba: Yeah. We were only going to have two of us here. There wasn't going to be a quorum. Moe: August the 31 st is when it's going to -- Rohm: Okay. Well, then, I think we are done. Moe: That's my birthday present. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of the procedures of meetings ordinance to incorporate the changes of which Mr. Nary has note. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending acceptance of our -- of the meeting ordinance. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Cool. We are done. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded we adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 64 of 64 Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ATTESTED: k .v.n ru S '! a 4*�a �i4'• s x Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 64 of 64 Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ATTESTED: k i�}23 ru S '! a 4*�a �i4'• Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 64 of 64 Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ATTESTED: k i�}23 ru S '! • OU -1 1t DATE APP�RO�VF,Di.,r %0 1 of � N � s 0 LIAM G. BERG�JR.,CITVOWkl< 1pi TIto ''y��rwr►r►r►or o�a�eti��+++,, i�}23 ru MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of March 30, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS s � 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: af f? v -01t Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -B REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: vC CLSCITY ENGINEER: k,110 CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance - Brought Forward from May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Q VOVIUJ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: C I G 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: Contracted: Date: Phone: .- Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 7, SECTIONS 7 OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE REGARDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Title 1, Chapter 7, Section 7, Meridian City Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 1-7-7: RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following rules are hereby established, shall be observed in the conduct of any public hearing before the City Council, and shall be known as the "Cfty of Meridian Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings": Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 1 of 8 REN _ - . . .._ Y. Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 1 of 8 0 0 A. Policy, PreGminary Procedures. and Defmitions This Policy and Procedures apply to public hearings before the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission. and Parks and Recreation Commission and shall be known as the "CITY OF MERIDIAN RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS." No person shall be permitted to sneak before the Decision Making BodX (hereinafter referred to as `Bod)") at a public hearing until such person has been recognized by the Chair. The Body may suspend or amend any one or more of these rules by vote of one half (1/2) plus one of the members present Any person not conforming to any of the above rules may be prohibited from speaking during the public hearing Should any person refuse to comply with such prohibition.he may be removed from the room by order of the Chair. AM party that has been recognized and has Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 2 of 8 -10111 WWI_ ► - i. ._ . .• Y. A. Policy, PreGminary Procedures. and Defmitions This Policy and Procedures apply to public hearings before the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission. and Parks and Recreation Commission and shall be known as the "CITY OF MERIDIAN RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS." No person shall be permitted to sneak before the Decision Making BodX (hereinafter referred to as `Bod)") at a public hearing until such person has been recognized by the Chair. The Body may suspend or amend any one or more of these rules by vote of one half (1/2) plus one of the members present Any person not conforming to any of the above rules may be prohibited from speaking during the public hearing Should any person refuse to comply with such prohibition.he may be removed from the room by order of the Chair. AM party that has been recognized and has Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 2 of 8 -10111 WWI_ ► - i. ._ . .• A. Policy, PreGminary Procedures. and Defmitions This Policy and Procedures apply to public hearings before the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission. and Parks and Recreation Commission and shall be known as the "CITY OF MERIDIAN RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS." No person shall be permitted to sneak before the Decision Making BodX (hereinafter referred to as `Bod)") at a public hearing until such person has been recognized by the Chair. The Body may suspend or amend any one or more of these rules by vote of one half (1/2) plus one of the members present Any person not conforming to any of the above rules may be prohibited from speaking during the public hearing Should any person refuse to comply with such prohibition.he may be removed from the room by order of the Chair. AM party that has been recognized and has Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 2 of 8 LI the floor should not be interrupted until their time limit has been expended or until they have finished their statement. The Chair shall have the authority to interpret and apply the foregoing rules, subject to an appeal to the Bodv. whose decision shall be determined by a majority vote of the members present. In special circumstances, and upon the advice of the City AttorneL all parties in a hearing may be required to testify under oath. B. Time Limits / Proceedings Protocol 1. Time Limits—Public Hearings: The Chair shall make all reasonable efforts to assure that speakers and witnesses at public hearings shall comply with the following, time limits: 2. Initial applicant presentation—Fifteen 15) minutes uninterrupted bX questions from the Body. 3. Otherern sons speaking; in favor of the application—Three (3) minutes. 4. Persons in opposition may have one (1) spokesperson, who may._speak for ten 10, minutes, but they must identify who they represent and those persons waive their opportune y to present any testimony, but may acknowledge their agreement with the representative. 5. Other persons speaking in opposition—Three (3) minutes. 