The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 09-21 e~~• v` 11 rr Q ~ cn~~ n~ L~ v T ~~ ~,,,~ C~~'L'l ~~'l~/~l~"n ~ ~.., ,. , <, ,, , ~~t~,. I ~,, , , ~ ~~ ,",,. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ~ Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. ~: "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to besf of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Keith Borup(7:10) X David Moe X r:~~ ,:; ::; :~ t.. r ~.j :. E. Y;+ -~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Zaremba Michael Rohm -chairman A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application Forms: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~ ~ , k~ ~ ;~s.r~~ r rs ~, ~tl~:,a ,~ 4 ,~ .~ '°pZG:~ v ~t (~ ~ Y'r}N F'~ ~; ' ~~~ ~ rX',.,.4 ~~ ~ ` e` e:,-, ~~~ ~ ~ . , e F' ~~' ' t ~-i~s F :.-' ~ ~~ r ~ . ~ r? ~ }' ~x~+ ~ it t r_~ yy 1 y f ~`#~I w r - .. ~k.~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~2 - t~ $~~ ~` 5l4 ~ 1'^64' ~. VV } ~'. f F~iJ y~y~g~~gb ~ Y' t a F" ~~ -1~ ~ , 'k ~~CC V ,.~I l~ r4a ~ ?t Ik ~.v. ~ ~~ L a.i~S 2 ~~ 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 Yri acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Application Withdrawn '~°` 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone `~~'a for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Application Withdrawn '~ 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with aDrive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a ?'-~~ C-G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 . I.:. ~' E. Fairview Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to November 16, 2006 9. Public Hearing: CPA 06-003 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Meridian Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and { Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey Engineers - between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between Columbia Road to '/ mile north of Amity Road: Recommend Approval to City Council " 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 ` acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Recommend ~- ,~,- Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone _ for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Recommend Approval to City Council j ~ 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 ~`~ s - '" acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood ; :: ` - 2135 E. Amity Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ,, !' ': ~:..:~_ 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 ~' ~ ~;~- residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: ~x Recommend Approval to City Council 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request fora Comprehensive Plan ;~ Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. .. ~ .,i,~4d''~.`I'~nak'4"`~y •,h~, ~ ~r, i %K'ra?-~ s~. _ ~ ~~,~'~~i*1~~a~~~`~s~:_'.:,.`~~;~r ~'i,i~,;'. - Sa• 'eTrr` ;~~:~sjq, ~ •` a„ •,a; z ..~ ~. M. r ~ Y C; #- ~~ ° dSr-~}"".+}8~ ~. rc :Y,+^f'4,~'~ aR~..:. ,,'ti '.!7reh7`~ i~[.su--~.fi~ aa~ _ +±..:~~..~~E3fw"!4~~``C?i4a Y¢9. 'i < L. ~ .P, ,.a .., 'd-` . .zP ~~g. 'Yzre.. .:~=17A.,. .,r4^~ F.,:,tx'~'i: R1~'xv~~. i~ ~~.~'~rjia-, ~.- ~ `t~~ r \ "~' ,~ _~ ~~ ~' ~~ l~ K ~~, r~ rr, ... M; .s ~~ ,. P~- ~:~< ~':r, F .',~ i ~'. <. SJd C*' r, .S s~ ~~ ,y , }' 2 ~.Pl ' ~C +: s. Oliver Keller - 1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. jvA-tai dj x F ..~. S~'T '~~~ t,.~-~~. ~., _ i ~t~(Y'~rcf Nfi ~tr~i 7g;.k ~~-~ G M 4 kw' ~,- ;~; ~` _~a~ _ 0 0 . . ;' _~~r ~~~, ~~~ µ ~N !~) ~ i - - CITY OF ,~~ ~~ ~ ~~ '~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ ~ ~~~ REGULAR MEETING ~ j j~Jj ~, ~. , - ~~ ~ ionyo v' AGENDA r ~ ~.. ~, . •; r " ~~~ TCFM1 ,. ~R ° Los rREASURt. ~.~V 61/BC/E~ ,903 City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ..-:J.~ ~~ -`~~~- Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. r ~~ "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected t to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: ..w; Keith Borup C~• ~~) ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ;~~ ~ David Moe David Zaremba `i `L "~ ~ Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ,; `~, 3. Consent Agenda: ~~: ~~~ _ A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning 5'~° Commission Meeting: q~, ~ `I"~~b~ _' B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application Forms: ~/ ~~ ~~ U~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request ;~r for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of ~, ~~ ~~ - Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a ,q~ residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek l 'r' Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: ,a 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request ,:~. ~~"' ` " for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot ~,4 : on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by ~- ~ ;a ~ Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: ~~~ ° ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 1 of t - ~ ~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A nyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, u ~,~ ~ > - please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. =n ~: 4v ~~.W -__... '{"~" ;~,~.,.. lye.,; . a ::$ y ,~^. .. - r _~ . ~:: ;: ~, y2 i ?a ~, ' ~~. -'2' gig.-, ,;3 ~~ ~'. 4 .~ .~. t ,~;~,~ ;: P'., ..^ }i :. ~: ~:.k i jF~ k dry. Y< ; spa ;, ~~: r5 <~ ,. ,1. :~~ Y 6. Public Hearin• AZ 06-039 Request for AnnexatioTi and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park -1780 E. McMillan Road: ~~'~ ~i`c~.,1~ Z~'`-~c,~rc~ ~ 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 residential lots. and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park -1780 E. McMillan Road: 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with aDrive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C-G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: ~,~~ ~ n P~ ~ ~.. ,~' ~~~ ~ vii' n ~.e. / v 9. Public Hearing: CPA 06-003 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Mel idian Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey Engineers - between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between Columbia Road to'/ mile north of Amity Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: ~ ~ C a ~-e~ ~e n d t~ p ro v ca~P -~o C6'~{~ Cozc.~c~ ..e 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E.t,/~mlty Road: 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton Oliver Keller -1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road: l~e~'~v»~ ~~~~ ~ Cam` ~~~~ CJ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r M j4 T~"'e}{ A ~.tr ~~.~ ~, c s~ tr , ~LLr F~ r r .4 .: ~Q i; ~~~~~~ ~~~~+~ ':,, R k ~.. M, f~ ~ ~ ,~ t~ ^ pt b h ~ :~ ~~ ~ c{ ,t k .~ ~.,'~P Kx ~+ i }k-~' H'.~'f i g "r ~ %~ o ri '.i ~.1 ~ -~?37'kr~y~~ dki ~7[ I i ,.~ t k"4...-7Er~k .~..".~.l~. c,~^+ 3 { r~ r "s ~' ' i ,€ c.~ "~ ¢ ~~. 1'v N' dR~-IC it ~ ~ ~` " `~~i! ~~~ _~ _ r .'1~.? ~ '; h, f~~ t t 1-~ ~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ L ~~ CITY OF ~~~~' ~ ~` ~t~t~ - ~Tb1c~~,n,K s a ~~ ;; - ~ ~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ ~ ~~ .+ ~ r a~. , C~~ ~' REGULAR MEETING ~Ll'1~IG1 1 `~ G~-1? ~, ' ~;, ~ ~~nHO `~ AGENDA & E "~R ~'rR~,,,~v.~'' ~ ~ ' 9~3 City Council Chambers ~~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ` ~~,,. ~ ` Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. ':. Y "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony ~ ' , all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected ' to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." S; f", 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~~; ~.