The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 06-15CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: _0_ Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X Keith Borup _X David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba 0 Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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 July 6, 2006 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 1 of 2 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 John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 6, 2006 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 6, 2006 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 6, 2006 12. Video Presentation — Green Buildings and Bluer Skies: Presented - discussed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba 0 Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: App N c: B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: )PIT C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Arr rvo-C, D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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:�� 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: e��y��a ? h 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: e L -f. p/h * Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 1 of 2 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� �+ 3 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 Fes_ acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane:, Civ a � 4 rc 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 } residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and h south of Zeldia Lane: 0 i Tc;i 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road:'Gr�l1 sRua WN 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by ' RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: C�GZ'1.ftu,?c ,4, fr-Zoc-0, Z/ h~ 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision FM by Paramount Development - northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. Y , ' McMillan Road:f�Az 4j �9�f�� 2 -Co � r 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast comer of N. Linder, Road and W. McMillan Road: Cin . P/4 -/-c tE ,��12. Video Presentation -Green Buildings anluer Skies: g A 5'.. d ✓. Yl, k syn 6 } Y 4 M. ., Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 2 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. d g �S -# 3$M1 k", n. .S.TS Fkgi ,z6 N a'rtetT�`{�.�� '=T4'� � i ,k V "� ' 4`d r ��.YfRx # �. P L.^ -0 M 4�+,a «., 3 S ; J,Av,...}3 y. 7'§di"i3,{.}'a# • M1, ..e . h {, ^. 3.,"ffi¢'St {nJ n [ v:g s p r t€ X „ o R�.,n✓�%+'i'F B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 1 of 2 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. �t B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 1 of 2 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. vJtij W'•. ^,vFF F slY iY %D .y} c t x ij r a i IsAlszIF If ts 140, 0 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 12. Video Presentation — Green Buildings and Bluer Skies: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 2 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. hoK TX T f ON REPORT Nok AS OF JUN 12 ' 06 & PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Rall -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Sorup David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06.016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L-0 zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Mermen Planting and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2000 P 1 of 2 All matensls presented et public meetings slmll become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation far disabllltles related to doaunents and/or hearings Please contaot dte City Clerk's OfAcO at OW4433 at least 4s hours prior to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDti STATUS 04 06/12 1434 3810160 EC—S 01'07" 002 176 OK 05 06/12 14:36 PUBLIC WORKS EC—S 00'42" 002 176 OK 06 06/12 1437 WATER DEPT EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 07 06/12 14:39 POLICE DEPT EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 08 06/12 14:41 8985501 EC—S 00'40" 002 176 OK 09 06/12 14:42 LIBRARY EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 10 06/12 14:43 2083776449 EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 11 06/12 14:44 3886924 EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 12 06/12 14:45 P—AND—Z EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 13 06/12 14:47 FIRE DEPT EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 14 06/12 14:48 208 BIBB 2682 EC—S 00'42" 002 176 OK 15 06/12 14:49 208 387 6393 EC—S 00'40" 002 176 OK 16 06/12 14:50 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 17 06/12 14:52 2085052 EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 18 06/12 14:54 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 19 06/12 14:55 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 20 06/12 14:57 2088886701 EC—S 00'41" 002 176 OK 21 06/12 15:12 SEWER DEPT --S 00'00" 000 176 BUSY 22 06/12 15:14 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU ----S 00'00" 000 176 BUSY THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Rall -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Sorup David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06.016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Day Care Center on 0.37 acres in an L-0 zone for Bearly Grown Child Care by Justin and Katie Fish — 3665 North Locust Grove Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Mermen Planting and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 15, 2000 P 1 of 2 All matensls presented et public meetings slmll become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation far disabllltles related to doaunents and/or hearings Please contaot dte City Clerk's OfAcO at OW4433 at least 4s hours prior to the public meeting. ** TX C TION REPORT ** AS OF JUN 15 '06 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ;Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony, ail presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1- Roll -call Attendance: 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman 41 David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ' jO -pu-C, B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 14Wya&'lF_,, C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ,pp,ztot, D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 1%91V/I-e_ 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: em -f . ?1h -gyp jalJ S. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Oifice District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: em -f. P/A * c1 a G y G�Zot�� Marldlan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 18, 2008 Paga 1 of 2 An materials presented at public meetirpss SW become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for dlsabintles related to documents andfor hearings Please content the qty clerk's oHke at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS 08 06/15 22:13 3810160 EC—S 01'11" 002 211 OK 09 06/15 22:15 PUBLIC WORKS EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 10 06/15 22:16 8848723 EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 11 06/15 22:17 WATER DEPT EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 12 06/15 22:19 2088840744 EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 13 06/15 22:20 POLICE DEPT EC—S 00'45" 002 211 OK 14 06/15 22:21 8985501 EC—S 00'43" 002 211 OK 15 06/15 22:22 LIBRARY EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 16 06/15 22:24 IDAHO STATESMAN EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 17 06/15 22:25 3886924 EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 18 06/15 22:26 P—AND—Z EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 19 06/15 22:28 FIRE DEPT EC—S 00'43" 002 211 OK 20 06/15 22:29 208 888 2682 EC—S 00'45" 002 211 OK 21 06/15 22:30 208 367 6393 EC --S 00'44" 002 211 OK 22 06/15 22:31 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 23 06/15 22:33 2088885052 EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 24 06/15 22:34 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOJ G3—S 01'21" 002 211 OK 25 06/15 22:36 POST OFFICE EC—S 01'11" 002 211 OK 26 06/15 22:36 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 27 06/15 22:40 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 00'44" 002 211 OK 28 06/15 22:41 2088886701 EC—S 00'43" 002 211 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ;Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony, ail presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1- Roll -call Attendance: 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman 41 David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ' jO -pu-C, B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 14Wya&'lF_,, C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ,pp,ztot, D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 1%91V/I-e_ 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: em -f . ?1h -gyp jalJ S. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Oifice District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: em -f. P/A * c1 a G y G�Zot�� Marldlan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —June 18, 2008 Paga 1 of 2 An materials presented at public meetirpss SW become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for dlsabintles related to documents andfor hearings Please content the qty clerk's oHke at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 • Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 15, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 15, 2006, was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Vice -Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba and David Moe. Members Absent: Michael Rohm and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Craig Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch, Justin Lucas and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 15th, 2006. I'd like to go ahead and call roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: At this time the next item would be the adoption of the agenda. What I would like to do prior to that -- there are a few hearings tonight, folks, that will be continued. Those hearings will be Item No. 4, which is the continued Public Hearing for CUP 06-015 for a Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Gateway Walgreens. The applicant is out of town and had requested to be continued. At this time we are probably anticipating that will happen on the July the 6th meeting. The next hearing that would also be continued is Item No. 5, which is Public Hearing RZ 06-005, which is a rezone for Meridian Professional Office. Items No. 10 and 11, RZ 06-026 and PP 06-025, both for Paramount South Six Subdivision -- Paramount, as well as Meridian Professional Office, did not post properly, so those also will be moved to our July 6th hearing date. What would like to do is put those after adoption of the agenda and, then, I would like to continue those at that time. Having said that, have a motion to adopt the agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the revised agenda. Moe: Okay. It has been -- motion to approve -- Borup: Second. Moe: And a second. Excuse me. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Therefore, it has been approved. Im #? ` Meridian Planning & Zoning a June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 39 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Therefore, I would like to continue Public Hearing CUP 06-015, a Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Gateway Walgreens. Item RZ 06-005, the Meridian Professional Office -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Prior to that we should deal with the Consent Agenda. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: Moe: Okay. In that case, then, may I have a motion to -- we will hold off on the continuance and may I have a motion to accept the Consent Agenda or are there comments before we make that motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the Consent Agenda as is. Moe: Second? Borup: Second. Moe: It has been -- motion and accepted -- and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Hearing none, that passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Next item I would now like to continue the hearings -- Q', yp, r.�rA.V�+.FLkMR q�'�,5 Nyf 4CJ t,a'»:,.a2+' N 4Jk-,? �' �?' •kid t �� ry g��''±e�`� � � 't� « ^e" 4t � S. Q', yp, Nyf 4CJ t,a'»:,.a2+' 4Jk-,? �' �?' •kid t �� ry g��''±e�`� � � 't� « ^e" 4t � S. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 3 of 39 Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Baird: If I could make a suggestion. To keep the records clean on these, I'd suggest that you open each individually and entertain a motion solely for the purposes of continuing, one motion per -- one at a time. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006: 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: Moe: I will do that, then. Therefore, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing on CUP 06-015 for the sole purpose to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z Commission on July 6th, 2006. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been -- motion and seconded. All those signify -- all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That has passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I assume the agenda can accommodate these extra meetings? Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R- 4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Moe: Yes. We did review the agenda and it will be open. Next item would be a request to continue the Public Hearing RZ 06-005, request for a rezone of 1.004 acres for Meridian Professional Office. Borup: So moved. Moe: To the date of July 6th. Borup: July 6th. Moe: 2006. Zaremba: Second accepts the July 6th motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 4 of 39 Moe: All right. It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion is passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Moe: Next item would be to continue the Public Hearing AZ 06-026, request for annexation and zoning -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I have to open that hearing for AZ 06-026, as well as PP 06-025, for the annexation and zoning for Paramount South Six Subdivision, as well as the preliminary plat approval for Paramount South Six Subdivision. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue Items AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025 to our regularly scheduled meeting of July 6, 2006. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move Public Hearing AZ 06-026 and PP 06- 025 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 6th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. That has passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Having said that, before we get to the next Public Hearing, I would like to just kind of walk through a little bit of the Public Hearing process for some that have not been here before. We will open the Public Hearing on the next item. Staff will give its report, basically, an overview of the project, at which time, then, we will ask the applicant to come up and speak to the project. After the applicant has gone through that, we will, then -- there is sign-up sheets back there if you haven't signed up and you may sign up to speak. You will have three minutes for any rebuttal on that -- or to discuss what the applicant had said. After all public testimony, at that time the applicant will, then, have time to come up and rebut what the others had said. Other than that, then, at that point the Commission will, then, make determination on where we go from there. That's the short version of that and I want go ahead and go forward now. Melidian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 5 of 39 Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: Moe: So, having said that, I would like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-024, request for annexation and zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering, as well as PP 06-023, request for preliminary plat approval for 29 residential lots and three common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision. At this time the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen. This is for Napoli Subdivision. It is a request for both annexation and preliminary plat. The annexation would be from rural to R-4 zone and on the 10.17 acres for the zoning, you can see -- let's see here. Sorry. That little blue line right there is where we are looking. In addition, the preliminary plat is 9.44 acres, with 29 residential lots and three common lots. We have Eagle Road here. Amity down below. As far as development in the area, there is the Kingsbridge Subdivision up here. The Zaldia Subdivision which will go in here. The Martinelle Subdivision down here. This is an unplatted area down here. And, then, Messina Meadows Subdivision is here. It's a mix of both rural and low to medium residential. This particular subdivision Napoli, with the R-4, is towards the lower end of that. I think it provides a good amount of transition from the Kingsbridge to the more densely populated Messina over here. As far as -- let's see. Here we have a gross density of 3.7 dwellings per acre, with approximately 9,493 square feet average per lot. As far as our land here, they are going to be proposing several streets. They will be taking the Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private lane, and turning it into a public street, as well they will be building the Tendaris, South Palatino Avenue, which will be stubbing down here to the Martinelle Subdivision. And let me see if there is a Martino Avenue. I need my glasses. Staff recommends approval of this. There are, really, not a lot of issues regarding the design. There will be no parking on Zaldia Lane due to width of it on one side. Excuse me. The east Zaldia. There is East Zaldia Drive and, then, Zaldia Lane and it's the lane that will not have the parking on it. East Zaldia. And I believe I can stand for questions if you have specific questions. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Not at this time. Veatch: We do have some elevations as well. I guess we can go to the landscape and, then, most of the open space provided for the subdivision is with the parkways here. And, then, Caleb's going to get the elevations here for us as well. Oh, it will take just a Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 15, 2006 Page 6 of 39 minute to open up the -- the open space does equal 10.61 percent, which is well above the recommended five percent. Moe: In regard to that open space, that is, basically, within the parkway areas; is that correct? Veatch: That's correct. Moe: So, there is no set aside lot and whatnot for any open space, it is within the parkways? Veatch: Correct. Moe: Okay. Veatch: So, we have four different elevations provided here that will be seen throughout the subdivision. Some single story, I believe, and, then, also two story. I'll be letting Mr. Harris speak more to that. Single story homes will be approximately 1,600 square feet minimum and two story will be a minimum of 2,200 square feet. Moe: Okay. Any questions of the Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chair, one of those elevations shows no garages and I -- it didn't stick in my mind that there were any alley -loaded projects and I'm wondering -- go to the next slide. The top one. I'm just questioning whether that's a valid elevation or not. Moe: We can have the applicant address that when he comes up. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? ;. Zaremba: No. Thank you. Moe: Having none, would the applicant like to come forward, please. y Harris: Good evening. Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road. First off, I'd like to say Jenny covered everything pretty well, except for the density in this subdivision is 3.07, not 3.7. The average lot size is 9,493 square feet. And on those elevations, if Caleb could flip back, the one you were talking about there is, actually, a side entry garage, I believe, and these are just examples of what is going to be similar into the subdivision, not the exact same houses. He just took photographs of what they plan on putting in the subdivision. And with that, the subdivision is pretty straight forward. I'd stand for any questions if you have any of me. Moe: Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 7 of 39 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harris, from reading through the letters that we have received I know there is going to be a question about the process of converting -- this is Zaldia Lane, which is currently a private road, into a public road and I guess my question is do you know the process of taking a road with upstream users who apparently own it and maintain it and converting it to a public road? That's probably an ACHD issue, but I'm sure it will come up. Harris: Yeah. Commissioner Zaremba we talked to ACHD about that and ACHD has no problems with it. They are, actually, very excited about changing that into a public road and wish that we had done that prior to Kingsbridge going in, they would have liked to stub there. With -- I guess access upstream or downstream, however you want to look at it, from my understanding as long as we provide them with the same access point and the same access as they have before, there is not an issue, just through this property. It's going to be public. From the end of this property on it's still going to be private and maintained by those homeowners. Further than that, I don't know any of the legality issues of that. I think ACHD thought it was perfectly fine. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Harris: Thank you. Moe: At this time we do have quite a few folks on here. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Baird: Over here. Before we begin, it might be appropriate to inquire if there is a spokesman for the group that might want to speak on behalf of others. Moe: Very good point. Yes. That would be -- if, in fact, within you folks as you have signed up, if you do have a spokesperson for your group that would like go ahead and at that point if you have a spokesperson, they would have ten minutes to speak, as opposed to if you come up individually you will have three minutes and we do have a lighting system that will take care of that three minutes, so you will know when it's up and we would like to keep that as close to that three minute period. So, if you do have a spokesperson, that you have -- raise your hand if you have one and we will just go from there. So, does anyone have a spokesperson? Seeing none, then, we will go through the list. The first person on the list is Bradford -- and, I'm sorry, I can't read -- please come forward. Deadman: Hello, folks. My name is Bradford Deadman, I reside at 3644 East Zaldia Lane, with my wife and daughter. I'll indicate with the pointer where that is. I hope. On Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 8 of 39 this five acre spread here. Pardon me, I can't hold this steady. Mike nervousness. Okay. And, of course, I live next to my other neighbor. Five acres. Next to his neighbor. Five acres. We have had this discussion last year. Here is another neighbor with, again, five acres. Of course this proposal here comprises approximately nine acres with 30 homes. Here is another five acres, five acres, et cetera. Anyway, we have all met with a lot of curiosity about the way that this is being proposed. Primarily density. Folks from last year will remember that we had an extensive relationship with Kingsbridge and the developers of it to make sure that we developed an area here, subdivision, with lots of transitional density, both in regard to just simple lot size and home size, but also, more importantly, some visual transition, going from the space and distance between those homes, allowing their to be limitations regarding home height, so that there would be a harmonious transition between the homes that are being built and all the homes existing, so that everybody retains a view that they all paid for. A lot of our concerns go for just the massive wall of homes that will be generated here as the { density proposed, according to the numbers that I see anyway, appear to be greater dense than anything else around it. Of course, I have interest in my neighbor as well, who will -- unlike me, I will experience sunset approximately 9:30 this month, but in two years my neighbor right down here will probably experience his summer sunset right around 7:45 if there is a wall of two story homes along the perimeter of his home, so, of course, I'm curious about that. I'm very curious about the safety resulting in influx of all these cars onto Zaldia Lane and, frankly, a little bit amazed that it has made it to discussion with ACHD without having discussion with you. Regarding whether the subdivision can, indeed, exit all of these vehicles strictly on Zaldia with not -- with no access to Eagle, which is right here. I'm quite surprised. I'm very worried. I'm concerned of safety. That's, really, the main gist of is I'm concerned about the lot transition, the density, the safety, the taking of Zaldia Lane -- I'm going to use that phrase that I heard earlier, that Zaldia Lane would be taken. I'm also going to use another phrase heard earlier regarding a good amount of transition, because a good amount isn't quite as finite as I would like to hear, but I would love to hear what other people say from my neighborhood. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Deadman: Thank you. Moe: Next person signed up Don Morgan. Morgan: Hi. I'm Don Morgan. 4620 South Martinelle Lane, which is just touching this lot right here. And it's going to be a little redundant with what the gentleman just said. I'm mainly concerned with the transition and the wall of backyards we are going to see from our area. I think we are all there for the same reason, that we wanted to be on the outskirts a little bit and have some open area and we are not too excited about seeing that kind of density at back yards facing our direction and the bad view that will be. I would like to see -- I would like to see the plot altered a little bit, so that we had biggeroj lots on the perimeter and maybe specify that we only had one story houses on the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 9 of 39 perimeter, so that we would have a little bit of a transition without -- without seeing all those tall backyards -- or tall back fronts of houses. Thank you. Moe: Any questions, Commission? Thank you. Next person -- is it Phyllis? De Angeli: Phillip. Moe: Okay. Come forward. De Angeli: Hi, I'm Phil De Angeli, 3405 Zaldia Lane. I'm this guy right here. Here is my house. My neighbors and I and you folks, the Planning and Zoning, and the City Council spent quite a bit of time the last couple of years discussing the Kingsbridge Subdivision, which is abutting the north side of this. Most felt that the large lots surrounding Kingsbridge indicated that -- that they ought to go with a lower density building also. And Kingsbridge complied and now they are building a nice development with single story homes on the perimeter lots and features like berms and trees and vinyl fencing. City Council's findings of 4/12/05, that's the approval meeting, stated that Kingsbridge was approved at 1.69 houses per acre. And Napoli, as you have heard, is asking for almost 3.1 per acre. They also say that although the 1.69 per acre is less dense than Tuscany's 2.4 across Eagle Road, it's still much denser than the 1.69 houses per acre than the large lot parcels around it, the five and ten, even some 20 acre parcels there. Now, while I'm not against development when it's done fairly, I am against Napoli as proposed, because the density is just much too great for this area. In fact, the City Council stated in those -- in the Kingsbridge findings that they believe the county parcels here would develop at a similar rate to the Kingsbridge 1.69 per acre. Also, there is no attempt made at a fair transition with the neighbors that I have heard so far, such as single story on the perimeter lots, some kind of landscaping and screening, such as trees and berms, and vinyl fencing would be nice. Kingsbridge is where I got the idea. They are doing all of those things right now and they are going to be some excellent neighbors, because we have growth and development, but it's nice when they transition in like that, so everyone's happy. And, most importantly, the proposal is inconsistent with the development Meridian has previously approved in this neighborhood. And the reason for so much of this Kingsbridge talk is that if they are held to a density of 1.69 and, then, immediately afterwards right next door someone comes up with 3.1 on density, that, to me, is inconsistent and just don't follow it. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the Commission? Thank you. Next on the list will be Judy. She says she's been spoken for. I can't get the first name, but it's Morgan is the last name. Okay. She has been spoken for also from the audience. Next I think is it Theresa? Okay. From the audience she says she has no comments. Next would be Roger. Okay. Thank you. From the audience he said he's been spoken for. Next would be Frank Shoemaker. Shoemaker: Yes. My name is Frank Shoemaker. I reside at 3497 Zaldia Lane right there. I think it's very critical that we look at the overall map of the area prior to last Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 10 of 39 year's Kingsbridge project. This area was completely large acreages, such to the fact that the Kingsbridge Subdivision, when it was originally asked for approval, was denied several, times because the density was too high. At the City Council meeting Mayor de Weerd stated this is such a unique area that why don't we do something like the City of Eagle. This has some nice larger lots, custom homes, instead of this typical in fill, high density projects that we see here today. The result of that was Kingsbridge has been revised several times. We now have extensive common area, waterways, bridges, so forth. My concern is these homes along this area are -- range in size from 15,500 to 16,000 square feet. Homes along this perimeter that I'm going to see the back end of, this no buffer zone of landscaping, will, basically, be two story houses on 9,200 square feet houses -- or 9,200 square feet lots. So, the transition as mentioned earlier does not comply with what was recommended by the City Council and also the final approval of Kingsbridge. I'm also concerned about -- and I went to the Ada County Highway District and asked them how can you advise a developer to put access roads onto a private lane when you have South Eagle Road here. Their comment was that this Zaldia Lane at some point in time is going to be a through street. Well, we know that's not going to happen. And if we look at Ada County's decision process making throughout the valley you know it's not too smart. So, right here they have lined up Zaldia Lane with the new phase of Tuscany called Messina Village. We have 29 houses in here, all going to come out at two different points to this point. They are going to be, then, fighting access to Eagle Road from all this development here. It's ridiculous. This -- if we are going to have a nice subdivision here, let's make the lots larger, consistent with Kingsbridge, and let's put an access out here on South Eagle Road. Now, the highway district said that they did not -- they want to limit access to Eagle Road by subdivisions, but I think it would be safer to have an access point here than having everything here. We are going to be backing up -- I want to come out here, I won't be able to get on Eagle Road. You're going to have all these houses coming out -- thank you. Moe: Sir, you -- Shoemaker: Is that one my -- Moe: Yes. Go ahead -- Borup: I would be interested in a little bit more information. Shoemaker: I thought that was my buzzer. Borup: It was, but we are giving you some more time. We are giving you some more time. That was your buzzer. Shoemaker: So, I think -- you know, and I talked to Justin and Justin got this -- the developer -- Justin got kind of the runaround at Ada County Highway District, too. They designed it based upon what Ada County Highway District told them, so I can't fault the developer for that. But he got different answers than I did down there. But that area there is going to be an excessive congestion point for everyone trying to get out on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 11 of 39 South Eagle Road. It's a two lane road. There is no turn lanes or anything here. So, I guess if you look at the overall picture, to me it's too high of density. I'm not opposed to the development, but I think it should be done consistent with what's taken place on this side of Eagle Road, not this side of Eagle Road. We have two distinct neighborhoods here. We don't need to be high density on this side over here. Let's make it pretty nice. Let's do something different for a change. This has some nice lots and some big custom homes into this two story tract project. Thank you. Any questions? Moe: Any questions of the Commission? Borup: Maybe I have one, Mr. Chairman. And I'm not sure if this is all that pertinent or not. The individual that used to own this property, did he testify at the previous -- any of these previous hearings; do you know? Shoemaker: These people here? Borup: Yes. Shoemaker: No, they did not. They -- if they would have been at the meetings, they would have not designed this project as is. Borup: No. I mean for Kingsbridge. I was wondering if they testified in any of the Kingsbridge hearings. Shoemaker: No, they did not. Borup: Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Next on the list would be Sherry Lewis. Lewis: I didn't realize when I put my name down there that I would be speaking. I wasn't really prepared to do that. And I had sent in my comments in e-mail format to you folks. Let's see if I can figure out how to use that. Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you begin with your name and address, please. Lewis: I'm sorry. Sherry Lewis and I'm trying to point out my address. I'm at 4200 South Eagle Road. This 20 acre parcel here. And we have been there for eight years and we have loved it. It's been beautiful farm ground and -- but we recognize the city's coming. We are kind of in a unique position, because the business that my husband and I own deals with development of -- we put things in people's homes, put it that way. And so we are kind of, you know, both sides of the fence. What I would -- what I would like to see -- because we know that some day we are not going to be able to take care of 20 acres. We hope to be able to develop our own 20 acres some day and to be able to take advantage of that. So, we are not opposed to the development whatsoever. We would like the city to make sure that the whole area has more up -scale feeling to it and I Meridian Planning & Zoning ® S June 15, 2006 Page 12 of 39 don't know what the Stott's plans are, I haven't seen the -- you know, the precise plans or anything, so I can't really answer to what they're planning to do, so -- but they are good people. So, I suspect that they have good things in mind. What I would hope, though, is because we have a three acre lake on our property, some day if we decide to develop, we are going to hopefully -- I haven't seen Kingsbridge finished, so I don't know what it's supposed to turn out like, but we intend to have nice up -scale, maybe approaching Two Rivers kind of thing in Eagle. So, we would like to make sure that the whole area can -- has a theme to it, a nice up -scale neighborhood and not that smaller homes can't do that, but maybe there is -- I don't know what kind of stipulations that you can place on the area in general, but maybe there is a way to accommodate -- I think what I'm hearing here is everybody realizes that the development is going to take place, but they would like to be comfortable with how it fits and flows with the neighborhood. And I have to say a grew up in the area. I was born and raised right on Cloverdale and Amity area and it used to be all beautiful farm ground and nobody liked anybody moving in and breaking up the ground. So, we are all kind of guilty of it to some extent, all of us that are here speaking of it, we have all imposed on someone else's view, we have all imposed on someone else's, you know, farm ground and so forth and so I'm glad that everybody's being civil here and really nice, that's really a nice thing about our neighborhood. So, let's keep it good. Thank you. Moe: Any questions, Commission? All right. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, come forward. Okay. Having seen none, would the applicant, please, come back up. Harris: Again, Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West Overland Road. It seems like everybody's major concern is density and if we look at the Comp Plan for this subdivision it's shown as medium -- medium density residential, which is an R-8. In our pre -app with your staff, your staff recommended that we come in at a density of three units per acre, which we matched that. We also talked with your staff about single story houses. We knew this question was going to come up because of Kingsbridge. Your staff made -- I guess the comment that they don't want to see single story houses. it's too complicated to find out which lots needs to have those restrictions put on it. So, we are not for limiting the house size or the heights of the houses. Zaldia Lane aligning with Messina Meadows. again, ACHD requested that. It is a safety issue to have those align. You have to have a certain offset on those roads per the speed and if a light ever goes in on Eagle Road there, that's a logical place for a light and it's the safest point for us to access. Another comment was made on vinyl fences. This subdivision will be fenced with a vinyl fence. That was brought up, you know, in the staff report, which some of the neighbors I guess didn't know that. I think that is all the major topics of the neighbors. If you have anymore questions of me, I will answer any. Moe: Staff? Excuse me. Commission. No questions? Borup: Oh, I do, but -- and maybe while you're -- you could stay up there, because think mine applies a lot to staff comment, unless you had some information from a previous hearing, and that's -- I realize that's not the hearing before us, but a lot has Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 13 of 39 been mentioned about Kingsbridge and setting a precedence and I very much like what Kingsbridge did and has -- or in the process of doing. The question I had is, essentially, how City Council justifies that with -- when we had a Comp Plan designation of medium density and -- well, I guess that would be the first question is I -- the medium density is saying three -- three to eight and the low density would have been three or less, which - - which is where Kingsbridge fit into as far as the density they did, was they were talking about doing a one step down, is that what -- is that how that was able to happen? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- if you look at the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, most of Kingsbridge is, actually, designated low density. They do have the two pieces that come out and front Eagle Road that are shown as medium density on that map, but for the part -- a majority of that site is low density or this site is medium density. This is where it changes from that low density designation to the medium residential designation. So, being under the same property owner and the same development, they kind of -- you know, with the land use designations being more of a guide than a fixed line, you have to stop your density here and now transition it to medium, they kind of floated that over and said, okay, you are a low density development. As was mentioned, there were comments -- and I haven't read the minutes in awhile, but there were comments at that meeting about having this be -- just due to the nature of the five acre lots and larger rural atmosphere that's out here, you know, having some estate -type lots -- now, I don't remember those minutes -- the Mayor or anyone saying that it all has to be estate -type lots, but it was talked about there. They did like what some of the upscale -- I think Island Woods was talked about and some of the other ones in Eagle as being kind of guides for how this area could develop. So, I don't think there were any statements that was like you better come in with a development like that or else we are not going to approve you, but definitely when looking at Kingsbridge they -- they thought that was appropriate to have a low density project there. And we did talk with the applicant when they came in a few months ago before they submitted and said you are medium, medium is three. I wouldn't try to go much passed three, but to get staffs support and to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, three is that target minimum goal for that designation. So, you know, that's something that the city adopted in 2002 and we just try to enforce it. So, I don't know if that fully answers your question, Commissioner, or not, but that's kind of what the Council was thinking back then. Borup: Oh, I think it does partially. So, it sounds like you're saying that -- and I see that now, that the boundary between the low and the medium was right here, what it looks like on my map. So, the larger part of Kingsbridge was in the low density, but this part right here was in the medium density, so City Council's justification on that is because it was a part -- a part of the other that they allowed the lower density? Hood: Yes. Essentially because two-thirds of it was this low density designation, they thought that the other third -- and because that portion does abut Dartmoor, too, and they are larger lots, too. So, they did want to have that transition from Dartmoor south onto those -- those fives I think they are. Maybe there are 10 acres, so that 20 acres there having that low density designation to transition. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 14 of 39 Borup: So, it sounds like you're saying staff would have had a problem with two and a half to three units per acre? Hood: Not necessarily. It's -- you know, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the -- just based on the Comp Plan, it's -- our general rule of thumb is that that designation can slide a parcel or so -- you know, where do you stop that slide? I mean you get to a point where you may as well change the map. Borup: Right. Hood: And the designation on there. So, there is some flexibility. But if you don't transition it somewhere, it's all going to be low. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that in 2002 that's what the elected officials wanted to see out there and our job is just to try to get development that's consistent with that. Borup: Well, that's also what we as a Commission have been obligated -- I mean we are obligated to -- or we should be, anyway, to comply with the Comprehensive Plan also. We don't have quite the flexibility the City Council does. They can kind of make their own rules as they go almost. All right. Moe: Any other questions? Borup: Not at this time, but maybe later. Harris: Thank you. Moe: Discussion, Commission? You have already spoken, so -- Commissioners, any questions? Any comment? Zaremba: Well, I do remember much of the Kingsbridge discussion and along with the Mayor and others, I have stated that I am generally very strong on high densities near to the center and the core of the city. As we get farther out I'm much more willing to listen to lower densities and I felt that it was appropriate to do what Kingsbridge did and the final result of that project was very nice. But in some cases when we have a Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances that now pretty clearly support the Comprehensive Plan, the developer almost has to volunteer to do something more or different than what the Comprehensive Plan asks for and, actually, even to go to a lower density than the Comprehensive Plan asks for, even if the developer wanted to, it's an uphill battle to accomplish something that might be desirable. And as Commissioner Borup pointed out, we don't assume that we have the flexibility that the City Council does. We, along with staff, are pretty well tasked to say does this comply with the Comprehensive Plan that had like five or six years of public testimony and a great deal of work and Angst go into it before it was approved in 2002 and I would say that from what I see our decision is pretty clear. It appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 15 of 39 Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, do you have any comments? Borup: Yes. And I'm still not completely decided on this, but I didn't think I'd ever say something like this, but I -- I would like -- personally, I would be happy with this project if it had three or four less lots. And I'm just looking at the lot sizes and the frontage. I mean they are nice size, you know, a 9,500 square foot lot is pretty larger than we normally see. But just realizing what size homes can go on there, you know, some of those are still only 74 feet wide, which, depending on the plan, can be hard pressed doing a three car garage on them. And I would much rather see a little less density. Not a great deal. I'm not -- I'm not talking maybe as much as some of the neighbors would like, but enough to increase some of these lot widths just a little bit more. And, again, I'm not sure how -- they are complying with the Comprehensive Plan, but that was something that would make me feel better about it. That being said, I would state that I have never been in favor on any project -- on anything that we have ever seen of limiting house height. I mean, unfortunately, there is no guarantee of a view. Most people seem to think the view is towards Bogus Basin anyway, not to the other direction, but I guess that depends on the time of day and what you want to do. So, I, for one, would not be in favor of limiting house heights. That is the advantage when you have got large lots next to something, your house is usually far enough away that the heights of a house doesn't really make as much difference as -- difference as it does if you're closer. And I guess that's all I have got to say, unless -- unless there is any other discussion about increasing the -- or decreasing the density a little bit. Moe: Okay. A couple comments that I would have -- and I won't get into the same as the other Commissioners in regards to basically our responsibility to follow the Comprehensive Plan and whatnot. I also, with Mr. Borup, would agree, I would have liked to have seen a few less lots. And the other thing that really bothers me within the subdivision is although you do exceed your open space on this, just putting it in parkways around the streets and whatnot, there is really no real vision to the subdivision, other than it's a bunch of houses. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more imagination on the open space, regardless of the fact that you have got more than necessary. But, again, it does meet the Comprehensive Plan and based on review of the meeting minutes and whatnot through the City Council as Kingsbridge and whatnot, I would assume that depending on how -- how the vote goes tonight, that City Council can review that Comp Plan and make determination at that point as well, so having said that -- Borup: Maybe just one comment on yours and that's on the open space. If you have large lots it's really -- I'm not sure if it makes a lot of sense to have a lot of park space on ten acres -- when you only have a ten acre parcel to work with. Moe: I agree with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 16 of 39 Borup: But maybe right along with that, they could take the space that you would like for a park lot -- for open space and eliminate a few lots and put it into the others and, then, each individual lot would have more room. Just one more plug for that. Moe: All right. Yes. The applicant please come forward. Harris: Kevin Harris. Business address is 1800 West Overland Road. Just a couple of comments as you guys were talking here. Initially on this plan we did come in with two or three less lots and your staff requested us to bring it up to three units per acre. So, you know, we came in with it less dense and we were told to bring it up. On the park strip, we have a 60 foot right over here, which is an eight foot planter strip, which is all going to be really nicely landscaped with trees and we have a detached sidewalk along Eagle Road with a berm and also a berm with a detached sidewalk along Zaldia Road. Your staff in our pre -app was also very accommodating to that, saying the same thing Commissioner Borup said, is this small of a site you really don't need a park, you landscape it, you know, on the sides of the roads really nice, it's a really nice feature to the subdivision. Other than that, that's my only comment, so -- Moe: Thank you. Borup: Maybe while you're up here -- Harris: Yes, sir. Borup: -- I would be interested in your other plan. That increased the lot widths -- Harris: I believe we added -- excuse me. I believe we added a lot here and either here or here. So, the center part I'm pretty sure stayed the same. It's been quite a long time ago. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Any other comments, Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one that probably will prove not to be too helpful, but a number of the neighbors have spoken about having up -scale projects in this area and, again, I say this -- this one does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, so it's probably a little too late to make this statement, but those that agree that there may be future further developments on some of what are five, ten, and 20 acre lots, either along Zaldia Road or others, might want to have a neighborhood meeting and actually come up with a plan that could be presented to the City Council that -- the Comprehensive Plan can be changed. There is a process that does it. And the vision that many of you have expressed I would happily support. It would mean that you would all need to get together and have your own neighborhood meeting and just say, well, we are not going to develop today, but if I or you develops five years from now, here is what we have agreed that we would all do when some day somebody develops. And if you have that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 17 of 39 as a whole group, it would be easy to make a Comprehensive Plan plan change. There would be a Public Hearing about it and everybody would have their input, but it could be done. I would have liked it if maybe that had been done before this project came in, but for the rest of you, you may want to think of that. That's not a requirement, that's just an opinion. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? It is closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Okay. Let me run this up the flag pole and see how it works. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, and I don't believe we had any modifications. End of motion. Moe: Is there a second? Borup: No, there isn't. Moe: I guess I should ask -- Zaremba: The motion would die for lack of a second, if that's going to be the case. Moe: I need to ask legal counsel -- Borup: I think he can second it, can't he? Baird: You can second it as the chair. Moe: I will second that. Therefore, it has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and -- Borup: You haven't voted on it yet. Moe: Oops. I'm sorry. I remove that motion. Now, let's see -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 18 of 39 Borup: You're doing fine. You're doing fine. Moe: Okay. Okay. It has -- okay. All those in favor -- AZ 06-0 -- sorry. AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with all staff conditions for the hearing date of June 15th signify by saying aye. All those opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. And my opposition is basically just on one area. I'd like to see more 80 foot frontage lots. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Okay. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-024 and PP 06-023, with the conditions as the city staff comments. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, just for the record, it was moved, seconded, and approved with one person in the negative. Moe: Yes, sir. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024 for the request for annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat approval for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Incorporated. And I will open it with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications before you include an annexation and zoning request for 95.57 acres. It's currently in the county today. And there are two zones being requested. 