6. Applicant rebuttal—Five (5) minutes, but may be increased to a reasonable time period determined by the Chair with the consent of the Bodv. 7. Motion to modify time limits: A motion to increase time limits may be made for good cause upon showing why the time limits herein imposed by this ordinance would violate the due process rights of an applicant or affected party. A motion to decrease time limits may be made for good cause upon a showing that the reduced time limits would provide for a more efficient public hearing and would not violate the due process rights of an applicant or affected party. Modification of this rule Leguires a majority vote of the Body. A motion to modify time limits must be made prior to the presentation of evidence at the public hearing_ 8. All time keepim shall be done by the CjV Clerk or designee. Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 3 of 8 0 • 9. Admissible Evidence: Only relevant evidence is admissible and the determination of relevance shall be made by the Body with the assistance of the City Attorney. Relevant evidence shall mean "Evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is in consequence to the determination of the matter before the Body more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 10. Limitation may be imposed upon the submission of testimony or evidence which is cumulative and unnecessarily duplicative of other evidence received. 11. All exhibits shall be marked b the City Clerk and shall be admitted as part of the record. 12. Site Visits: Site visits are strongly discouraged while as application is pending. Only in extraordinary circumstances would site visits be allowed. Site visits are defined as a specific viewing of a location that is under consideration before the Body for a specific purpose A site visit is intended to gather evidence on which the later decision may be based It is not a "site visit" because a member of the Body routinely drives by a specific location and is familiar with the site and surrounding location If allowed, then the site visit is to be done in conformance with Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure and with the assistance of the City Attorney or designee. A site visit can only be conducted when the Body shall first give notice to all affected parties of their right together with their counsel to be present at the site visit. The visit shall be at a pre -determined time and on the record The agenda of the site visit should be stated on the record before the visit. The City Clerk or designee should also attend the site visit to take the minutes which minutes shall be a part of the record The record shall be maintained in the same manner as an other ther public meeting and in conformance with the laws of the State of Idaho and the Chy Code of Meridian. C. Other Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings The conduct of a public hearing shall be subject to State law and City ordinance AM matters otherwise not govemed thereby involving_ procedure shall be governed by "Roberts Rules of Order" the latest edition thereof, as is applicable to the matter under consideration For good cause the Body MU modify the application of the rules set forth in this policy at the beginning o, f any public hearing. Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 4 of 8 11 11 D. Additional Process of Public Hearings Before a Decision Making Body The general order of the hearing is identified below. The provisions of this section may be modified at each hearing depending upon the circumstances with regards to application or permit request and in accordance with the provision of due process rights to all interested and affected parties. 1. Staff Report. The Planning Department and/or the Public Works staff, as is appropriate. shall have prepared and completed a staffreport or an amended report, as the case may be, on the application or permit which is the subject of the public hearing. The staff report, or an amended re ort, when completed shall be made available to the public and affected parties. 2. Pre -Mark Exhibits. Applicants and affected property owners who seek to admit exhibits at public hearings are encouraged to provide those exhibits to the City Clerk before the public hearing for marking. Exhibits may become the projerty of the City and should be able to be displayed or viewed by the Body and the attendees of the hearing_ 3. Sign -Uv Sheet. A sign=up sheet for each public hearing shall be made available in the Council Chamber or meeting room where the hearing is held for those who wish to speak at the public hearing Persons wishing to testify will have priority based upon their placement on the sign=u sheet. heet 4. Agenda CaWAdiournment Hour. When the Bodv has considerable agenda. the Body at the beginning of its meeting following; the consent agenda, may determine how many public hearings will be heard The Chair may request those in attendance to identify whether their public hearing is ready to be heard and determine how many witnesses are Wearing for and against the application in each of the public hearings After receiving this information. the Body may then determine the public hearings that can be heard at the meetingduring reasonable hours The Body may designate which public hearings will be conducted with the appropriate motion to continue the remaining scheduled public hearings provided that the oldest matter should be heard first For the purposes of this step, it is herebv determined that hearin testimony and receiving evidence and deliberating on matters after 11.00 o'clock p.m. will require a special motion on the part of the Body to continue public hearing otherwise the public hearing will be reset until the next available date. E. Format Announced before Public Hearings Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 5 of 8 0 0 Prior to the conduct of any public hearing, the Chair may inform those in attendance of the format and procedure for public hearing and may include any or all of the followingto o wit: 1. Agenda Call (See above Section D ().) 2. The Chair identifies all of the public hearings that will be heard that evening. The Chair shall then advise that all persons Wearing and wishing to testify are asked to sign on the appro 'ate signuup sheet for the public hearing in which they wish to testify. 3. The Chair explains the general format for public hearings Detail of the format is below. 