~ F. `" Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm -chairman r 2. Adoption of the Agenda: `~e ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: , i ' A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning ~~ "' d 1 ' ~~ Commission Meeting: ; =' B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application '~~ r Forms: } - 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request , 1s: _$~; ~~ for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of ~~ ~ ~~ ~ =' Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a ,; '~ `~ ~ " residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek ` ~~° Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's ti ~ Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request ~ t for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot ~ `' Y..~ ~" on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by ~ T~' Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 3 i A 2475 S. Meridian Road: f . a Meridian Plannin and g Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 1 of 2 ~ x, ~~ F ` ~' ~; All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian ~ '. . Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearin ~> ~~ ~~~ g, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. * " r ~ k 3 ': ;,: , 5- k ~w d z7 t ~ ~ C+4 . , "~ {. '~ wk ~ ~ . k" L i x ;y E~I~1N n It U f ~5" ~ FF Y~ ~ ~ 1 J~ S~ ~"~ 1 Sx~y ~~ ~ - _. ~ ~ ah ~x kY ~~ ~ ,: t ~ S~ w ~ . ~ f U ~ r t ~54 3~:~~ s ._ i f ~ , iS r i - t~~~rr"+r a a -"Yt~ ~.~~ .z . :.tiw,p ~ .;y~ y" ~ ~ ~~~~~ y7 ~F~g ~~= ,~ ~ , . ~„ _ F•:: I ; .N~ +•h~C ~ ~j. ' y}+r} Y fit - s {..•~ y ~ Y~ Y ~ ~ . ~~~ S} Y 34 ' ~ ~'~ ~. ~lL ~. e ~~. ~. y f~~~ - ~k~ ~ ~ i . y ~ a~: ~ p5~ y ~ ix "'p. ~, '~yl a ~ $'F~ ~ _ ' I ~_. ~ F~. i ,^ 6. Public Hearin AZ 06-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom ' `~ Park -1780 E. McMillan Road: 7. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 '' residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park -1780 E. McMillan Road: 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Dlve-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C-G zones for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: F. ~~' ~~ 9. Public Hearing: CPA 06-003 Request fora Comprehensive Plan ° Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land '~ ` uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Meridian '; Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use ~~'; ?,, designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and ;~ Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey `~ ' ' `• Engineers - between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between ~`' ` Columbia Road to'/ mile north of Amity Road: r . = 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20 18 ~~ ~• . acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by - Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: c, ~'~ ~ 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Prelimina Plat a r l f 62 ~ 'i ~,~~ ~ ry pp ova o residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a ro p posed R-8 zone ,<; ~'+ Y for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - ~~ ~~ ~ 2180 E. Amity Road: 5 ~k 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 ~ acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood ~'", - 2135 E. Amity Road: ` e 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 ~ ~` residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for . .; f~ ~; , Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: ~~ •r~ 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request fora Comprehensive Plan _ `< Amendment to chan a the Future Land Use 9 Map designation for ~~ ".~ approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use ~, Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton ~~ ~~°-~~ P3 Oliver Keller -1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road: yer: c ~, . :~ ~~~ ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 21, 2006 Page 2 of 2 ' All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. F Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ~~~ - please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~'; >.'~ ~~ , ,etu ' ~ Y ,~ e. %"' _.;' ~ ' ' ~~~1 aiES .P+1fi`s t'l ..w'.e. i,. ~ .. '1. ~ 4er . ~",~• 4 '-~'Y. F.',1 T i~ ~, f. r r. a S,. 'Yi bt, ~.u. ' r p,~ ~ y( ~ ~ k^'1• :~l° .C• ~r'LF .•~,~ ; .>Y` ~.icn ,. .~ 'tar ,s °^i , rd j . l K.. F d~:+. . . ~t. ~ I y„v..i.' ,.w~...• i~ ,rc.~ s ['„6. %t'~,: r;;~~ yy f . . ~ i . _ . ~i ,' ,~j v'.. ~'. ...z. ,4;i ~ f Y ~4t .t „`. ~ , s .~ . 2. I~, M d ~ s~ ;i. i•^° ' ~ 9 ~ 1•~ ., iI'.i e ~ ~ Y ~ k3 vF C :q ' x. ~"5~` } ~ • r;, "~' I t'~ fir. ~µµ 1 r ,.a:~~ 1' ,~{ }y' a Y .in'F ~'yfyr`~t J e: Y," , ~_~c.',~'rxrA~+'~ ,.~`:3j, ;{.'; 1.*r:' ',~:. ~ ; ~ v.~(d 1 rA ;..~ 4 1 ~ ~~~ :F: ~' ~G.. i,. P::.~. y.E~ ~~, .. J fYx' ,,ee~~,,~~// '~ .1' .P, V ~1ff~ i ~ ~.~r -_ .. 1' .. .... ~.. ,.. .. .. ~'. a ~. ~.~, ,_._ . -. '•i` ,.._ r . < t ,_., _aL~•.•.e... ;... °baialda~4_.~3a,e4°`~. ti'rg, Ef. ~~ ~,, ... .-il,. ':tea ~`y. ? .+, i. ~ s ~~ f ~a „~- i:. ~~ .s ..:• '~' z:y4,~„?~:,e; :?fi`.i% y3'':ii°' V~;..r :~.: •. :{fir: a:~:'r'.s4~,1~;uri' : ~-~" .:"t:~%{:. ~ {. ~:~. ,~ n. ,i ~ti . ~ ..~*'.•nx , i`:~ ~ ;•:~c'~Y I ' h. e 'Y~ Y'l.~: 'Sf 'Er :•A~) .1 V t[," .n :4`'r:~y,. Y~' r; gyp `Y' ~~F'.~.f~i~.tc"+nu..'~.'e''h >11 "t ' :t.,S {~ R <fi ~'~. F M~, +I. Y~;S•.. ~... .l~:S~..aF :k:zeY~ ..7~5~~1;.I.f^".'<°Y~<.s . ~, ,,. ., 1dv3. _ _' _ , •, ~ ** TX T I ON REPORT ~xMc AS OF 5EP 18 ' 06 ~ _ PRGE. 01 I^~ T Y' CITY OF MERIDIAN i~~ K '` t ~ DATE TIME TO/FRO(q MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS 08 09/18 1529 3810160 EC--S 01' 17" 002 017 QK 09 09/18 1530 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 00'47" 002 017 OK ?' 10 09/18 1532 WRTER DEPT EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK 11 09/18 15 33 20840744 EC--S 00'48" 002 017 OK 12 09/18 1536 8985501 EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK 13 09/18 1537 2083776449 EC-S 00'46" 002 017 OK 14 09/16 15 38 3886924 EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK •:i~?: ' 15 09/18 15 39 P-AND-Z EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK =''"~ ? 16 09/18 15:41 FIRE DEPT EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK ~~~ 17 09/18 15 42 208 868 2682 EC--S 00'47" 002 017 OK 18 09/18 1544 208 38'7 6393 EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK '~~ " '`~' 19 09/18 15 45 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK 20 09/18 15.46 208E~5052 EC--S 00' 47" 002 017 OK 21 09/18 15 47 LRKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 01'23" 002 017 OK 22 09/18 15 50 I DPJ-IO RTHLET I C C EC--S 00' 46" 002 017 OK 'S 23 09/18 15 51 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'47" 002 017 OK 24 09/18 1552 2088886701 EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK 25 09/18 15 56 POLICE DEPT EC--S 00'46" 002 017 OK '_ } I 1 r ~ ~ °'~~` ~~ rrrr or• j _ • ~ a . ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ iYl ~~ ~' / V L f lJ~I~JZ ' tN REGULAR MEETING °''~HO '~ AGENDA ~` /f < / - vim. . ~ City Council chambers -:k 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ~'~ `• Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.rn, =` Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony ll ~ ~ , a presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. " _: 1. Roll-call Attendance: .~;~ Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba ~~ ~ ~ti Michael Rohm -chairman . ._ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~ ~~~~ .. ~ ~ `1 ~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~,F~ A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application F ~' orms: ~t;~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: M) 06-004 Request f or Modification of the Development A reement b t w ~ g e ween the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Ch h f ' ~ urc o the Nazarene b allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32 45 . acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Ch h f urc o the Nazarene 8~ Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request f or Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential 7 ~- , common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision b ~,,~;~ ~''4 , . y Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene 8 Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S Meridian R d y . oa : .?