93.89 acres is requested for an R-8, which is a medium density residential district and 1.68 acres for the limited office district. The site is located on -- you can see it there. The scale is not the greatest. It has frontage on Black Cat Road, as well as Franklin, with primarily most of the frontage being along Franklin Road. It does go a quarter mile east -- excuse me -- a quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile Road. And, again, has frontage on Black Cat Road. There is a vicinity map with the proposed subdivision, overlayed within. To give you some more -- Silver Oak Subdivision, which final platted as Umbria, which you probably Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 19 of 39 didn't even know that, but Silver Oaks Subdivision, which is a multi -family development, there is a day care, I think, an office lot or two right near Franklin Road is here. And the subject plat is proposing to align a roadway -- this looks like the old plat is what's in the system. There is a roadway that aligns with the public street into Silver Oaks Subdivision, so I will get off that slide, since it's outdated. And -- let me just make sure we got -- yeah, this is the good one. Okay. So, here is the office lot that they are proposing and, then, everything else would be the R-8 zoning. There are 406 single family residential lots and the one office lot and, then, 23 common lots. I'm going to point out a couple of the common lots. The largest portion of the open space, besides the open space that's along the Perdham Drain and the multi -use pathway that also runs long the Perdham, is this lot here and this lot has a park with open space, a clubhouse, a pool, those types of amenities. So, really, it's going to be neighborhood park in this area. It shows up a little bit better, I guess, on the landscape plan, too, as some of the amenities and some of the tree -lined streets that the applicant is proposing. Speaking of streets, there is a collector roadway that's proposed, again, to align with the access in Silver Oaks, comes down and it's a full street section to the southern boundary of the office lot and, then, it's two-thirds of a street or their portion with the adjacent property finishing off this roadway when they develop in the future. There is no front -on housing in this -- along this collector roadway. That access -- and, then, there is one more access to Franklin Road, basically at the other side of the development, and, then, they do also have one public street access out to Black Cat located right here. I think I'm going to stop with the staff presentation. There was -- and just get to the main issue, I guess, with the plat. In the staff report there -- there is an issue, guess, with this being designated medium density residential on everything to the west here. Basically west of the Perdham, also it runs north -south on the future land use map. And, then, it being mixed use on the eastern side of the plat. Staff has some concerns with approving the whole development, being that we are just underway with a consultant and trying to study what is the highest and best use in this area after the interchange goes in and that includes roadways and land uses and transitioning those uses to one another. Everyone kind of has a different opinion on what may work best, but until the Public Hearing process really gets going and all the stake holders get involved and something gets proposed, it's a little bit tough to -- for me, anyways, to try to envision how this area will completely develop. And, again, the concern is that you're setting a precedent in this area by approving single family residential throughout this development. The next guy in, really, is at a disadvantage to have to try to work around that constraint if they don't do the same thing. And I guess the thought throughout the u office is -- or at least some of my coworkers in the office is that this is going to be a higher intense use, retail, office, maybe even some industrial as you get at the interstate, possibly. So, again, until that gets determined, in the staff report it asks for 18 months for the city to work with that consultant and, then, adopt a specific area plan for this area, so we can determine if -- whether or not medium density does work in this area for this project or not. And it very well may. Again, it was just something to -- we are asking for a little more time. Since that staff report came out we did meet with the applicant -- I believe it was Tuesday and Anna, myself, Kent from Bailey Engineering was there, and Matt Schultz, and we did talk about the staff recommendation. We discussed this alternative layout that the engineering firm has put together, which, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 20 of 39 basically, takes the single family detached lots along that collector roadway, so now we are on the far eastern boundary of that plat, and they are proposing townhouse lots. So, it would be attached three, four, five townhouse -- townhouses together there. It does provide -- in my opinion it does provide a better transition to whatever is going to happen across the way, if it's multi -family, if it's office, more intense uses on the other side of that collector. The collector roadway also does provide a pretty good transitional breaking point for that. I'm still not totally sold on the idea, but I think it is a compromise that does -- could work, too, and it would just be something that would be -- have to be factored in when we get to the specific area plan and say, hey, we have already approved this development here, it's no longer an assumption, this is here, there is going to be a single family and a townhouse development right here and go forward with that specific area plan. So, I guess that's on the -- on the board for the Commission to decide. That's throughout the staff report, too, is this enough of a mixed use development, does it comply with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. There are policies in there and specific standards that say a three to 40 dwelling units per acre are appropriate in mixed use regional designations, which this property is. So, again, it's the -- it's the appropriateness of the uses on this site and at the scale. With that, I think that the staff report pretty much outlines the rest of it. It's really quite a clean layout as far as compliance with the UDC. There were a couple of changes, but I don't even think they are worth spending any of the Commission's time with and unless you want to talk about some of them specifically, so I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think we got a memo that included the subject that you talked about, about adding a greater density along the eastern border of this. Totally apart from the merits of that, does a higher density require renotice? Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry, I should have followed that thought through. If you decide to approve what the applicant is showing here, they would -- they would need to replat that area, basically, and rezone it as well, because the R-8 zone doesn't allow lots that are this size. If they went to an R-15, which would still be appropriate for that -- that mixed use designation, they could still get the R-15 zone, which allows 2,400 square foot lots and there is no minimum lot size. So, that would need to be a condition of approval, that the applicant -- basically, the way I envisioned it was taking some of the language saying, you know, you don't have approval for anything east of the Perdham Drain and change it to be anything east of whatever that road is there or the first block west of the collector roadway up to that micropath along Franklin Road that would require the applicant to, then, submit a rezone and new preliminary plat for townhouses in an R-15 zone or an appropriate zone or however you choose to word that, I guess. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: What were those lot widths on the townhouse? Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 15, 2006 Page 21 of 39 Hood: I believe they are 37, if I -- and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's, I believe, what Kent told me, they were about 37 feet wide. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward. Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners and staff. My name is Matt Schultz, with RMR Consulting. I am the applicant. My address is 2127 Alaska Way in Meridian. And I'm here on behalf of the Baraya Subdivision. It's -- maybe you could show the overall landscape plan. That probably shows it best. Thank you. This site's comprised of two separate deeded parcels, one of them being a larger rectangular 80 acres and the other being a little panhandle, if you will, 14 acres on Black Cat. The 80 is bisected by the Comp Plan, in that everything west of the halfway point is shown as medium density residential, everything east of that is shown as mixed use regional, which is a very broad Comprehensive Plan paint, if you will. In fact, I went and mapped out how many acres we have out there of mixed use regional and I think there is eight or nine hundred in the area of mixed use regional, around the Ten Mile corridor going both ways along the freeway and we are on the fringe of that mixed use regional plan. Back in February when we got going on this and we got going very rapidly, we met with staff, we were concerned about asking for too much density, although the Comp Plan may support it, there had been some previous decisions at Council that got shot down with higher densities and they are totally appropriate and the reason they got shot down makes us a little nervous about asking for too much. In fact, with this layout here we probably left about 80 or 90 lots on the table, even with an R-8. R-8 would have allowed us even more than what we have here. We did a mix of some 50s and 60s and left it -- left it kind of big and loose and nice open space and yet still tried to get four to the acre. We are, actually, on the east side we are up to about 4.8, a little more efficient on that side. That was back in February. I don't believe the city put out their RFP for their study until April. In fact, I don't believe they have even awarded that study yet. know they have identified a consultant. They haven't awarded it. We have long since been done, submitted. we do, in my opinion, conform to the current Comp Plan in that we believe that what we have on that east side does conform to mixed use regional. It happens to be residential, with some office. But towards that compromise with staff earlier in the week -- and you do have a memo to that effect from me, I believe that's the memo, saying that, yes, we agree this is more density. It's a problem we usually don't have. We are usually asked to give away lots, not pick up density, and it's something that my -- my end user is agreeable to, doing single family detached with some attached, with a minimum of that many lots, need to go back and see if maybe he wants to do a little bit more on that -- on that east side. I don't know. But the condition is that as a minimum we would replat those and that could be in our development agreement, that we reapply for a rezone and to R-15 for that -- for those blocks along there on that east boundary. We have done a lot of forward planning, if you will, the pioneering effort on that -- that area plan in that we have worked with the adjacent landowners. ACHD. We put the collector on that side, even though we didn't have to. We thought that was a very good idea to provide a nice transitional buffer between a more intense use towards Ten Mile and also provide a good access down to the south for potentially future industrial. Who knows. Instead of putting it in the middle. Which would have taken that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 22 of 39 traffic through the middle of our site, so we put it over on that east side, we thought that was a good location for it and everybody since then has agreed with us, that, hey, that was a pretty good idea. And it does line up with the Silver Oak. It's a higher density residential, I'm not sure what the zoning was, but it's a high density residential and ACHD is talking about putting a signal there, potentially, which I think is a good idea, with high density coming from one side and us from the other, I think a signal might be a good idea. We do have -- actually, you can't tell, but there is actually two regional pathways potentially on here. There is one along the drain, the long one, and there is also one there at the connection between the panhandle, the bigger one. You can't really tell, because it's so short, but the Williams pipeline goes diagonally right through there and it's about 75 to 100 feet wide. You can't build on it. You have got to turf it. We may as well put some pathway in it. And it runs through Oregon and down to Utah, I think. I mean it goes trucking through Meridian and it's going to be a good potential regional pathway, because you can put a pathway in it, as long as you work very closely with them and if you don't, then, they will show up in about an hour after you start digging on it. I guess they fly it twice a day, just making sure nobody messes with that pipeline, but -- but it is a regional pathway, potentially. We have worked with the parks department very closely in identifying regionally in this area where the best property is and we have -- you know, not because it's my property I don't want the park on me, just truly believe, if you look at the bigger picture, there is a better spot for a future 20 acre park than this and they do agree with me. They have identified another parcel they are going to try to get a regional park that links to our regional pathways and that makes sense regionally. We do have a nice central open space for our residents, a pool, a nice -- a nice central spot. Pathways connecting to it. We really did believe R-8 was the appropriate zone, given the timing. The neighborhood commercial zoning wasn't quite solidified at the time we started this. There was some changes being talked about. We just weren't comfortable proceeding in that direction. We thought R-8 was the way to go and we worked closely with Public Works on the Black Cat trunk. It's going to go down the road parallel to the drain there on the west side and they are going to start that hopefully very very soon. We are working closely with them on that design to get that going for everybody and Kent Brown from Briggs Engineering is here to back me up if I forget anything or shut me up if I start saying something I shouldn't, but I think he did say it was 33 feet to the lot width on those townhome lots. Borup: He said 37. Schultz: Thirty-two -- I think it's 32 and 32 and there is 37 on the ends. There is four of them attached. That's what we will proceed with probably immediately after this moves forward. We really to hope start our first phase on that east side, you know, we did truly pick that even before it came up to the hold thing -- we didn't find out that they wanted to delay this until a few days ago. We think we are pretty far along to do that and we feel that we have the best plan and I think there is some advantage to having this in there first. I really do. I mean having a totally blank slate is sometimes hard to -- hard to deal with and I think we have made some really key first decisions in the area to make some of their jobs easier as they move forward on how other things fall into place. But the main high intensity is really going to be on that Ten Mile corridor. That Ten Mile Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 23 of 39 corridor, which is a quarter mile away up and down, that's where it's really going to be. truly believe that's the break before we go into residential zoning west and when you look at a bigger map, there is a lot of acres out there for other uses. I guess with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval. Moe: Any questions from the Commission? Borup: I don't have any questions, other than comment. I think I can understand the staffs maybe -- I don't know if concern is the right word, but their -- their comment on that, it does not -- it does not incorporate very many of the mixed use regional aspects in there. I mean because it -- I mean it talks about greater than 200,000 square foot buildings and -- and just about no -- no limit on some of the other uses, up to 40 residents -- you know, up to -- isn't it -- yeah. Forty units per acre. So, I don't know why you were confused on the -- that there be concern about density when it was already in the Comp Plan for up to 40 units per acre, but -- Schultz: Well, like I said, mixed use is a very broad range and you're not going to put all that -- all those components into 40 acres. Borup: No. Schultz: You're going to put it into 800 acres, different from pulling some different parts. There is going to be transitional areas and when they draw these comp plans, as you know, they use a very broad brush sometimes and they bisect boundaries and -- Borup: Right. And you are -- and you are -- Schultz: And we are bisected and we want one use and so we are trying to work with everything and get the right mix for the specific area. Borup: I think I agree with what you're saying, is that closer to Ten Mile where the more intense use is going to be -- Schultz: Uh-huh. Moe: Any questions from Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: Not at this point. Moe: I'm just kind of curious, you know, with everything on the east side, you're only looking at one office lot and the rest of the area is all residential at that point. Schultz: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 24 of 39 Moe: Was there any reason why you just picked -- you decided to put one lot for office in there, just simply because it was mixed use regional? Schultz: No. In fact, if I could have made it all residential I probably would have, but with lining up that road across the street, it created an outparcel that, you know, it made sense to put some office there. Like I said, I truly believe the higher value office, apartments, shopping centers, malls -- I really truly believe the higher value stuff is going to happen along Ten Mile first and we would have vacant lots for ten years there if we set them aside. The buy I think is going to go quicker along those corridors first and we paid top dollar for this property, we would like to get our best and -- highest and best use out of it sometime in the near future than long term. Those other areas are going to go first. They really will. Especially after we annex and, you know, they were out doing core samples on that the other day on the interchange. They are moving forward on design. That's going to get going and you're going to see a lot more things start happening in the next year, probably, but -- Moe: Just another -- I'm just kind of curious as far as that office, I mean what kind of size are you looking at and do you have any concept plan of what this thing is going to look like? Schultz: You know, there is some very good architecture going on right now for offices and light office stuff that I have seen along Overland and along Franklin in the -- over here in Silverado and EI Dorado. Something similar to that in appearance. Just a very modern looking stuff. We haven't got down to an architect on that yet. It will probably be a dental office or, you know, a pediatrics office like that. In fact, it may just blend in with whoever does what they are doing to the east of us, we may end up selling it to them and they can blend it in with whatever they are doing as a contiguous parcel moving forward. But we haven't been approached by them yet and we will see what happens as things progress, but -- Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Let's see. On the list here we have Steve Moore. Moore: I'm Steve Moore and I live at 820 South Black Cat. This appeal is offered in the spirit of what I believe is the best for our community. Meridian has been my home since 1972 and I remember the time in the late 70s until the 1990's when the citizens of Meridian were Boise chamber of commerce's best friend. Boise had the business and industrial revenue and Meridian had the expense of building the houses and schools for employees for those enterprises. In short, our community was an unbalanced bedroom community. In the last decade we have seen a great turnaround, more balance, business and industry locating, as well as residences to a balanced growth. This particular subdivision, in my opinion, represents a