4. The Chair explains that some items maw be placed on an abbreviated hearing agenda or added to the consent a *prior to its passage with a general format as follows: a -- Question to the applicant regarding agreement with the conditions of approval. b -- Question to the piLblic regarding any testimony or questions that could be briefly answered by staff. c -- Question to the Clerk for any additional written testimony that needs to be added or acknowledged for the record d -- Question to the Body receding objection to place the item on the abbreviated hearing agenda or consent agenda e -- Place items when: l)gpplicant is in agreement with conditions of ap rp oval 2) where there is no adverse public testimony,• and 3) where Body and Chair agree to an abbreviated hearing agenda. f -- Approve abbreviated hearingagenda or consent agenda by one motion F. Hearing Format for Each Public Hearinn The following is the format for each public hearing_ 1. Staff Report: Staff shall make an oral presentation including statT s review of the staff report and staff shall then move to introduce the staff report and exhibits identified in the report as part of the record 2. Testimony and evidence received: Applicant and all of their representatives (up to fifteen (15) minutes) Parties in favor, neutr A and opposed to the application/appeal Three 3 minutes Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 6 of 8 0 o Follow the order on the sign up sheet. Start with a designated representative, if ap lin cable allow upto ten (10) minutes Party must identify the group the=resent and other parties forgo their oppomuuty to present testimony by using a representative. Testimony by any other pgiy that did not sign up Testimony and evidence on rebuttal by the applicant or their representative. o Five (5) minutes, but may be increased to a reasonable time period determined by the Chair with the consent of the Bady. 3. Close the Receipt of Testimony and Evidence: This can be done by the Chair, when in the opinion of the Chair, no further new evidence is necessary and all parties have had their opportunity to be heard. The applicant shall always have the opportunity to address the Body last. This action does not require a vote 4. Deliberation: a. Chair announces what the Body has to consider and determine b. Body members discuss the matter (only evidence that is part of the record which includes testimony and exhibits should be the subject matter of these discussions.) C. The Body can ask for a legal opinion, if necessar, to complete the deliberation. d. The Body can take the matter under advisement, and continue the hearing to acquire fin Cher evidence and then render an opinion at the next meeting date or at a date certain e. Prior to any final motion the Chair shall declare all evidence is entered and the hearing is closed 5. Decision: The Body shall make final dispositive motions to render a recommendation decision and approve or direct that Findings of Fact_ Conclusions of Law and/or Decisions and Orders for approval or denial, with or without modifications, as necessary be prepared in conformance with the decision, and to submit the same for approval to the Body at a future scheduled meeting. G. Reconsideration Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 7 of 8 Any final decision of the Body may be reconsidered under certain circumstances A decision may be reconsidered upon a showing of good cause for the purpose of either clarifying and crafting a more specific decision or for a new decision The motion to reconsider must be made by a member of the prevailing side of the original decision. The motion can be made at the same meeting as the original decision or at the next re laxly scheduled meeting After the next regularly scheduled meeting no motion to reconsider a decision can be made No final decision can be reconsidered if the ordinance has been published or a contract or aWreement has been executed. A decision to deny or approve reconsideration is not appealable. Section 2. All ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 3. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of .2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Ordinance — Procedures for Public Hearings Page 8 of 8 AZ 06-023 APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 for Martin Annexation - 1120 S. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See attached Staff Report No comment See attached Comments No Comment No Comment OTHER: See attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s Vla. l r F 05 r v 'M3P 3 , F e 2 RiiP v4tt'„� bl W J" ✓� x� G €w?A syn. p 5 Q W x 0 0 AZ 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 6,2006: Annexation & Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(168.23 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Sub - SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See attached Staff Report No Comment See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. F ,21 3 t Al xn .«4 Zw,,� � $. Y P ✓ 000 i .. 35 .,r f 1:,t �Z#All- ;r . q ti iogw �= v r ;1 0 0 AZ 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 6,2006: Annexation & Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(168.23 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Sub - SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See attached Staff Report No Comment See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s s. ,21 3 Al xn .«4 Zw,,� � fi�PIN��Y..R P ✓ 000 i .,r f 1:,t �Z#All- 0 0 AZ 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 6,2006: Annexation & Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(168.23 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Valley Sub - SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See attached Staff Report No Comment See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. imp i Ky`iitHOIaTF:(µy 3 Al xn .«4 Zw,,� � fi�PIN��Y..R P ✓ 000 .,r 1:,t �Z#All- s �= v v t L t�� Y 6'z' r r pp:: PP 06-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 6 Y X REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 6, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision - SEC of Meridian Road and Victory Road ,. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes In AZ - CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Report In AZ ' CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: t CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: a' CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See comments In AZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: <, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: tk Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: *y Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. c. . i1;. t � d � 2 e 2s� 3 ,.. >? i ymQ` , �, e x 5 *g r .'