~€~; f, Meridian Planning and 2onmg Commission Meeting Agentla - September 21, 2(706 Pa e 1 of 2 AU materials Preserved at public meetin s h ll b n C T g s a ecome property of the City of Meridia Myone desiring accommodation for disabTities relatetl to documents arM1ar hearing please contad the Cit Cl ' , , y erk s Office at 888.A433 at least 48 hours prior to fhe public meeting. r~ 'z ..~„ ., ;ice, ;:. ~ Qr.`r :. . ;;. -, Y+ ~ ,~ ~~~. - ~~ ... ~;~,. .. `>r';; ~,c' ~'f .. ,~~-~~ > >w>, r"" ~~~ _, >~~} k; :~ ~ ~~ '~ ~' s:: ...~; ~~ :~, ~-'~ ~` ~- ~~;, ~i'y -, Meridian Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting September 21, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 21, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, David Zaremba, Keith Borup and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess, Sonya Wafters and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: And the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are a couple of changes to the agenda and they are Items No. 6 and 7. Both of these items are related to the Portico Place Subdivision. The applicant has asked that this application be withdrawn and I think there were some concerns from the applicant -- are you not hearing me? Is the applicant for Portico Place Subdivision here? In any case, they have asked that the application be withdrawn at this time and Item No. 8, CUP 06- 028 for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru has asked to have their item continued and they will more than likely be continued to the November 16th regularly scheduled meeting. So, if there is anybody here for either of those items, they will not be heard tonight. So, with those changes I'd entertain a -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, it appears your mike is still not working, just so you're aware. I don't know if it needs to be pulled out and replaced. Rohm: Just a second and I will pull it out. Okay. All right. With that being said, could we get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. _~ ~44F e~,-° } ^; ~~~. ' s ~ ?`, -t _. '. :;;. <et? ,~~. ~. ~s:~. ''; y;'.. ~;~;. 'ti{.Y3 :ti. y,~.~ ~ •~_i ., s ~:, ;;-, ,,, V~ ~KF 'rT l ~' ~i =r -. ~, ~,.. ~,;; :.>.~ . ~~`~. _~ ~. ,~~F _., ..~-; 1~ ~i ; :a~X ~~ ': ~~>= . ~~:; t 't'"r: , I~VI:;I .:.: j"~4.. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 2 of 86 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application Forms: Rohm: Okay. The first item is the Consent Agenda and there are two items on this and it's the approval of the August 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Approval of Modification to Planning Department Application Forms. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Seeing none, could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Boy, things are moving pretty smoothly now. Okay. Before we start any of the public hearings, for those of you that do not attend these on a regular basis, there is a protocol that we try to fix and, basically, what we do is we open the Public Hearing on a particular project and we ask the staff to make their presentation. The staffs presentation is, basically, a neutral presentation. They take a look at it -- at the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. They make their presentation with recommendation based upon how it applies to those -- those two documents. Once they have made their presentation, then, we ask the applicant to come forward and make their presentation. That's their opportunity to sell their project to the Commission, but I believe they have 15 minutes, including all supportive testimony to make their presentation. Once they make that presentation, then, it's opened to the public to make their presentation. If there is a spokesman for a homeowners association or something like that, they will be given additional time, but only -- if you're speaking as an individual you will get three minutes each and if somebody that has spoke before you has brought up every point that you have intended, it doesn't bring ~s~ ~'~?€ `~ „,, ~~ , ~~, ~~~. °n= ~_~ y~h y'4" ~¢~. y }~ ~~N ~ i ,:... '~ 4" ~,:~ ..~, ~~~ ,._ ;; °_ ~,~ ~:: t=r.~ ~}Y t3~y ;'~- ,, , ,: ,.~ .~a -fix; ;~`~~; ` F' ''. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 3 of 86 any additional weight to bring the same information before the Commission. So, with those things being said -- oh. And, then, once all testimony, the applicant has the opportunity to make final testimony. And that's the process and, then, we will close the hearing and render a decision. Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you begin the Public Hearing, it appears your mike is still not working properly and getting you on the record. We may need to use this mike instead, because we don't seem to be getting it through the system. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC - 2475 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP 06-040. Both of these items related to Shepherd Creek Subdivision and begin with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was actually on your agenda on August 17th and it was opened for the purpose of continuing it, so we could get ACHD's comments and their commission action on this project. That, in fact, happened yesterday afternoon and I will give you an update on that shortly. So, the two applications in front of you tonight -- the first one is a miscellaneous application to amend the existing development agreement on the 32 acres highlighted here in the display. There are 55 single family buildable lots and one church lot proposed and seven common lots. The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road about a half mile south of Overland. The current development agreement in effect for this site does restrict the uses to being the church as that was envisioned in 2001 when this property was annexed into the city. There is a development agreement provision restricting church and associated uses to the site. Therefore, they need that miscellaneous now. Normally, a miscellaneous application would only go to the City Council, but because they need to amend the DA to get the residential portion of this subdivision approved, that is also on your agenda this evening, so I just wanted to point that out to you that in most instances you wouldn't make a formal recommendation on a miscellaneous application. I'm going to go to the aerial real quick. This is a slide I think we will probably use a little bit this evening. It kind of helps put the neighborhood in perspective and shows you kind of what's going on in the area. The 2005 aerial was with the preliminary plats that have been approved to date by the city, also with a lighter Y .. .. r ;~3 µ:+%,, F:_~c - e ~~ .. - ~.:ti~ .. ~N.~ i.. ~'- ~ {t ~F ~} • _ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning + >~,, ` September 21, 2006 ~' -~ Page 4 of 86 overlay on this same site. So, to the north and to the west are Bear Creek Subdivision ~::~ . To the south is Strada Bellissima. There are homes in Bear Creek Subdivision. The ~F ~~ ~~ city park. Strada Bellissima is single family homes and, then, there is some offices f ti M ~~ ron ng on eridian Road there. There are a couple of accesses to State Highway 69 ~ north of the subject site, one at the southern boundary at the church property, Miestra -- ~-::.; I believe is how it's pronouced -- Street there and, then, Victory would just be out of the picture here. So, that's kind of what's happening in the vicinity. If you look further to the west, Stoddard is at the half mile and, then, you have got Bear Creek West, also a ~- `= recently approved city subdivision, and some other projects on the east side of Meridian ~~~ °~ ~ Road and I don't know that we need to jump into that, but I just wanted to acquaint you ~ ~' b a little bit there. So, the major structure on this site is going to be the church, obviously ` `~ I , for the Nazarene church there on Meridian Road and that's under construction. If you ~° have driven out there in the past couple few months you have seen them under ' construction there. They are included with the subdivision. That was a requirement of ` their Conditional Use Permit that all 32 acres be subdivided and so the have submitted r, .