step back in the wrong direction. My concern is fueled by reality such as a recent front page Idaho Statesman article noting the population shift to the west, so that the population center of our valley is now Eagle Road and Pine Street. This shift predictably will continue west and may soon be at Ten Mile Road and Pine Street. Availability of residential parcels are and will continue to be Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 25 of 39 less of an issue in the long term Meridian and commercial and industrial parcels. A healthy community preserves it's most attractive and logical places for commercial and industrial use, not already taken for residential use. Residential use contributes far less and takes much for financially from a community. It appears to me that Meridian's present impact area and proposed impact areas offer many more places to build houses than logical industrial and commercial options. Specifically, Meridian has only one interstate and one railroad track and areas in proximity to them should be preserved for their best use. As an off ramp continues to -- comes to Ten Mile, the present face of our community can change for the better radically. Unfortunately, mistakes of the past will be financially compensated. It's too bad that an interchange was not decided and built years ago with a legitimate artery going north to Chinden years ago. We are consequently left with incredible amounts of pollution, road rage, wasted time, to name a few of the compromises created to our quality of life in its tardiness. Ten Mile north and south will never be the way it could have been and millions is going to be spent seeking to improve an unnecessary lack of planning and zoning requiring right of way. Houses will be moved. Turmoil among homeowners and clinical entities, tension between residential and commercial or industrial use. Why make that mistake again. Residential use of this property is -- in this sector of our city is a mistake. Traffic patterns and street uses for residential property is far different than mall, commercial, industrial residential and community uses. Demands of city services for residences are radically different in the sense of police, fire, sewer, schools, traffic flows, et cetera. In summary, I think it is a mistake to allow these 400 plus homes and others in the future within this sector. If this subdivision is approved, I will not be surprised if this Commission is soon hearing requests for other residential developments in all directions within proximity, including a request for variances. I am very heartened to hear that the staff of this city is asking for 18 months to decide a better use for this area. I have no personal animosity to these developers and the property owners and I respect the fact they have invested greatly to be a part of the application. However, it was their choice to risk, as we just heard in testimony, top dollar for this area. And as was made point by the staff member, what we are doing is setting a tone and disadvantaging neighboring property owners and future development. My appeal is one of principle, I believe, and I ask that you put the brakes on a land use that will affect our community adversely in the long run and disadvantage and limit contiguous development. One interstate, one railroad track, let's protect it from Meridian's planned growth wisely and avoid previous mistakes. Let's not be a bedroom community, let's be a city and control our own destiny. Thank you. Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Next on the list would be Ryan Stoker. Stoker: Yeah. My name is Ryan Stoker. My residential address is HGR-33, Box 2606, Las Vegas, Nevada. My local business address is 320 East Corporate Drive, Meridian. If you could go back up on one of the earlier -- yeah. Currently, we are in contract with a group to purchase this 40 acres. This and this. The basic issue I have with this subdivision is there is virtually zero access. The access provided currently is aligned to this road over and down. This is zoned for medium density. This is mixed use regional. Mixed Use Regional. The issue here is going to be if we are going to be providing Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 26 of 39 access out onto Ten Mile, you're going to be off the 120 acres dumping a tremendous amount of traffic out on Ten Mile with no access this way and I can certainly see this going forward as a development, this being built, we do something on a medium density residential here and, then, we get protested by the people living there, because we end up having to run our traffic through their subdivision. I support staffs current plan to go ahead and take an 18 month continuance on this, so that they can look at this and analyze it, because I think that's something that needs to be looked at. These three parcels, basically, have no direct existing access to either Ten Mile, Black Cat, or Franklin and, obviously, 1-84 is down on the southern boundary there. Any questions? Borup: Yes. Have you had any discussion with the parcel to your northeast? Stoker: We are trying to contact those parcels. We, actually, have a pre -application meeting next Wednesday at 1:15 with city staff. Borup: So, this is the parcel that you have here; is that correct? Stoker: Yes. Currently under contract from the Brandts. Borup: But you're not sure -- you haven't talked to these people? Stoker: No. We have got a call in to them and we are supposed to meet them on Wednesday of this next week, both this parcel, this parcel, and I believe this parcel. What we want to do is talk to these guys about, hey, how can we look at this overall area and develop it into something that works for everybody and we aren't necessarily, you know, trying to do the same thing on the same parcel. We can get a compliance -- or complimentary zoning and use out of all this stuff in this area. Borup: It looks like right now the Comp Plan has this -- just this square here as a medium density and the rest of this is mixed use. Stoker: Exactly. Yeah. This is the mixed use regional here, which is the 200,000 square feet, up to 40 units per acre. This is the medium density, the 40 acres right there. Borup: Thank you. Stoker: Time's up? Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Caleb, I do have one question for you. When he brought up the 18 months, within that report, that 18 months is, basically, the property east of the Perdham Drain; right? Or is that the whole -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, yeah, that's correct. In the staff report everything to the west of the Perdham Drain could be platted as soon as they can do their engineering and get their final plats in. And, then, we are just asking for 18 months for Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 27 of 39 the things east of the Perdham Drain to not be platted until that consultant can get done with their work. Moe: I wanted to make sure you were aware of that, because that is property that the -- the property just north of what he was discussing, so that is not -- Borup: This is the Perdham Drain here? Moe: That is correct. Everything east of that, then, would be the 18 months. Next person on the list Ron Moore. R. Moore: Good evening. Ron Moore. 350 South Black Cat. And, myself, I think it's a little bit too dense of development for that area. Right now the traffic, if you tried driving through there at 5:00, 6:00 o'clock at night, I have seen traffic from Ten Mile back clear up to Linder, to where it's just going to stack on what we already have and until that road's widened or something, it's just -- it's going to create gridlock even worse than what we already have, plus the construction that's going on with that off ramp to where so if you stack all that on there and as per the townhomes and so on, I think that's kind of even be just way too dense. I would just as soon see larger lots there, but that's my opinion on it. Borup: But you don't want to see residential there? R. Moore: I would actually -- I was told from the previous property owner of that at one point in time that he had intended on some type of medical use, stuff like that, because you have got the freeway access there, Meridian, really, hasn't got any good commercial areas that I know of to -- downtown Main Street, that's -- there is nothing you can really do there to where I'd rather see it go more towards small office and so on out there, but I'm not opposed to going either way, as long as it's a controlled growth. Borup: You realize once the interchange goes in the cars are not going to be stacking up on Franklin, more than likely, they will be stacking up on the freeway. R. Moore: Yeah. I hope not, but -- yeah, look at Eagle and Garrity, they both stack up right now, too. Borup: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Next on the list is -- Zaremba: If I'm remembering ACHD's five year work plan correctly, somewhere in the next few years that section of Franklin is going to become five lanes, so that will help a little bit. Moe: Okay. Next on list is Brad. Come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 28 of 39 Janicek: Commission, my name is Brad Janicek and I live at 4325 West Chinden Boulevard in Meridian and I have this piece of property right here -- Borup: Oh, you're the one. Janicek: -- this 80 acres right here. And on a minor scale I'm opposed to -- in this application here it has three stub outs that come onto my property within a quarter of a mile and I'm adamantly opposed to that and I don't need three stub outs coming in. The one that's at the quarter mile line, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But these other two -- you know, I don't know what I'm going to do with them on my property. My intention with this property here is definitely commercial, not residential. And as the staff report said, you know, if you do residential here, then, the next guy in is probably going to have some problems and that's probably going to be me. So, I'm opposed to those three stub outs. On the bigger picture -- and the first fellow, I believe his name was Pete, he said it eloquently, in that, you know, the center of the Treasure Valley could wind up at Pine and Ten Mile and here in Meridian we have got a chance to get this off -ramp here and in spite of a study or not, I think good logic just tells you that this probably needs to be commercial here and it probably doesn't not need a residential area in it. It's probably going to just cause problems. We got the fellow from Las Vegas that's got the Brandt place, his intention, you know, is commercial. Hawkins -Smith has this here. His intention is commercial. Shacurry is here. He's told me his intention is commercial. Gary Carney is here. His intention was commercial. And this actual piece of property was owned by Ronald Van Auker, who is a commercial developer, until he sold it to them. So, I think it's pretty obvious that the intent of this area is to be commercial and I think that's what fits in the City of Meridian. End of story. Thank you for your time. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Just one. I mean that is true, most of it is intended for that, but there is some of it that's still designated as medium density residential in the Comp Plan, unless we look at changing the Comp Plan, but it was changed with the interchange in mind and all this was changed to the -- to the regional use there. And, then, the only other comment is it sounds like Mr. Stoker would like talk to you about seeing what -- what plans you both have for your properties. So, maybe this is a chance for both of you to get together. Thank you. Janicek: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else who would like to speak. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle as my business address. This is the second property that our engineering firm has had on this piece of property. The previous client walked after we had a bunch of mixed uses east of the Perdham and the direction a few months ago that the City Council was headed and so we went in Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 29 of 39 with a little trepidation. But over the period of time that we have been working with staff, some of the things that have come up as we have kind of looked at this area is that they have talked about an east -west collector going somewhere in here to help move the traffic, kind of like a frontage road, kind of like what Overland acts to the freeway and, then, also having north -south collectors. If you extend here pretty close to the half mile, the discussion in our previous plat that we were bringing forward until the client decided to go away, was to come in here at the half mile with a collector and, then, follow the topography. There is a great grade change here. Everything along the -- that backs up to the drain drops off quite rapidly and so the discussion, basically, came and where does this collector here that feeds the commercial area need to be. If you come all the way out with a collector here and you run the collector through the residential or the mixed use that you would have there, you end up having an opposite situation that you would have at Sutherland Farms and Silverstone, where you have the commercial out next to Overland and the residential behind and you would have industrial users driving through those mixed uses to get to the commercial area. So, realistically, the decision for us to put the collector on this site makes a definite line and a change. As we looked at the design of this, looked at other interchanges in the area, the Milwaukee interchange there next to the Town Square Mall, you look at that and maybe as you drive into that you see Chilli's and where Costco used to be and you see those commercial uses, but on top of that grade change is low density residential. Closer as you get to the freeway there is high density with some apartments. As I looked at each and every interchange, at Cole that the state transportation department just completed, you have industrial on the south, but in every case, closer than we are to where this future interchange would be, is residential, medium family, low density, residential uses in those interchanges. I have copies of those here if you'd like to look at some of those and I have labeled them. But looking at that, the interchange basically takes about this much room here. You take the Town Square Mall, if you put that in, it would fit, basically, in an area like this. The Town Square Mall is on the right side for right turns in and out type of a situation as you look at that. I think that we have made a wise choice in the way that we have tried to put this together. Yes, we are drawing a line in the sand and saying, you know, you need to transition from this point. The gentleman from Las Vegas here talking about that his traffic will go to the north, maybe he's not aware of what ACHD makes us put at those stubs. A big sign that says these roads are extending in the future type of situation. Makes -- and puts those people on notice they will be going through those streets. I'd stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just one and that was, again, maybe a minor thing, but on the -- the three stubs in -- on the area to the east -- Brown: To the Janicek property? Borup: Yeah. Was that -- was that done because of block length or ACHD -- Brown: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 June 15, 2006 Page 30 of 39 Borup: That was the only reason? Brown: Yes. Borup: And does this stub right there need to be there to comply with the block length? Brown: Everybody seemed happy with what we have provided, so I mean that -- I guess we could make that one go away. It is one lot away from the other. Borup: My thoughts are just on -- I mean if this is intense commercial development, it makes -- I mean I like the idea of interconnectivity and not having things -- but here it would be a cut through, a convenient cut through for people, perhaps. Here it's available if need be, but it's not going to be convenient. Brown: I guess -- Borup: Maybe staff may have a comment. Brown: When you look at -- as I sat on -- in your shoes on the P&Z Commission years ago when the Crossroads came in, the residential was the first thing that went in to what I believe and what we have heard recently as the busiest intersection in the state of Idaho and that residential use went in and they did have connections to that area. You have industrial users behind them and commercial to the front of them and I believe that this neighborhood does the same thing. I know from my client's standpoint we are not opposed to removing the stubs if you're supportive of that. Borup: I'm in favor of the stubs. I don't know that this one is necessary, is my only comment. Brown: From my standpoint what we tried to do is keep as far away from the drain as it made some sense of how buildings might back up in there, but we are just providing connectivity. If you wanted to remove one or more of those stubs, this collector level road on the easterly boundary is the one that I think is critical and, realistically, if someone can make a decision as to where that collector needs to be, then, you're deciding where the mixed use or mixed use being commercial, office -type uses need to be. The decision for us to put it here has to do with the topography difference that you have here. Truly, that's -- that's the reason. You put it closer to that -- Borup: But you have got that in a good spot. It makes sense. And my comment is just based on the previous testimony that it should not have any and I wouldn't agree with that, either, not have any, but -- Brown: In our discussion with Mr. Janicek from our neighborhood meeting with the highway district and everywhere else, we made them aware that we are not opposed to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 31 of 39 those going away and we have made them aware that we might write them a letter and ask for some of those stubs to go away. Moe: Mr. Zaremba, do you have a question? Zaremba: No, I don't have a question for Mr. Brown. Brown: Thank you. Moe: All right. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Seeing none, the applicant, please. Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz again. There were three or four different comments I wanted to respond to real briefly and maybe I will just start with the most recent one first, Mr. Borup's point about the stub streets. We have been working with Brad all along, saying, Brad, ACHD is a little stub happy, you know, we put them in because they want them, we'd like to delete them, but they like them. I'm all for -- especially the one that Mr. Borup pointed to -- deleting that, I think that's unnecessary for sure. The other one -- hard to say. You know, yeah, I guess at worse case you could cul-de-sac it off later and that would be a turnaround or something and blend it in with what he's got. But for now, not knowing what that's going to be, I mean Brad could sell that to somebody else and they may decide to do something different than what he's thinking today. It's hard to say what's going to happen with that property until it gets submitted. So, the stub street -- I don't know how we could word that condition, but that we -- that we delete that stub street and, then, we will just go back in front ACHD and get that done. You know, we will take it to them, because you do have the ultimate jurisdiction, I believe, over ACHD when it comes down to issues. It is your city and you can make that decision and we will try to get it done with them, so -- Franklin. You are correct, Mr. Zaremba, ACHD is, as we speak, trying to write a check for right of way along Franklin. Since we closed on it, they're like let's buy it. So, they are moving forward rapidly with a five lane design and construction. I'm not sure when they plan to construct it. I mean soon is two years in ACHD terms, but -- Borup: To Ten Mile you're talking or from -- Schultz: To Ten Mile -- Borup: I mean to Black Cat is what I meant. Schultz: I believe it's all the way from Ten Mile to Black Cat on Franklin, widening out to five lanes, and we have accounted for that in our design. There is some big power poles on the north, so we had to shift over the right of way slightly onto ours, put the sidewalk in an easement, but there is room to put five lanes in there and we have been working closely with ACHD on that. As far as an 18 month hold on this, I just don't think that's real feasible. Obviously, for us 18 months is an eternity around here in terms of how things change and where we are at and we believe that the time is right, this does Meridian Planning & Zoning is 40 June 15, 2006 Page 32 of 39 meet the Comp Plan. We do believe it meets the Comp Plan that was already previously approved and to the bedroom community point, Meridian is no longer a bedroom community for Boise and I work in Meridian, I live in Meridian, you see more and more people wanting to live in Meridian because of all the energy, the new commercial that they are getting around Eagle right now. It's outside. And they will get more. We are going to see them all pretty soon, probably. I mean it's hard to say what we are going to see here. It gets exciting, though. I'm excited for Meridian and what we are getting here and it's not a bedroom community anymore. It really isn't. It's where people want to work and live and recreate and everything else, so -- I mean with that we think we have got the right plan at the time and we ask that you move it forward with the condition that we replat the east side or reapply for a rezone on those -- that one block for the R-15, 1 believe. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have to comment that I agree with absolutely everybody who has spoken tonight on all sides of the issue. Everything that has been mentioned and some of which are not compatible with each other, but everything that was mentioned is something that I have thought about on this property. I live farther north along Black Cat Road and I drive this stretch frequently and look at that piece of land, look at the interstate, which you can still see from there, from Franklin Road at this point, and think about what a marvelous commercial area this would be for maybe even that whole square mile. I would have thought at least the closest half mile to Ten Mile, which I think probably splits the property about here, would be the half mile from Ten Mile -- should certainly be considered to be heavily commercial, retail, other kinds of commercial. However, it is pretty much a mixed use designation and mixed use does include residential. Just looking at this piece of property it's not much of a mix. This is all residential. So, in some respects it -- if you consider the whole area, this is part of the mix. If that's going to be residential, then, I very much support a higher density of residential that close to Ten Mile and the interstate interchange, even higher than you have proposed. Maybe, again, as far as here and to the east of that being higher, just a small issue, I would agree with not having this stub street. I think if this is a collector and you have another stub here, that would be -- seems to me to be plenty for both properties, this one and the one to the south of it. I really would like the plan that the city is -- I mean they don't have the plan yet, but the fact that they are hiring consultants and going to do a well thought out plan for this area, I wish that had already happened. It would be nice to know what that's going to be before having to make a decision on this. Do I feel so strongly that I would hold this up for 18 months? That's a tough one. Probably not. Which brings me back pretty close to, essentially, what the staff has said and what the applicant has talked about, a little greater density in that one area, but if I understand the staff request, it is to, essentially, recommend approval of what we are seeing, but put an 18 month hold on part of it and if nothing comes of the design for the whole area, then, this applicant already has an approved plan. But if -- and a lot of the people are in the room tonight that can bring this focus to -- you know, if you all get together, it sounds like even this applicant would listen to some change on that eastern portion. And if it were to come about that there was -- needed to be change there, if Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 33 of 39 there had been that 18 month hold on that part, then, the change would be appropriate at that time, if I'm understanding the way the staff is asking. I read it a couple of times and I think that's what's being asked for. So, I guess after going around a whole lot of circles, I probably am in support of the staff report exactly as it is, with two changes, and that is the mention to greater density along here and eliminating this one stub street. That's a long way to say not very much. I'm sorry. Moe: Mr. Borup, do you have any comment? Borup: I think Mr. Zaremba said -- said it very well. Only one thought I had and this just kind of came to me as he was talking and also with the benefit of the other testimony, where we -- there has been some discussion on this being a mixed use and mixed use includes the commercial and the residential. Well, the previous testimony states that to the south, to the east, and across Ten Mile is all going to be commercial, if that's the case and, then, we try to make this commercial, then, we are maybe weighing too much to the other way. We are not getting any of the residential mix in a mixed use. Now, if we are looking at the area as a whole, this probably does help balance it out if this is -- this is a residential area, assuming that there will still be some maybe higher density coming in -- coming in somewhere, but so far we -- I mean it sounds like the -- most of the plans are for a commercial use. So, my thoughts have changed a little bit that maybe having this residential does balance out the area -- you know, that area at hold there as mixed use, if you take it all in consideration. Moe: I have kind of gone back and forth on this project as well. Again, I would say I'm pretty much in agreement with both of you as well. The first time reviewing this I did take into account the fact that it is mixed use regional and when I saw residential and one office building, it just doesn't do much for me in mixed use regional when we go through this, but based on testimony that I have heard tonight, I do agree with Mr. Borup, it sounds like everyone around is anticipating going commercial, but I guess what I would also say in that regard is -- is that you are also in mixed regional and, therefore, you may, in fact, need to plan others, other than just commercial as well with in your properties as well. My biggest concern when I saw this is that we are taking the residential component and you're first in, so you're taking it all and, then, basically, everybody else will do something else. That may work itself out. But I guess I would say I'm in agreement with Mr. Zaremba as well. I would like to wait this 18 months and see what the study can bring forward, at least the property to the east of the Perdham Drain. I have no problem with what you have noted as your phase one. Other than that, that's all I have to say. Borup: And I guess I didn't clarify my comments. When I said I was in agreement, I -- other than that aspect, because of my belief that it does balance out overall, I don't know that -- in my mind I don't see use in waiting 18 months will accomplish a lot. think the study is important and maybe should have been done a long time ago. We have been talking about a Ten Mile interchange for 30 years and so this isn't anything new. But I realize the city is still growing and stretching and in the planning. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 34 of 39 Moe: I guess I would just make the comment again that because they are the first in, you're giving them the benefit to go ahead and anticipate that their mixed -- mixed use regional is going to be just the one office, along with, you know, the higher density residential and the components. Borup: No. I realize -- that was the same concern I originally had, but now I'm looking at -- at a more -- at the overall area, assuming that the testimony we heard tonight is fairly accurate, that this -- this would be -- this may be the majority of the residential aspect of the whole area. Schultz: May I approach? I have something that relates to actual areas and -- Moe: That would be fine. Schultz: You know, I didn't make multiple copies like I should have to hand to you, but if I could -- I did a little analysis in anticipation of this discussion and stepping back regionally, this area analysis is going to study 2,700 acres. It's going to study 1,700 north of the freeway and 900 south. You know, that's like four square miles. Within that four square miles we have currently, in the current Comp Plan -- I'm just taking the current Comp Plan and doing areas. I measured these on the computer. 682 acres of low residential, 582 acres of medium residential, only 48 acres of high. 65 acres commercial. 385 acres industrial. 864 acres of mixed use regional. And, then, 61 acres of mixed use neighborhood. This Baraya Subdivision is 94 acres. This is only three percent -- three and a half percent of the overall study area. The 40 acres is one and a half percent of the overall study area. And, like I said, we have over -- in the Comp Plan today there is probably over 1,250 acres -- 1,300 acres of low, medium, high density residential within the area and only 65 of commercial. So, that just goes to show you that that mixed use regional is going to be something of all those previous ones. It's going to be probably not very much residential, but a lot of commercial, because there is only 65 showing actually commercial today, to mixed use. So, it's interesting stats. I like to do the numbers, I like to see the percentages. It gives some reality to what we are looking at in that this is not a big chunk of the residential in this study area. It's actually a very small chunk when you count the areas. So, I hope that helps a little bit and I can just introduce this for the record, please. ; Moe: Thank you very much. Any other discussion? No discussion, is there any motion? Zaremba: I think I spilled everything that I had to say. It doesn't bring me any closer to believing that there is one right answer, but with the additional comments also made, as for the study in a four square mile area around what will eventually be an interchange, I still lean towards being supportive of this with the staff requirements and it doesn't deny the eastern portion of this, but it just asks them don't build it yet and it may very well beAL that in discussion with the other neighbors who have now identified themselves, even the applicant might decide something different with that eastern portion. But if 18 months from now nothing has happened, there doesn't need to be a further Public Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 35 of 39 Hearing for them to go forward with what's already -- the only other option would be to hold the whole thing off -- or, well, deny it. I don't feel strongly enough about it to deny it. I don't feel strongly about it to just continue the whole process for 18 months. I think it's a good compromise to say let's put this on the boards, don't make it happen on the eastern portion of it yet, but if there is no other answer by 18 months from now, go ahead. I'm comfortable with that. Borup: Yeah. Which number was it in the staff report that asked for 18 months in their conditions of approval? Zaremba: I thought it was in the development agreement, but I'm looking at it right now. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's the first bullet point on Exhibit D, page one. Borup: There we go. I wasn't reading fast enough. Zaremba: While Commissioner Borup is mulling that over, I would comment on another 18 month that's suggested in the same place and that is that the applicant would have 18 months to contact the city attorney for the development agreement. I'd rather see that be -- we have had some discussions on this. I'd rather see that be two months or no statement at all as to length of time. Anybody care if we change that to two months? Borup: I'm sorry, which -- Zaremba: I'm talking about how long the applicant has to contact the city attorney to even make the development agreement happen. The actual annexation ordinance gets help up until this happens and -- Borup: And that consisted -- what was it we had talked about, was it two months? Zaremba: We have talked about shortening that time frame considerably and I think two months was what we compromised on. Maybe Caleb knows differently. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what we talked about at that joint meeting here, I don't know, six months ago now, with the City Council, there is no deadline for development applications to submit their development agreement or sign them and return them. So, we have ones that are three and four years old that have never been signed and the problem is that they don't expire. So, the 18 months I think - - there was not a consensus on that. This is something that we have been putting in the staff reports recently as ordered by the director, for 18 months, but that isn't something that's code, so feel free to modify that as you see fit. I think we are going to work on putting some six month or 12 month duration -- sometimes two months -- not in this case, but sometimes you get owners that are out of town, overseas, and there is some back and forth with the legal department, too, in these oftentimes and two months is -- for someone that's really working on it can be tough to make sometimes, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 15, 2006 Page 36 of 39 Zaremba: I believe there was definitely a consensus in having a deadline, which, as you say, traditionally there hasn't been one, but it seems like there should be one. And I agree there was a mixed discussion about how long it should be. Borup: I was thinking six to 12. Zaremba: Six months sounds like -- Borup: Six to 12 was -- Zaremba: I would go with six months. Moe: One other point on page one, Exhibit B, your second to the last bullet point on the second sentence there, on the direct lot access, should that not be Franklin Road also? Not Victory Road? Hood: You are correct. I must have cut and pasted that condition in. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Let's see. Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup was studying the 18 month delay on the eastern portion of it and I await his discussion. Borup: Well, yeah, my opinion hasn't changed. I think this is a small portion of the area and I don't think I would -- I'm not in favor of delaying that. Zaremba: If we left that in there, would that be a deal breaker for you? Borup: Well -- Zaremba: Want to deny? Borup: -- I voted no one other time. Zaremba: Okay. All right. I'm just wondering. Just trying to work it out. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 June 15, 2006 Page 37 of 39 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Borup: So, you mentioned you're going to talk about rezone and, then, the stub that was on the other changes? Zaremba: Yes. Just where are we going to put that. I think I know where that's going to go. Borup: 7.11 on the stub maybe. And I don't remember the name of that street, but -- Hood: Castle Peak Avenue is the first stub street due west of the collector. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All right. Zaremba: I believe I'm ready. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024, presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, including approval of the preliminary plat, dated March 22, 2006, with the following modifications. On Exhibit B, page one, that's the beginning of the annexation and zoning section, the applicant shall contact the city attorney to initiate this process within 18 months -- I would change that to six months. I -- one, two, three, four, five -- after the sixth bullet I would add another bullet that says that the applicant will change the plat to have the eastern section east of Castle Peak Avenue become R-15? Okay. And not the bottom bullet, but the second bullet up from the bottom in the last of that sentence is Victory Road needs to be changed to Franklin Road. Still in Exhibit B, now on page nine, under section 7.11, the fifth bullet down it talks about a stub street at Castle Peak and that stub street shall not be stubbed. I believe that's everything. End of motion. Borup: Second. I' Moe: All right. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-025 and PP 06-024, include all staff comments for the hearing date June 15th, 2006, with modifications as noted in the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. Commissioners Newton-Huckabay is not here. Someone has to stick up for her. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Let's see. We have already dealt with Items 10 and 11, so the next thing on the agenda is the video presentation. It's a 25 minute video and my question would be do we want to take a five minute break before we do it or just do it? Moe: Mr. Borup, what is your pleasure? Borup: Let's just do it. Zaremba: Let's get it done. Okay. Item 12: Video Presentation — Green Buildings and Bluer Skies: Moe: Go right ahead. We will have the video presentation. (Video presentation.) Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Moe: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) A3 ..(.,. �+ k § t d � "t Sys. & dyyu Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Let's see. We have already dealt with Items 10 and 11, so the next thing on the agenda is the video presentation. It's a 25 minute video and my question would be do we want to take a five minute break before we do it or just do it? Moe: Mr. Borup, what is your pleasure? Borup: Let's just do it. Zaremba: Let's get it done. Okay. Item 12: Video Presentation — Green Buildings and Bluer Skies: Moe: Go right ahead. We will have the video presentation. (Video presentation.) Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Moe: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) 3'. A3 ..(.,. �+ k § t d � 3'. Meridian Planning & Zoning it June 15, 2006 Page 39 of 39 DAVID MOE - VICE CHAIRMAN 11 '7I1n DATE APPR V(EID""►►►►,, 0F Wp� ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG_JR. CI itL - " j. 5 f a'9 ikax ^r F c {� at Meridian Planning & Zoning it June 15, 2006 Page 39 of 39 DAVID MOE - VICE CHAIRMAN 11 '7I1n DATE APPR V(EID""►►►►,, 0F Wp� ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG_JR. CI itL - " j. � a'9 ikax 3 ti' F 7 ell, r jk 3�FR{'+#r✓"lJr#5W5 } y�7 3 �y a MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of May 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: N CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: YC) 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. f MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: t -v t4 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: JIVP SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f y% t 3.3 z "xEw� r ro y 5 J S k =, x •`4 2 4r i k i� l., ,k� ¢ ;fir, ;a. µ,ye. } �s F tl W 3!F .�� f SY MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: t -v t4 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: JIVP SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f y% t 3.3 "xEw� ro y 5 J S k =, x •`4 2 4r i k i� l., ,k� ¢ ;fir, k 4j µ,ye. �s 131, �+� FWN,, tl W 3!F .�� f SY MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of May 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: t -v t4 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: JIVP SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f y% "xEw� ro y 5 J t # 1'x`.`3 P i k e f •`4 2 4r i F -R4" l., ,k� ¢ ffif€ 131, �+� FWN,, g�;✓S L;$/'fr �Cy�l�' iA, .,tet`., _. c: s., t § tt72 .�� f SY 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 � MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: S " AGENCY COMMENTS SANITARY SERVICES: f� sj a 4z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CITY CLERK: +f 4i a< CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY SgFi'b'' rr 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 1, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 � MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: S " AGENCY COMMENTS SANITARY SERVICES: f� sj a 4z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CITY CLERK: ` CITY ENGINEER: a< CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY SgFi'b'' rr IDAHO POWER: a INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: CITY POLICE DEPT: �- OTHER: CITY FIRE DEPT: 4 CITY BUILDING DEPT: i F CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: Apr ,. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: S " is SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ` CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: a< NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: SgFi'b'' rr IDAHO POWER: a INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: �- OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: i F Emailed: Staff Initials: ,. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 `410 w 9 T is r SgFi'b'' rr t�f-.,ktis Al 14 N I Ow .. i Safi41 { 0 `410 w 9 T 'q i -3... ,� T a t: t ". A4Yi E-S�•4r-Y�; M it c. 3 _ S fKt �W3 ^gn,'�y's1 y dk Y e^ ,_ 6iA'��:'f4 _�% f e. rt .i e + r e� s CUP 06-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT Justin and Katie Fish ITEM NO. 3-D REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: U� 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: l3 G% Phone: -� Emailed: (:5 ki lin Qciba& Q ME; C()M Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 1 n CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER U 1 2 2006 eIGa ns �1 }.I U M4n&—Iaii �rk.Office 'h IDA fi In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care ` Center on 0.37 Acres in the L -O District, by Justin and Katie Fish Case No(s).: CUP -06-016 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. June 1, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 1 of 4 0 s 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan and the Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Site Plans as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plans C1.0 dated October 14, 2004, and April 14, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing: Condition 1.5 should read: "The hours of operation for this business shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m." 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous -segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive -intervals of one (1) yearfrom the original date of approval. If the successive phases -are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future -phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior Wthe termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen --CM __ period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined -and approved by the - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ---_ CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 2 of 4 - — i 0 0 Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 3 of 4 9 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the J' day of► C-, , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (CHAIR) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED 6& �en-f VOTED VOTED . (t.6 ' yz-+- VOTED VOTEDjL CH,KIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: F� Tara Green, Deputy City Cl r Ile ,•,� ewe Copy served upon Applicanl';y ng, ,a partment, Public Works Department and City 1111►►fill 91 1, Attorney. By: (h((Arn ( ryU'-kkj Dated: 0�� _ _06 City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 4 of 4 h � T � f a r x. { i firms WON i s: T 4 A M s"f 6 d kr 3 f y„ ik 9 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the J' day of► C-, , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (CHAIR) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED 6& �en-f VOTED VOTED . (t.6 ' yz-+- VOTED VOTEDjL CH,KIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: F� Tara Green, Deputy City Cl r Ile ,•,� ewe Copy served upon Applicanl';y ng, ,a partment, Public Works Department and City 1111►►fill 91 1, Attorney. By: (h((Arn ( ryU'-kkj Dated: 0�� _ _06 City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 4 of 4 h � T � f t r x. { i firms WON s: T 4 A M s"f 6 d kr 3 f y„ ik 9 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the J' day of► C-, , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (CHAIR) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED 6& �en-f VOTED VOTED . (t.6 ' yz-+- VOTED VOTEDjL CH,KIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: F� Tara Green, Deputy City Cl r Ile ,•,� ewe Copy served upon Applicanl';y ng, ,a partment, Public Works Department and City 1111►►fill 91 1, Attorney. By: (h((Arn ( ryU'-kkj Dated: 0�� _ _06 City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-16 - PAGE 4 of 4 h � T � p kiio i t i firms WON T 4 A M s"f x d kr 3 f y„ h � WON - 24 t �t 3k CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNWEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE&G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 6/1/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jenny Veatch Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Bearly Grown Child Care • CUP -06-016 'i °!$ C 1Gx �9x�9 ow i. &1' M1J C�1� Ii1AW �. Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on 0.37 Acres in the L -O District, by Justin and Katie Fish. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicants, Justin and Katie Fish., are requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to operate a child care center for approximately 58 children. The proposed child care center will be located within a 3,100 square foot building on a 0.37 acre lot within Brockton Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 3,500 square feet of play area, and provide 11 parent and employee parking spaces. The site is located at 3665 N. Locust Grove Road, Lot 6 Block 1 of the Brocton Subdivision. The property is currently zoned L -O (Light -Office.) Day care facilities are a principally permitted use in the L -O zone; however, the approval of the Brockton Subdivision required that all structures be consistent with concept elevations (photographs) or be subject to conditional use approval. Because the proposed structure is not consistent with the concept elevations, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on June 1, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Justin and Katie Fish ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Jenny Veatch v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Hours of operation; ii. Additional architectural detail and windows on east elevation. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify Condition 1.5 of Exhibit B by changing the hours of operation to be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve the subject application, CUP -06-161 with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE&G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval 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 4, 2004 and April 14, 2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on June 15, 2006. Denial I move to deny File Number CUP -06-016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on June 15, 2006. Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Number CUP -06-016 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3665 N. Locust Grove Road /on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately 1/4 mile north of Ustick Road, Section 31, T4N R1 b. Owner: Buckaroo, LLC 2873 West Wind Drive Eagle, ID 83616 c. Applicant: Justin and Katie Fish 3920 N. Elsinore Way Meridian, ID 83642 d. Representative: Katie Fish and Victoria Moorhouse, McCarter-Moorhouse Co., Inc. e. Present Zoning: L -O f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use — Neighborhood (Neighborhood Center) g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a child care center for approximately 58 children, ages zero to ten years old. The proposed child care center will be located within a 3,100 square foot building on a 0.37 acre parcel within Brockton Subdivision (Parcel #R1090760060). The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 3,500 square feet of play area, and provide 11 parent and employee parking spaces. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 4, 2004, and April 14, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 8, 2004 and April 14, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A): April 6, 2006 Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 2 i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEI1G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Bearly Grown Care Center is a family owned and operated business established in 1966 in Mesa, Arizona and based in Boise, Idaho since 2001. The business will be licensed through the State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Child and Family Services (please see applicant's submittal letter.) 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: May 15'h and May 19', 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 5th, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 20th, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into a mixed- use area. There are new homes within Heritage (Quenzer) Commons to the west, commercial businesses to the south and rural residences to the north. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family home on 1.2 acres, zoned RUT (Ada County) 2. East: Meridian Charter School/ Single-family homes (Summerfield Subdivision) zoned R-4 3. South: Meridian Fire Station, zoned L -O/ Single-family home, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Heritage (Quenzer) Commons Subdivision, zoned R-8 d. History of Previous Actions: Brockton Subdivision Annexation and Zoning (AZ -04-010), Preliminary Plat (PP -04-013), Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-012) approved in 2004; Brockton Subdivision Final Plat approved in 2004 (FP -04-068). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Services already run to this building pad. Location of water: Services already run to this building pad. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: L -O 7. Size of Property: 0.37 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 3,100 square foot building Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEIWG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 2. Existing building height: 16 feet, 3 inches 3. Number of Residential units: 0 g. Off -Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 6 2. Parking spaces proposed: 11 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the building will be through the existing drive aisles that connect to E. Summeridge Drive to the east, off of N. Locust Grove Road. There is an existing cross parking/cross access agreement for the lots within the Brockton subdivision. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On May 12, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Mixed Use - Neighborhood" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): Mixed Use. There are three sub -categories of the Mixed Use designation. Generally, the designation will provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. All development within this designation will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit process (Chapter VII, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Mixed Use -Neighborhood: The following standards will apply to this category: Up to 10 acres may be non-residential uses, Up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential building area, Sample uses include: grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional offices, medical/dental clinics, retail/gift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, public uses. • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner.- Sanitary anner.Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEITG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACFID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The applicant is proposing a child care center adjacent to existing residentially zoned properties. Staff finds that impacts to the existing residential properties to the west and north can be limited through design as to be compatible with the proposed development, if appropriate fencing, landscaping, and other conditions related to hours of operation and restrictions on the outdoor play area are imposed on this project. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2) The applicant is not proposing any new access to Locust Grove Road with the subject application. All vehicular access will be taken from the existing driveways to/from E. Summeridge Drive. • "Consider development applications that apply the neighborhood center concept." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B, Action 1) Staff finds that daycares are one of the sample uses called for within neighborhood centers. This project is part of a larger development that is applying the neighborhood center concept. • "Require neighborhood commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fences, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B, Action 6) Staff has included conditions within Exhibit B that should make this use compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff believes that the proposed day care center use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HUNG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 provided at the public hearing when detennining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the L -O zoning district. Day care centers are permitted in the L -O zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. General Standards: No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development. There are several day care standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.9. Analysis of these specific use standards are provided in Section 10 below. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation UDC 11-4-3.9 lists the following standards for all Day Care Facilities: 1. In determining the type of day care facility, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at one time, is the determining factor. The operator's children are excluded from the number. The applicant is proposing to have up to 58 children per day. Because more than 12 children will be at the facility, this is a day care center. 2. On-site vehicle pickup, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pickup of clients. The existing parking lot was designed in accordance with the City's current standards for parking lot dimensions. There is 25 feet between stalls; sufficient area to back-up. Day care parking is designated on the southwest side of the site. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to install signs on both sides of the entrance to the parking lot, within the landscape planters that state: "Vehicles must nark in designated stalls only". This should prevent cars from parking/waiting in the drive aisles, otherwise blocking parked cars from exiting the site efficiently. All parents/guardians should be required to park in a stall and go in to pick-up the children. Staff believes that this will alleviate the potential problem of children crossing the drive -aisle and getting run over. 3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. Staff recommends that the Commission allow up to 58 children to use the subject facility, as requested. Staff further recommends that the hours of operation for this business be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. NOTE: The applicant stated that the hours of operation are expected to be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff recommends that an additional %Z hour be allowed to account for any parents/guardians that may run a little late. 4. The applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Basic Day Care License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare — Family and Children's Services Division. Staff is including this condition within Exhibit B. Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H*G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. See Standard #3 above. Additional standards for day care facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot (6') non -scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the Building Code in accord with Title 10 of the Meridian City Municipal Code. There is an existing 6 -foot tall cedar fence on the south side of the 3,115 square foot outdoor play area. The applicant is also proposing a 400 square foot play area to the north of the building. The Police Department has concerns with installation of a solid fence along the west and east side of the south play area, as well as the north, west, and east sides of the north play area. The applicant is required to construct a 6 -foot tall fence, in accordance with the provision listed above. Staff recommends that along the north, west and east sides of the play areas the fence shall be 6 -feet tall, open -vision, non -climbable material. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. Although no play equipment over six feet in height are currently proposed staff is including this restriction within Exhibit B. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. Staff is including this condition within Exhibit B. Site Plan: The UDC does not establish minimum play area requirements for day care facilities. Staff feels there is ample outdoor play area provided for 58 children. The applicant is a perspective tenant within the existing Brockton Subdivision. The construction materials of stucco, cultured stone and architectural shingles shown in the elevation plan meet the Brockton Subdivision material list on file with the Planning and Zoning Department. However, Staff feels the elevation and design of the building should be articulated more to substantially comply with the Brockton Subdivision standards. The eight photos/ elevations from the Brockton Subdivision show enhanced architectural character. Staff recommends the applicant provide detailed variations in the roof planes and lines by: a. extending the overhang of the eaves ; b. having two or more roof planes; C. varying parapet heights; and/or d. adding cornices. The east side of the building, visible from N. Locust Grove Road, should incorporate more modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections as it is more visible on the public street. It should represent the intended character of the subdivision and surrounding area. Staff suggests the applicant clearly define the 2dMM public entrance on the west side of the building using an arcade similar to the ones demonstrated in the Brockton photos/elevations. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANADEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE�Vi G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC and occupancy from the Planning Department. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-016 for Bearly Grown Child Care Center as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. 11. EDITS A. Drawings 1. Date of CUP Site Plan (2 Pages): October 4, 2004, and April 14, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan: April 14, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations: April 6, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Services 6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Bearly Grown Child Care CUP -06-016 PAGE 8 Csy h-: "4 " V y r. { �y �y i 'MM"MI `i` T'i$.t v 51 ip� 7 1 � � 51 { �+� �'.J "§X�'e�� 'U.'�: #irAA"`i�z's''� ,t •, .;u 3 'Y iq1Y } r y r i r n k, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIM DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H&G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP (Brockton Subdivision) Site Plan C.10 (dated October 4, 2004) ed saffl- Connaa6m+. 2- MEQ MEQ 4VWd ma 4aA8aa ClyV 62 K 'ISI ` •-..I.. �' .P m6scuus . ,1g66 min I I P11 I V f I: IF 7-- t 4 aM 6ew_6latM }A' T w m Sura V macn.arTm.r Raw= � r � n I �>� I I S �—� I F i /I I ;� r IIS 56=Id+8646 S 2607 In w4 + + + I 1 LOT 2 1 a SSi. I I + 1 JE ?was HI K 2607 I I 4 I �. ��. I Lore sco1J+a �+ s .W.4 �3 mm m tnr a � I e — POLE u•1s+22 I I I I I SI f3 00 2607 I 1 2607 I II + 7 1 6L.12+76 .4 5LOT 4 g 145 n + S.L=78020 6.L.v V2 r , !2 I LOT 8 K 1 b0 IK SL.I8073 PoS m I + ,Q$l $ 1 260&9 - 82 I Ma% pA RCr1146736 S1=47 81.20.0 I LOT 7 I 1T Exhibit A Page 1 41'�m -TRASH CO/dT,4INEK wr a fieridlaw �iA'TI a til CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANA9 DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H&G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 2. CUP Landscape Plan (Dated April 14, 2006) Exhibit A Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEOG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 3. Building Elevations (dated: April 6, 2006) Exhibit A Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN*DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE JONG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Brockton Subdivision Final Plat (FP -04-068); Annexation and Zoning (AZ -04-006), Preliminary Plat (PP -04-007), and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -02-007) approval of Brockton Subdivision. In particular, the construction materials, elevation and design of the building shall meet the standards of the Brockton Subdivision. The applicant shall articulate the elevation and design of the building more to comply with the Brockton Subdivision standards. 1.2 The applicant shall be allowed to care for up to 58 children per day. 1.3 On-site vehicle pickup, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pickup of clients. 1.4 The existing parking lot was designed in accordance with the City's current standards for parking lot dimensions. There is 25 feet between stalls; sufficient area to back-up. The applicant shall install signs on both sides of the entrance to the north parking lot, within the landscape planters, that state: "Vehicles must park in designated stalls only". 1.5 The hours of operation for this business shall be limited from :P00 a.m. to 6.30 P.M. 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 1.6 Prior to operation of the day care facility, the applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Basic Day Care License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare — Family and Children's Services Division. Proof of said license shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to release of occupancy of this building for a day care use. 1.7 The applicant is required to construct a minimum six-foot (6') non -scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. Fencing on the north, west and east sides of the outdoor play areas should be six-foot tall (6'), open -vision, and a non - climbable material. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the Building Code in accord with Title 10 of the Meridian City Municipal Code. 1.8 Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 1.9 Outdoor play area(s) shall not be used after dusk. 1.10 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -06-016 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation of the day care facility. 1.11 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service will be from existing service stubs to this building pad. 2.2 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 2.3 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.4 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building Exhibit B Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANADEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HLWi iG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.2 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.3 The Brockton Subdivision officelcommercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 3.4 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.5 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.6 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.7 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.8 All Daycares with 7 or more children must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal. If the applicant has concerns about meeting the State Fire Marshal criteria an inspection will be completed at a cost of $20. 3.9 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.10 A fire sprinkler system will be required for this occupancy. Contact the Fire Marshall at 888-1234 for more details. Exhibit B Page 2 4" v> 8 iA 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN* s�,.rtf4zw DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HI�NG DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 qt 3.11 An alarm system and panic system will be required for this occupancy. Contact the Fire Marshall at 888-1234 for more details. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT %- 4.1 Fencin along the north west and east sides of the outdoor la areas are to be open -vision. g g play P ✓ 5. SANITARY SERVICES 5.1 Waste enclosure Pad: The applicant shall provide a concrete pad inside of all enclosures. 5.2 Waste enclosure aprons: The applicant shall provide an 8 ft. concrete apron in front of all waste enclosures greater than 6 and/or 8 cubic yards. 5.3 Waste enclosure gate locks: The applicant shall provide gate locks for both open and closed " positions. . 5.4 Waste enclosure dimensions: The applicant shall provide a minimum of 10 ft. clearance inside of the enclosure gates with the gates in the open position. 5.5 Waste enclosure bumpers or stops: The applicant shall provide bumpers or stops inside of the " enclosure to prevent the container from damaging enclosure walls and gates. 6. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 6.1 Applicant will submit plans for child care center to Central District Health Department for M: review. t 6.2 Contact Susan Simmons at CDHD for licensure requirements. a 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 On May 5 2004, the Ada County y ty Highway District Commission acted on MPP04-013/MAZ04- i 4 O 10/MCUP04-012 for Brockton Subdivision. The conditions and requirements also apply to MCUP-06-016. 7.2 Prior to fmal approval you will need to submit plans to the ACHD Development Review Department. Exhibit B Page 3 iA 1 ZC s�,.rtf4zw qt 3% iA 1 ZC s�,.rtf4zw CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNO DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HIWG DATE OF JUNE 1. 2006 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed use on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations regarding day care facilities. Staff is supportive of the layout for the proposed parking plan and traffic flow pattern for this use. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 6 stalls are required. There are 11 parking stalls provided on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff finds that the project should have ample parking. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. The architectural design is not of the same quality as the concept elevations presented with the Brockton Subdivision. Staff has noted the discrepancies between the proposed and concept elevations within the staff report analysis. The concept elevations could be considered development regulations pertaining to the site. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed Use - Neighborhood. The property is existing light office zoning (L -O) and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Section 10, Analysis above for more information regarding the requirements for day care facilities in City Code.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff is generally supportive of the site plan design; this design has been previously approved by the City. Within the text of the Comprehensive Plan, day cares are used as examples uses for mixed use — neighborhood areas. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a day care facility should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. Exhibit C Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANSDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H*, G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 As noted previously, the architectural design is not of the same quality as the concept elevations. Staff has noted the discrepancies between the proposed and concept elevations within the staff report analysis. If this structure is built as proposed, it could be incompatible with the other structures in the subdivision. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed day care use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 171 If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a day care facility in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C Page 2 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Video Presentation - Green Buildings and Bluer Skies AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: v'-d'o e), Fic- 1/0/ (�Y Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CUP 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT White -Leasure Development ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006 - 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Memo for Continuance OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ::yah JA `k y . T� CUP 06-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT White -Leasure Development ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2006 - 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Memo for Continuance OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • RZ 06-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT John Homan ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public hearing — Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O zones for Meridian Professional Office — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS 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: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. AZ 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING .lune 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Minutes from Kingsbridge Sub. Public Hearings See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Positng / See Attached Letters of Concerned Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. K� A5k �: i x, 5'•%€ RY"'2,}7, h'.R#+kq, °2'd .,� $�'nntg� 's^ s } � yr f. 3 A { S d�ii i�R'y5 , ` Y �r AZ 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING .lune 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Minutes from Kingsbridge Sub. Public Hearings See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Positng / See Attached Letters of Concerned Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. K� A5k �: i x, 5'•%€ RY"'2,}7, h'.R#+kq, °2'd .,� $�'nntg� 's^ s t f. 3 A { S d�ii i�R'y5 , ` ry�3` °a �f V-1 AZ 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING .lune 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Minutes from Kingsbridge Sub. Public Hearings See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Positng / See Attached Letters of Concerned Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. K� A5k �: i x, 5'•%€ RY"'2,}7, h'.R#+kq, °2'd .,� $�'nntg� 's^ s t f. 3 {3 �ia S d�ii i�R'y5 0 PP 06-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. % REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AZ Packed CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f x„64,- F; � x; d j t Z :MR 'kph` ar a 61S -§ �j3 � t., � .ya;. 'Kexx, •. �$.� % r � ;r k� y. t�"„' k 4a 3 ' „��.� rf f � Y t k �t ki >� a ri+e? e �F M�' xz r {; 4 p4� 0 PP 06-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. % REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AZ Packed CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f x„64,- F; � d j t Z :MR 'kph` ar a 61S -§ �j3 � t., � .ya;. 'Kexx, •. �$.� % � ;+*'4 ;t �'S4C hT: x«a,z � ;r k� y. t�"„' 6 4a 3 ' „��.� 0 PP 06-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT Briggs Engineering, Inc. ITEM NO. % REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AZ Packed CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f x„64,- k 3 1 x„64,- 3 � d j Z :MR 'kph` ar a 61S -§ �j3 � t., � .ya;. 'Kexx, •. �$.� % � ;+*'4 ;t �'S4C hT: x«a,z � 1 x„64,- � Z y. t�"„' 6 „��.� n U AZ 06-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision - SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PP 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other / common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L -O zones for Baraya Subdivision - SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet 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: F 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 15, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Develooment AZ 06-026 ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision - NEC of N. Linder Road and W. 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: COMMENTS See Letter for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. � � .,5' #4 ��. •.p �r� + }( Z . f" � � Pry 5 i �+a r} b!."+'h�A t''EYi -y `�'°`+ t 4 ��•`d�•�.d"}moi ��; � � �7��ti 7 �" i� i5�' 4` &,`t`g' t..�.s- � � .,5' #4 ��. •.p �r� + }( Z . f" � � Pry R i i i19 $l Y5 Y f w M gih^t C �N2�R i' PP 06-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 15, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Development ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivison - NEC of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Letter for Continuance In AZ Packet OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 2 1 31