.`rx r a "[�< d § SXq,`.k `�35 6 zyy f S t ly w 3 � F r ' f "irt 4 € }„t?yXi.Y..R ww z o MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC AZ 06-013 ITEM NO. % REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached RAinutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. I `~ i ' a' Yq Il t >. C {*S4 Y s� 5 F Y : .,,7 ;z zs �+ o MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC AZ 06-013 ITEM NO. % REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached RAinutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. `~ ' a' Yq Il t >. C {*S4 Y r'410 e u.-},rE 5 F Y q ' a' Yq w, s 3.3i d Ia:-"S 5 F Y : .,,7 ;z �+ z e� • PP 06-011 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearingfrom April 20, 2006: 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 Ave & east of Ten Mile Rc AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / See AZ Packet / See Revised Plats CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Report in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC 0 June 1, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 Sub AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes in AZ Packet See Staff Report in AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r p ,. �a ry x :fes 7" ,x4Ki',i£t� { , g \i MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC 0 June 1, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 Sub AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes in AZ Packet See Staff Report in AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r p ,. �a ry x :fes 7" MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC 0 June 1, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 Sub AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes in AZ Packet See Staff Report in AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,. �a ry x :fes 7" ,x4Ki',i£t� , g \i x$u WINU+ Y t MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT America West Homes. LLC 0 June 1, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: 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 Sub AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / See Minutes in AZ Packet See Staff Report in AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 6 ,x4Ki',i£t� , g \i p S t ,k ' § k fA . tt AZ 06-009 rY MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 10 T Y Y REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of ss5� �¢ Gx M 3# "¢ $" � N P i^ +u 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision - 470 West McMillan Road x«W.,` bt4.n,,. � k r 611 �k•: �� . AGENCY COMMENTS 4 ✓' i t CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes F CITY ENGINEER: n CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report r3 rfx w r � f CITY ATTORNEY i. CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: T. s t to CITY BUILDING DEPT: x N i i p ..i. CITY WATER DEPT: 3 S af.. 6 ..4M r CITY SEWER DEPT: c CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ,k k fA tt T Y Y AttLL �i "5 P ss5� �¢ Gx M 3# "¢ $" � N P i^ +u .- Fir x«W.,` bt4.n,,. r 611 . 4 ✓' i t F n r3 rfx w r � i. w T. s t to x N i i p ..i. J 3 S af.. 6 ..4M c 2 -wr x k -r 4 r F: P+sk .. r r � p t��k3s .. i. � Sa A94- MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 85 single family residential building lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision - 470 West McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet See Staff Report In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. S 4 `�Z} c Y � 3 4 .. r r {t az s 3 FN P�•'[:,+QkA� -/.?a >., E >rt 04 r' +. N £ • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Justin and Katie Fish 0 CUP 06-016 ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care - 3665 North Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No comment See Attached Comments No comment OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. } � 3 in df b r�k fi 4 r5' S 4Cf y,1 1 z. T I 31 ' • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Justin and Katie Fish 0 CUP 06-016 ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care - 3665 North Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No comment See Attached Comments No comment OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. df r�k 4Cf • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Justin and Katie Fish 0 CUP 06-016 ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L -O zone for Bearly Grown Child Care - 3665 North Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No comment See Attached Comments No comment OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. � 5r a; . AZ 06-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Kevin Hams @ Briggs Engineering ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 9.98 acres from RUT to an an R4 zone for Prata Villas Subdivision - 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street AGENCY COMMENTS ` �x CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: x , CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ^ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date Phone: ' Emailed: Staff Initials: 5` Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s ' � I ko, r~ i a y t ? 46 � r X w ,r %Y M� a� '� �� .( �!; � {L �• SA' o {':' . i . ay r, � ��' ` A.,��''-,<i"' j�j9 "e f ,C 4 y $ a'k 0 PP 06-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT Kevin Hams @ Briggs Engineering ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots & 3 common lots on 9.98 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Prata Villas Subdivision - 4052 & 4202 W. Daphine Street AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Staff Report In AZ Packet No Comment See Comments In AZ Packet No Comment Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 CUP 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 1, 2006 APPLICANT White -Leasure Development ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens - 1601 S. Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Memo for Continuance No comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Iffs Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. r .`#{ice 4 A 4 J t 4 s q ` k t k ' } rfe t s x ' *0 x` ut i✓ 3 r6 v g e r .`#{ice A :.q s q ` t k ' } rfe t s x ' *0 x` ut i✓ 3 r6