~ y the application for all of -- all of the property that the church owned as of last year. .~ Twelve acres, as I understand, has been sold off and that's the residential portion of the ~~ ~s subdivision. As far as the subdivision itself goes for the existing R-8 zoning, it's pretty ~' c clean. All of the lots conform to the minimum lot size, minimum frontage requirements of R-8 zone. That being said it's my belief -- and Idon't -- I did o throu h the min te ~~ ~. . ` , g g u s back in late 2000, early 2001, that this site obtained R-8 zoning not for medium density ~~ - ~} . residential, because with the old code a church was allowed with the Conditional Use ~: Permit with the R-8 zoning. R-4 zoning, which is more consistent with kind of this ~~ ~ general area, churches are prohibited. So, if they would have gotten an R-4 zone, they ~~ ~ wouldn't have even been able to build what was envisioned at the time and is under { , y construction today. So, the staff report recommends that to fit in with the area and i E~ ~ ~: l what's already been constructed in this section, at least half of this section, that the d i i s ~` " ens t es be consistent with the R-4, not the R-8 zoning. I did not recommend that they K ;~ actuall file a rezone and rezone it to R-4, just strictly that the lots conform to the R-4 y 3 standards. So, I did want to point that out as one of the major changes that staff is ~~- ;~ recommending. The other one would be the disputed collector roadway. I'm going to •:' grab a pointer here real quick. Just a second. So, Kodiak Drive actually exists today. I • Let me go back to the -- I'm not sure I can point it out exactly. I think it's right here -- is *'.~ the Kodiak Drive today. Kodiak within this project is right here. There is on the plan a }~ ~'~ cross-hatched or lightly shown disputed collector roadway out to Meridian Road. I'll kind ~" :~~ of explain a little bit of how that at least got shown as being a disputed collector y~,„~ =° roadway. It's something that has been discussed, even when the church was being ~`' annexed into the site was the potential need for a roadway out to Meridian Road at the .} :: half mile. The applicant did show that on -- at our request did put that collector roadway 1 ~_ on, so we could have this discussion tonight and in front of the City Council of whether a ~,, collector roadway is needed in this section or not. So, we did get -- at least get them to reluctantly put it on, but make no mistake, they are not proposing that roadway and now ~t think I'll robabl um y p y j pin and let ou know that ACHD, in fact, is not supporting that ~' ~ roadway and they had an opportunity twice, actually, to -- and they came to the same "~ conclusion both times that they are not supportive of that connection to Meridian Road ` , . That being said, it is a state highway and under the jurisdiction of the Idaho °.. ~: E- I. ~ d: _:i .k .t}.a'b l,~,r, ~fM: .:..rind.. z:.s%q'+:'- n3 { ff ~~ " ~' . ; .• ~ `q~ i ' I c'•, , 'i ~ ; n. _ ' -~ A, .4, i -.i~i 'ft. ' ^ .. ~, 1 2 ,` t , ~ ,^ 1, f+F , -, .y ~ ~ .s t5S ; ~ ~ P. _ ~ p •'~5 -p~ . a , -r' y - , :... .~ e . f 7 r' w•• . `! u.. t,,.~;, 3 '' a• I { :. .:, ... I .., :~ . .• .• . •....- w` 3 , ::, 3 ~... .. r•' 1 ~ ~ .. , " '',~ ::' ; ': ~' r i'r i ;~~~: xi ~ , k 1 ~• ~. I :4 .*~ t t < ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ ~ t a ~ •' : ` ~ ; 9+3s ? 'Cf;s<-C e ~' : . .\ ' , n~ ' ' ~ i " 4 i _ . r .t • ~ '' : a .. .. ~y~. ~ ~ Y; M' ..."y:4~pyy.4&~.'`A~ St i.Cxe,: ,.I r~~ , a '' a . I ~w. a "F (;q ?'~Y'r L;~-YSt.~x ~. ., ., ,~ • ~. ~ ~ ~ `+ ~ ' y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a,a,. '1 A y '1.,, n Y.. ~ 51:`x 4 Y ~`. ±~ T .~~ . ... ~ ~ ' 1 ,i:.... d 3 ~!s ; ~ f{ - •• . ~ . z~ xM, ~ •~. ,. A f . µ ~ 1 ~~. ,. .i ; .,rrn;v ~~~~;~ ` .F~Y, ~h . °h." :~.~ t, 1 4 4 ~ ' ' S~ ' ' • ~.i• f,`F.' -~f 'T"ia'kf -rY . f ' - I . qq ~~h'~. 5`.s ~.' - }3 yy t ..); ~ . `~.. ~~2v y I E ` ~ ~ ~ I ` ~ ~~ Fl.y~~Jws .gv " ~iF' Y' ~ ` y < f ti ~ ~ I ' ' '~, ffy" ... ~ ~ .,~ f ~.. . . . . .~ n xC "y .i;' i ~ ~ .Sr1, .~'r~ R Y I 1 .~ ', ~. •'r• 1.... • ': ~~ •t;.,:.~. ;`FA'R ~~ ~~ ~hc~ w . ELF- ~.- ~. ~~~ `, ~- :; <. ~= ~, ; ~_ ~, , :~ : ,_ f..: ,:+,- r ~~ + ,. ~: ~4 ~~ t . r. ~_' ' M ~ ~ r ' ~~ ~, ,, fi, F`Y ~/~. =f =. ~ ,~ _ r ~ >_ t~ ~ z4 ~~~ ~'. •4~ ~ ~ ~SY +"~`~' a ~ ~?~.~, ~` . `r,+ * ] +'`C, tii~` lJ, ~~ t" ~+ r ~ h ` 7. - P '~` . '~ - t~~~ _ ~ ~ . t ~. r ~~ r, '~~ ~+ Meridian Planning & Zoning ' September 21, 2006 Page 5 of 86 Transportation Department. They have approved an access point in theory. There is no permit that's been granted, but I do have a letter from Sue at ITD saying that they are supportive of an access point at the mid mile for this project. It does get a little sticky " - with ACHD saying we are not supportive of the roadway. The city does have policies as well about access to type four roadways, all state highways that are on the boundaries or bisect the city. We do have policies about them being at the mid mile and the mid mile only, as well as collector policies within the Comprehensive Plan and trying to get that, you know, to collect and distribute traffic, essentially, is the idea behind the collector roadways. The longer term goal I think is why staff is making this so hard on the applicant, is there is a vision here. It's not -- it's not just something that we'd like to put Matt through the wringer, I don't think, but there is an overall vision for this area and to make it work we are looking to have that collector at the mid mile or some public street at the mid mile, because the problem there is that Miestra Street, Calderwood, and, then, there is another access I cannot remember the name of it, but I'm sure there is a neighbor -- thank you. Davenport. That's in the -- on the west side of State Highway 69 today. None of those access points meet ITD's policy for access, location, on type for a roadway. They also would not conform to our UDC requirements today and the idea, especially with Miestra and all of them eventually -- I envision something similar to an Eagle Road where they could be restricted to right-in, right-out, in the future by ITD and if, in fact, this signal occurs, there is -- by the way, there is a signal that will be constructed here this year at Victory and Meridian Road. Of course, it's already signalized at Overland. But if there is going to be a signal in that mile section, it's going to have to occur somewhere at or near the mid mile point. So, that's why staff is pushing for that so hard. I know a lot of people -- I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't know the numbers. I know there was a traffic study done for only 55 lots and they have spent a lot of time -- they being the applicant has spent a lot of time showing how traffic will be distributed out of this project and through this project. But, you know, my guess would be 85 to 90 percent of the traffic wants to go north. They are either going, you know, to the interstate or going downtown, you aren't -- you just aren't. The dominant direction of travel is not going to be south. That being said, if you restrict the access points here in the future to right-in, right-out, people have to backtrack. They either have to go back out to Stoddard, up to Overland, and back out or down to Victory to hit this light and, then, back up. So, that's it in a nutshell. I think, hopefully, the staff report made some sense, too, and further explained again why city staff thought this was an important discussion to have, because I think it really hinders the future of this area. And I should make it clear, Idon't -- it's not warranted I don't think today to have this a three-legged intersection at this point that -- without a signal. Without a signal it doesn't function any better than the current quarter mile access points. Thinking long term, though, and having that be a signalized access in the future to me makes some sense. Again, a traffic engineer would probably say it's not warranted, it's not warranted, it's not warranted. That may be the case if you just look at sheer numbers, but I think if you look at the overall area and, again, with the city park being here, a school slated for here, you're going to get folks that want to use this. Now, I don't think -- you will probably hear from some neighbors tonight, because I have talked to a couple of them anyways that are concerned about the existing streets and having people cut through, basically, on some of these other streets, Kodiak and some of the other ones internally, -`~tF$~a~; ~. ,;.5 l :~~~3tty~~>.'L+~4~ ...~Y' -~ik~k~(~ ~ ~i° L ,~4f:cFF x ~.. 3,k -;}{'r .3 `";isn ~ ~ ~ .. d}7t ` ^` ~."''! ~k~rki.. s~°y .~ ~ z r ~7 ~ ~ _~ J ~ c a 7 } , r~ x r'~ ~c~y ,r :4 7 } +r ~, i~3t ~t: {~i `,f.'. 4:~'~' + :f .~ ~• ~ti ~ ~ sf'„Xs ~' 2lti k~~m 4;.rr ,,r v ra ~.1"Cj~' ~~ y., S _~ 1 .r ~~ .mot] 7 `'fie} a ;r t' . ... - ~ 3 th N ti ~ S .r,'Ik:.+ '~ t -:i5"~i '~ 5 i .,.y '~ + ;c ~ '. ri ;tea ~, t ~ :fir `~ 't: ~a bey 3,Yr ' r!a r + .. '_ ~ F - v?'bS r ;' gve'a` c k c- i<x ~.~!~t}e1 3;r f i~J ~ ,rya =~ a .thrr aF ~,F.9-'Sid _~ ,, k, t'C~- ri r ~'r~ r 7tf fi { . ~ I~ ' ~r r KFy 8 r .{ ~ ~ ~C ,[ ~ % YS ~l ..yy~~~~' -~ 3 r'",~r~ bF~ r•Fl '~4 ~N. ~* mil' =r- ~3~5 . . i~ ~ v t. ~' '~ ~ 9 Vj 3t y ~7.r °;?. ~ ,r ~-ldh~` 'q' F ~ y a, ~ ~, t A. r r~ ~.~,, r c _ f ,.+,, ~ ~ i ,, ~,,,~ .r, ~ ti;,.. _ " r_+ y l; _r . . c a i ;~ ':a. $i7lrfk~W ~' ~ ~~iyy'; .{ ~`n';~pp~~yp ~3~~f4,t~j„~e d .~ g~ '.. ~ rf~ ~+ T '' YY '~,1~ ~ ~ =. _~~' ~ 1 `lam f ! "~" q'~ ~~~~4i~ ~~~.~~~~ ~ - T+~ ~ h ~ ~5'b+. N ~a~' , .3; € ~ f e F i I ~"^Y' v f 1 '6~'F~,'c .~%; ' z {t``+~lC~_.;ra~t'1Y-?~'*~:'+;' j3 r}.'Y'~A "~'i*~.M~ `t~,~#~YL ;~^A 'Ar-i~.~'.'¢~ .7--#k 4_ 'it i'`-rs.t n, . iF , ` ' .rt .~ 3 x -.: J ",3l^ -. T4 7 ' - .Y' ~.~ ~ ita Y' J~ ~J. _ } . ~ i it.. ih'~ ,4. ,/7 `Vi'i. ~s 1 'S >>. 4~. ,t i. vN~a~'-t4-~~'tiF ~~~k$'"J~,~14L'rb~'~~hf'tj(i~4 ~7.c-~. ; ~,~. '~ ~,~ €`''~' • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 ,j '~ ;: ; , Page 6 of 86 "_ to get to some of these things. Those are legitimate concerns to a certain extent. I ' don't think that the traffic volumes on any of those local roads will exceed the 2,000 `-~ r.: vehicle trips a day that ACRD allows for a local street, even if there were this collector _ roadway put in with Shepherd Creek. But let me finish out the rest of the story, I guess. So, that would get us athree-legged intersection if we got a collector at the northern part. There is a terrible offset with Roslyn Court on the other side -- on the east side of :> Meridian Road. These two parcels have yet to be annexed into the city. I imagine it °:~=` won't be too terribly long before they are wanting to develop them. They are highly visible parcels, underutilized at this point. When they come in, either together or `_ independently, staff will look for the requirement that they either exchange or vacate the right of way that is now Roslyn Court and shift that down to align where ever this, ~; hopefully, potential collector roadway lines up with that property. So, that finishes off, s ;~ so you have afour-legged intersection. That also allows -- there is very limited access. Mussell Corner Subdivision, which is currently the landscape nursery, has a couple of :;' a accesses today. The northern access will go away with the redevelopment of their rock area back here. So, that access is slated to go away. There is interconnectivity on this backside. Bitterbrush Subdivision, I believe was the name of this project, there is a stub -- we are currently working with some folks on developing this parcel. You have, essentially, a backage road or a frontage road that could tie in and, again, help the four legs of that intersection function efficiently and folks in Meridian Greens or in this general vicinity could also access this light. For them it would be a little -- it would be easier, they could make the free right in, but it allows them to get back home a little easier if they could use that light. But I think I'll stop talking about that. That's a huge issue for staff. I mean we have struggled with it. It wasn't an easy thing when you look at the policies, what is going on out there today, our Comprehensive Plan, it's just T ~~ something that we thought made sense for this area and we are recommending `-~I approval of the project with -- again, the density being changed to R-4 type and the ` '' collector roadway actually being constructed into the site. With that I think I will stand ~ ` for any questions you may have. '- ~ Rohm: Any questions of staff? ! Moe: Mr. Chairman? ; ;;,~¢,~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Caleb, I'm just a little interested as far as ACHD -- what was their main reason? Hood: Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, I was not at that hearing yesterday. Some other folks in the audience may have some further input. When I was there two weeks prior, the consensus among their board was that they did not want to see another access to the state highway. That was what I came away with. They, to me, weren't sold on the vision that we have, that we see for this area, and having them take some of these access points and combining them into one signalized access in the future. They were just, basically, to put it in a nutshell, were against having another t ;` ~ rs'~ u ~~.,~.' ~~~~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~~ r-~ Y .v,a,i .~ C~~..-..'t ~ 7ei~~+ ~-rtit._ ~:~E;~ r- .f.,. ~~ J ~ I ,;~ ~: w I ,., ysrt.,..; ,'. .. ~... ,'`~a~ir: r...... _.._ ,:~ ~... ~~:<, .s i ..,... ,..~•~ .~~ .~i~ ~ '.i.trc. .".s .. ,x.~,.° ~ ~~~".`•~z~3~~~;:~R' F~43~H~~:x:r: ~'R •+ Y'i ,, X25 R ~~r ;?7~iSr~. ~~ F~};7 ~ 1' `. f . ~r ~.~I ~~ 1 -V ~' ,{ ~1 Y~ ~.V ~.A c k~ ~1 z ~rti, ~ i h/~ + < -i~ r R :~:.~ k~hu r:..#~~ ».LI ,., _...~t4~i .:r; + '+ c ;°„~' "` Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 r~r .r.: Page 7 of 86 ~~~ ~ ~~~ access to the state highway. And the offset. I mean that is something that we can't fix today and if, in fact, you open that up there would be that offset problem, so -- ~~.' Moe: Thank you. ~~-~} Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. ~~ Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, at RMR Consulting, _ at 2127 South Alaska Way in the Bear Creek Subdivision, just coincidentally, representing this application, which is the Shepherd Creek Subdivision on 32 acres, . ~.~~ located on Meridian -- South Meridian Road. I'm going to have to speak fast to get all .;,n this in in 15 minutes, because there is a lot to cover with the transportation issues and .~ ~; the others issue that have come about and really really kind of surprising for a site that's _~ 12 acres and 55 lots. to have a huge of issues as it seems to have had and I think it's ff~{ just a bad location near mid mile that's kind of brought this up. But if I could, I -- I will ~~, .~ ~ have Caleb show if you could -- like an overall, just to get our bearings of, really, where .: we are at and maybe -- I know a lot of my fellow neighbors are here and they don't know <<: as much about what projects are coming in the area that might help the regional traffic . Y that seem to be happening out in this area. Here we have Meridian Road through the , ~# middle, which is a state highway. Overland Road on the north. Victory Road on the - south. Locust Grove on the east. Linder on the west. This is two square miles. These 1~~~k ~ are existing lots as they stand platted today. In this section we have over -- about 1,100 -~ ~ ~ - lots existing. Meridian Greens, Sportsman's, Observation Point, Glacier Springs. We i ty~ e ~; ~~ have Bear Creek over here. Elk Run. Strada Bellissima. We have got about 600 existing lots over here, with another 321 approved at Bear Creek West. There is a middle school proposed sometime in the future. We have a community park that serves more than just Bear Creek, it serves the whole area. Some of the transportation things ..T~; that are happening -- right now everybody funnels down Meridian Road in south Ada County and even from South Nampa. I know, I used to live in South Nampa, I'd come '; F~ this way, cut up Columbia Road up Meridian Road and so everybody in the morning , , collects right here. It backs up Meridian Road. It backs up Overland. Some of the things that are coming in very soon -- we have a signal coming in at Victory as we ~ speak, it's under construction, which is a good thing. They are widening Overland from ~ here to Linder this next year and putting in a signal at Stoddard, which is another good thing. They are going to improve this intersection. We have got the Locust Grove = ~' ~_ overpass going in here very soon I keep hearing for the last several years, but I hear it's °~? .~ coming quick. And, then, we have Ten Mile interchange one mile down the road, which , -~~ ~.r is coming quite soon, too. So, we have, I believe, over 40 million dollars slated in the /3 -x3=~ ~ :~ next five years, if you include the Meridian couplet as well, that's going to go within the couple of square miles, which is a good thing. It's a very convenient location where we live, but there is some congestion that is here. It's caused not by Bear Creek, not by ~_- these people, but it is a regional-type traffic issue that we have and we have a state highway going right through the middle that ITD has -- has jurisdiction over. So, I just M wanted to get everybody's bearings about where we are. We are actually right here on ~~' ~~. the 12 acres. That's a residential portion. The front end is around 20 acres of church that they are retaining for their church site. If you could go to the next one, please, ~~~~,~ ~~ ~'~~ <<-' ~;.. ' ° _ ;. . ~: `QH ... t . ...,~, a~E rF pi s. ~` q'.; ~... -.. ~_ ._ ~; ~~ ~'_ ~S' 7 ~, -f ~f 9k:t4 w:~ ~y ~,. ~' t, ~f. ' s~: ` F' ~~:. ~r ~~ -. .;.~a ~A,. .`:I -~ -..: ~' =:~j `,; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 8 of 86 Caleb. Thanks. That's a little squished. It got scanned in, but that shows kind of a zoomed in area of the Elk Run, which was done in '95 -- '93 and '95. Calderwood was put in at that time. They did some fore planning, which was the best available information at the time to put a collector through there. So, that's where a lot of traffic for Bear Creek does go out right now. They are doing a Schuck's right here on the corner. They are building one and there is some more going in. Bear Creek was done between 2000 and there is still one vacant lot down here, but they are pretty much done, 350 odd lots. Strada Bellissima was done in the last couple of years. They have just recorded their second phase. About 100 lots here, 350 here, and 100 lots here, so there is 550 lots existing around this in this half section. We do have a mid mile collector. We have Stoddard Road, which is a good traffic access signal and out to Overland or out to Victory with signals. So, there is exceptional access out as we speak. It is -- it doesn't appear to, because of that bottleneck at Meridian Road, but, truly, when we do get these other improvements in there, it will function fairly well out here. We need that mid mile collector for the school and some other things, but -- from the park. But the traffic flows good through Bear Creek, it's a relatively low density, it's under three to the acre. This whole area is under three to the acre. You're not going to run into traffic issues, usually, at three to the acre. You're not -- when you start getting high high density, that's when you're going to run into them. So, it functions as we would expect. We did do a traffic analysis of the whole thing and how we related to it, just to be safe, so we knew what was going on, even though ACHD didn't require it. The church was annexed -- or, excuse me -- yes, annexed and given a development agreement several years ago under an R-8 zone for purposes of the church. I have seen their old site plan. They had a recreational complex back here in the back originally. They had their church up front. Over the years they have seen Bear Creek come in, they have seen a community park come in, they have seen a need to -- that the park isn't making much sense anymore, obviously, that is just one right here a hundred yards away, so just this last February 16th they saw a need to generate some income to fund their new church and they did a legal split of this, so it was legally separated out. The parcel has three accesses, 12 acres exactly. They just decided on 12 acres. That's what was going to go to auction and they did sell it off and got a good price for it and my client purchased this knowing that it was R-8. We knew there was a development agreement on it, but it's -- I'm here to say that R-8 is still the appropriate density, even though -- or R-8 is the appropriate zoning, even though maybe that wasn't the real reason, you know, the church went was to have homes in the back, because that wasn't their intent from the beginning. But as times have changed and we have seen the land values go up 700 percent in the last six years, you know, things have changed a little bit in terms of how we -- how we create lots, what we think are good lots, what we think are -- you know, things have changed since the late '90s. So, I'm here on behalf of both applicants. This is a joint application. This board or Commission granted a CUP back on February 16th for the church. That was a final action. They pulled a building permit. They are moving forward. However, one of the conditions was that they resubmit with us. So, we are separate owners, jointly attached in one application before you tonight. I mean they are under construction, so they are moving ahead regardless, and there has been some issues with respect to the -- the collector through here and some other things that have been a little bit of complications. I think . ~ ,4 I ..~, .. .,,• „ ..r.. , - ` 1 ~ ~€ ti J s ,'~ .R di'm'' z : Tr t ;a.+' "* ~t : ' `: L : s. .~' 5e •x.: ,.7= 'at ~ «: . _ ~ i { ':i •J R'' 1 ~.f; :lei; ,,a,~,.. ~.`~~ .. ~ n. '~ .51 •,.~ : "• ' ~ ` a. C-• S f .- .y ~ y { sP! ~.t. is if~C~"eFtj?:~'4.".' dA ,: i, ~ , . ' i . .t ~. ..d.ji .. y.. } A : ~ • I a, ~ ;%. ~: a~:': i. ,. .w f~ ~'•3 : . a.n •~ ~~ ' ' I ~ . . t~: y t 'l k t 4 ~'3" ' Y _ ~ .. .. .. ~. ,. , ` ~ a f iss v.5 is .d , 3.k` .. ~~. ` , +'.f:..` iJr ::I. .~~ [ 4 .`iy~, A ~L' 1, r' ~.. `S'Y ~`.Jf ,~ i ~ rah„ .. I. y',~•Yi~ vK .i •, x ~ '~. al ..I ~, ~ ` f'y.~ E ~ •;,~" lr: N ,. 3 `cY 'Y;~ ''~'~ w ' f .1 r5 Cr. ,i2 - `;~ • ~ x ` 1 ~Y: 9J.. I <-. t •• . T ~ ~ . ' . ~ 1 : I - £: ELY. tr. ?.. I 'I A e - ~ 4~r ~ ~ ,. =.rr ' -0 :~, ~ ., isSQ ? aChil'.i. r z=: r "~ • ~. .;s } , , ~. A k' ' t ' • „ . ^ k 4.-, A - . ,R , :3. a ., ~. F, N ~~ . IA ~ •'~~ '` ~' ~ ~ ,t~ ~ , ~3.a ~r ~a xr't y- , a ° P p. 4 ~ t ~~ a , , . :~, .7.r: ~ ' , ~, I ~ .. ..~..•~ `z-„' y A ~ ~ ~ y~'•J $ ` 3, v . I, y i Y ~ I •'{~. , f ga, , ~ f •i ~ ~ ~fY ~ ~ .~.' •r of %c.' ! '"E w ~'a" ,v ~ ~ >~.'?,7e;.. ". 1 ' ~yi ne.°~.` G 1 v~ • ~ i ' `~ ~".' ~ C•,~~:2:.•?~t';~.?~':• i - ., Y . R,~";.° .rl ti.: ~. 1 - ' .. 5~: '7: i t~Y I i ~ . . } ' S'gT:.`..y:t. ~: :, .; .. Vii, r1.:., thy. '~. % i ' ~ ' ' , I 1, v p F :•? pz*. :~} µ .S n' ~' ff}}~~ .. t ~ ; 71 +~F' tax ',~1'S Y ' '_ ~~ r t a~ ~ ,+s~ r a G~~~ ~ Y i ~ xh F ~ 5U1s. ,~p'dg"h~ ~-~ . x: ~ ? t ~T~ _ ~: _ U t ~" ~.' .; '~ , µ. ~ ~ 1.: ~ ~: r. ,- ,;;_ " ' :;a ~: ~~. ,; ~. ~~" F-; ,:- S ~~"'.• ;~` r~~ ` ~=::r _ _ ~` ,< , u •t" ~~ u w , i ~~ 4 ~i ~E' ;,;t,y ir~ } k., >; ~ ~ ~. _;: ~~~~~ yJ / ~ "r r M::~~ L a~ ~ . ~ ,~ ,. N~~ - : . 2 r~. ~.:h ` f ~~ ~~ ~A~; rh ~... Z ~~ ~~ - 4 v~ " ~, ~~ '- ~ ~ :t .: ~~, F ' ,~~ ~ ~ y ~~ ~ * ~: {^.. , ft ` r ¢ ~;: ~, ~.~ , -~~ _~ - ~ ~z ~~ ~~ `i a~~ ~ ` w^ s . ~ t: ~p +7* i r r ,F , ~`. ~F ~~' ti' JE ? r t ~ .jfi t ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 9 of 86 we are a little bit divergent with my neighbors on the zoning. I know we are united on the collector, that it's -- that it's a bad idea to retrofit a low density subdivision with a high -- high volume potential road, to summarize it in a nutshell. And we had a lengthy discussion at ACRD regarding the merits, the warrants, bad idea, good idea, if it was good planning or bad planning, it was unanimous yesterday. It wasn't because -- they kind of revised their original recommendation. It wasn't because of access, because I'm saying if these people need a signal later, maybe there will be warrants for that signal. Just don't connect it to Bear Creek. There is no need for it. We have got great access out to Victory, out to Stoddard, you know, out to Meridian Road. There is no need for it, there is no warrant for it, and to come in after the fact, it's just going to -- it may or may not cause cut-through traffic, I wouldn't want to chance it myself. I think it will, but I could be wrong. I wouldn't want to gamble on something that there is no need for and it carves up the church property, they want to do recreational facilities in those areas, it's an additional cost that we could bear if there was a warrant and if it was a good idea we would do that. But for what you get for it, it's not real -- ACHD was -- it was a very lengthy unanimous decision that even if City Council approves it or wants it in the rare likelihood that they would do that, they won't maintain it, they won't take it, they won't recognize it. ITD would allow an intersection if you want one. They are not saying you must have one. They are saying if you want one you can have it at the mid mile and if you have it at the mid mile, you better have a signal. It's so -- it's kind of reverse logic that if you want a signal you better put traffic to it. Well, we don't want to put traffic to it, so there is a little bit of reverse logic going on there and ACRD saw through that and decided adamantly against that. So, I really want to get passed the collector issue. If you have any questions or concerns we can address those, but I want to focus in on the site, which our site works with or without it, we have allowed for it, that if it's needed our site works. If it's not needed our site works. So, we just want to focus in on the subdivision itself and talk about that. The church is here to discuss the church portion. I'm assuming that the church portion is okay, because you have already approved that as a CUP, so we are going to focus in on the residential portion and just focus on that and not reiterate things that have already been said, unless you have any questions from back in February for the church, they are here for that. You can go to the next slide, please. We have, like I said, 12, exactly, acres by this width, which is defined by Bear Creek No. 6 on the north, Bear Creek No. 7 on the west, Strada Bellissima on the south -- so, they decided 12 acres exactly, whatever width of that was, that's what the width was and that's what they took to auction and that's what was bought and so there was no prior planning as to what kind of subdivision would fit on that. He was close. What you're left with was we talked to staff, we have three existing stub streets, so we are fixed there. I mean they are there, we can't really ignore them, and a loop, 150 -- 50 foot road, 100 foot deep, 150, 150, 50 foot road, 150 -- or 97 feet deep. So, we were fixed on the width, so the question becomes how wide do you make your lots. We looked at the overall densities and just as a point, I was the original project manager on Bear Creek for the last five years. The two years I wasn't, but I have lived there, I have seen every house built in Bear Creek, I know all that has happened. Phase Six was approved as an R-8. They did a little land swap with the church for some stuff up front back a few years ago and they are up near the -- they are 8,000 square foot lots, but they are under 80 feet wide, so there is some R-8 here, but they are bigger -- bigger Y ~tt~r F 1'/r -' `Y#' ~'; - ' -[i 1 afi~~cx~9'+s~5x~a~~'~ ~'u kid ,t-~"` r ~FU 4rw'~V ~i k~~~,~3G .?~~. ti ~rrvr .. r - ~ , . - - - 7 r .fir rl ri; i -Y'fi ad rti C (` f ,:~ r r ti ~.t y f t ~..,' F .. t - - r f~ tf'Y+Ir•~:F :~ ;~, ~. r x ~~I. lsz~~, ~; +`~..#t .i.,€ f!~~nyy-~'.~F ~.. •; :'~~ $~t d- E~F~~'~~hcs.~,' yy r ~y~7~-~ ;~2'~y~1~,~'~~'I ate.=r,r ~, x .. l 1{' Lh~ ~Y(~ mod' ~:~~ ~ '. y f_ yl ~' tiF ;..~n„rA~.,F f ~'~i~,{~,~.~ `~'"S `~^~,Si~~"~"~-~a ~'~,F '~~ ~~a Y ~rx`tl~' ~ ~3r t - - - J 1h~ -i t f 'f ~ x f j ~'~. 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~eyx~~,~ Ste` ~'~'i~2~'~~ ~ i.~, Kh~•~;r4~~~ ~w'n~'p~.dY t;rt r ~'n~a'~, ;~ f J 'jt i~ ~% t r 4 ~ a~~ 4. .:~~ u r , ~ b~_ ~ ;~~ ~ ; ~ fiy .. ~yy S. i~>'~c ac;.y? w s FJl .'~ 'r,'i ~ k-~.f~~ 'v1T.~~'~'$~~~5'!i'tY ~~'~'~}~~iJ` ~ tl 3a ~Y~}f+ ~ * ~5 .._'! .... 1r "'~~'~~t~"Yr ~ N ~"C'fi?`I -~+} '4.~N' R4 h`;ar ?` ~ ar'r, ,~1nhf~'Sa#m. ot': S.zW'~.a: ~ .. ~ --. - SJ 1 ~ ~ ~`.} ~r' t D ST.Y ~ .l S ('L ' 3: ' tg ~ h SFr 3 [~~~w ~" z~',a~ ;7 Nj1'`Q ~ .~` ~. •. + ,''.Q£~, h..k~ ::!-~~Fy ~~ ~M~r ~ ' 7e ~. .qx. ~t ''~ ~ ~ N~ _ r ~~ a t~ t. ~, ~ Z '~'~ _ #x -~ ry ~ ~ a-w..' r ~ ~~ r .<' Y A ,~. C4['j' ~1 V t ~; J ~ ~!~ ' ' ~~,, 3 r., ~~fs+d~,.t w~~ r 3 nte,~F~,~u+'t.~~~~+~.} ~3 ~,* Y~"S nE ~'..,'`S ~4,r T,-~ ~:'di!~~-r C t~''r~ <k~`~`tu; i~ - ~ - - ~.: -- .~ , ...:~ _ ,_~. -. r.. .. _. ~ .. - ,., , r t 1 w ., .~ .~~,~wskf`„M rt. ' ~ ~ ~,r ;s. ' w`. - %u, ~~ i~"K.~:`f •~~ r ~~ k~4~.°~L. 1.. y °' ;Y; Meridian Planning & Zoning ' ;:~ September 21, 2006 ~_ . ~: Page 10 of 86 .` ~}~ lots, so about three and ahalf -- 3.4 to the acre is what this is laid out at. This phase ~, " was replatted as well from the original preliminary plat. It went from 31 to 40 lots. They ~` ~~ ~:; were 15,000 and the went down to like ten, which are still ood size lots. The densi Y 9 tY . 4 comes in at right around just 2.9, close to three. Strada is probably under three. When ~ , you look at our sidewalk along here, we have worked with staff, decided these would be =`` ~~" K~ R-4 type lots, 14,000, 10,000, 9,000, eight -- 8,000 through here. These are like 7,900, r, ,__ 8,000, 7,900, very very close. These are seven thousand square foot lots in here. ~, ,~. These lots here that are buffered by our own lots, they are buffered by landscaping k ~ down here. They are buffered by some elevation and deeper lots down here. We made ~° " ~~ -- we made some five and six thousand square foot lots, transitioning this way, transitioning north. We have got a buffer here on the north here. We really tried to blend in and step up the densities. If you look at the density of this here, it's right ~~~ ~~: around three and a half to the acre. If you look at that. Which is very very close to ~~ -;- what's north of this here. A little bit more than what's here, but it's not a whole lot i ~~ different in terms of density. If you look at this area here, we are actually at six. The ~ ~'~ ~ blended overall is just over four and a half. But it's a mix, it's a blend, so what we did I< ' ~' was we were very conscious of lot width, you match up lot widths. We weren't blessed ~ with extra lot depth and, you know, in hindsight we would have liked to have been able ~a to buy 13 acres and have those extra deep, but that's just what was for sale and what was bought. And staff has recommended this type of layout. As far as our overall i,.; Tk.. landscaping -- is there a landscape plan, Caleb, please? We have a common area here ~ r that is -- it looks small on here, but if you measure all the common lots in Bear Creek k r`. park -- or Bear Creek, except the park, and Strada Bellissima and Elk Run, it's, actually, ~ .~,y the biggest usable open space, if you can believe it, compared to what -- what's at Bear Creek and all the other ones, with the exception of the 19 acre park, obviously. We ~~~,~~ have a pathway that interconnects this way. We have got an additional pedestrian access to the -- to the church. We have got buffers here and here. We showed this ~, ~, stub as a -- if emergency vehicles -- there has been discussion, they may or may not ,_ ., ~ want additional access, let's use that corridor that we had preserved for a potential _ ~~''' ` f collector for emergency and pedestrian access to the church. Just leave it open. It's . also a corridor for the future Black Cat trunk down through here. A corridor for irrigation ~¢ ~'t~` lines. A corridor for a water line. So, it's a good open corridor for some utilities as well. ~ So, our open space comes in just at six and a half percent. If you count all the open `~ t_, space -- usable open space in the other subdivisions, it's like three. So, we, actually, have more usable percentage of open space than anybody around us, even though we , are only 12 acres. So, it's not a lot of space, but percentage-wise we do have good _y ~ open space. We have listened to the residents. We had a concern about -- you know, ~t you guys aren't doing anything with that space, put something in it. We agreed, okay, ~` ,~ .,: ,: even thou h the Bittercreek Park is onl g y, you know, a hundred yards away, but it is a ~. ' couple hundred yards more, so let's put a playground in there. So, we are going to put _ '' ~~ a playground in there. We listened to the residents. Thank you. You know, it fits in that .. area easily. It's a good playground. We do -- we do have a petition. We do have some ~ other things, but I just hope to be able to come here and speak and tell people what we ~~; :~ have and clear up some of the fears. I think there is some misinformation with the ' petition. I intercepted it myself and heard some things I wasn't aware of and I'm the guy ~~ that's in charge of it, so I just wanted to make sure everybody understands what we are ~;:; ~~ , , ~ ~, , ,,fix ~~ ':1 ~ ,r =w.yyy!!!k aS ~5,+, ~„~ ~,r _ ~, ~~ =~ sv r. 2+'F~ ~~~yyL _ ~'F y f~~7Y rYC rii_ ~M1,c i,.. `~F.. f w~;~is~ir~ 1 ~,.~i ~ t~ .. i §5 l ~r .~ ~. .~,' 'r; a -, + r;. i dyµ i ` ~, f±_~ .~ i j ~~ y ~~~ 3 111 t - ..Y . . f `; 17 N r __` '1 ' K ; Y ~ .~~ INk ~; tie d I t t 1}1 t. ??~~}, ~ 5 R: 4C ~'') '.. h4~ ~T~ ~., G'J'~ :~~i~ j ~~'-Y ?. ' ,. yr' c ~ ~ .n A ~ ~i` } i ~~ ~~ L~ ~: ~d:~'~ ~2y FS ~:~i.. ..., :.: 1 . .. .- :~ ., .,, P '. ~= 4 ~' ~y a ;: 4.: ~;f .~: 3 t^- . ~ SAN r ~: 4 t~ '•~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 11 of 86 proposing here is a quality project. It does fit at an R-8. It matches subdivisions that have been approved, like Tuscany Village, Sutherland Farms, Woodbridge, Messina Meadows, Bear Creek West, Tanana Valley, Reflection Ridge, Jayden Village, Southern Springs -- these are all subdivisions that have blended into these R-8, R-4 mix. They are compatible. These lots here -- it's hard to believe, but land prices are such that these will be more expensive than almost every lot in Bear Creek sold for a few years ago, which is bad, actually. But that's where we are at with the prices. We are talking -- we will be hard pressed to keep them under 300,000 on these lots. These will be in the five to six hundred range. We are way passed affordable here, we are talking reasonable price and 300 is a challenge and that's because at the higher level you just - - things are slow at that price. So, we are trying to get some mix. Some of the church members said they'd like to buy a lot, they are older, some of them, they don't need a bigger lot, so we put that mix in there, potentially, as just an option. Notice everything is not in the manila 80 by 100. Give people an option in there and still have a nice subdivision. I think I have covered everything, other than I want to point out that if we really wanted to do a hard R-8, we could have 65 lots. If we went down to an R-4 that would have been 43 lots. It's an alternative, so it's a pretty easy one to do it on. Just moving a lot width. We are coming in in the middle of that. We will be right there at the 55 lots at around 4.5 to the acre. We were trying to blend the density, transition the density, and provide all the amenities that would be expected of site to site with five acres -- for 55 lots. It's another phase, really, of Bear Creek or Strada Bellissima or whatever. So, I guess with that I'll stand firm. I know there are some people that want to speak from the neighborhood. We do respect them coming and participating in the public process, which I appreciate a lot more than some petitions would have some information that I saw that we were going to be hurting kids and -- you know, and all that with this high density subdivision and that is not even close to the remote truth of what's going on in this area. If I could answer any questions I will right now. If not, I'll reserve them for later. Rohm: That was a great presentation. Schultz: Thank you. ~> . ' Rohm: I do have one question, though. As I'm looking at the sign-up sheet here and, '° uite honest) ~, , q y, the majority of the people that signed up to speak are going to speak. against. p~[ 7~ : 4, Schultz: I saw that. w. , ~~ ~'~ '~ Rohm: And maybe -- normally we don't do it this way, but I'm going to just ask you to -- 3. I'm pretty sure you have a pretty good feel for what some of these major concerns are ~'~ i ~} and maybe rather than have them speak first, let you -- can you speak to some of ~~ these -- ~~. ~~ Schultz: I can go through the petition of you want me to. ~:~: . -: ~~ , r~:' ;? ^~v: ~~3 ~.~. 2 "FY7^ 7y. ~'. 4'It 4~~ f >i ~~~ i n~k c {> ~', l.a~'N~bj )~~ai f p 3 ~ ~~~ a '~. ,-1 ~. .~qf~. E iei ~' iP{ ti'j`.~ ~K _ M endian Planning & Zoning M -'? September 21, 2006 '~ at {y t Page 12 of 86 c ~~ ;: Rohm: Well -- and I don't want to take -- I don't want to take this -- I don't know. Maybe ~~.~~ it's a bad idea. Schultz: It's okay. We can go through the process and we can go through it that way. Rohm: The point -- the point that I wanted to make, though, is as you come in with a t~~ < .._t ~ development application, it always makes it easier for both sides of the table to work ~~'~~ with you, if, in fact, you have been able to address the concerns of the community and ~ ti{~ „ have some kind of a response in order and it looks like from the number of people that have signed up that we are not quite there yet and that's -- and I -- Schultz: They signed up before they heard my presentation, too, so we will see what they end up saying. r~ Rohm: All right. With that being said, thank you. Really, you did a good job. ~,.; r ~~~ Schultz: Well, appreciate it. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Again, before we take public testimony, it's real important, because of ` ' ~~-: the number of people that have signed up, that if, in fact, somebody that has spoken - before you has spoke to the specific issue that you wanted to bring before the ri ~ Commission we appreciate it if you would just say I have been spoken for and we will ~ _ 4 "j ~ ' go on to the next one. But by no means is that a request to not get up and speak. So, with that said, the first person signed up is Kelly James. ~3'' ' ;., _ Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. You may want to check, though. I think you were almost there a minute ago. You may want to see if there is someone representing ~~_ the neighborhood association and give them some extra time if they are speaking on behalf of 10, 12, 15 neighbors that are here. And I know there is at least one that's got ;.~~ a presentation that's ready to roll here, so I don't know how much they are speaking for ~: ~ the neighborhood or not, but to start them is probably -- r ° Rohm: Okay. I'm not opposed to that, so is there a -- well, just a second. Is there a spokesman for the subdivision? If you'd like to come forward, ma'am. And before you start speaking, I'd like to see a show of hands of those that she is speaking for. Wow, - that's the majority. i4, t ,~~ ' Borup: And what he's meaning by the statement, all those that raised their hands, then, ~ ` ;:,; would not be speaking. Is that your understanding? "} ,, ..., ~~ Rohm: Right. And that's the purpose. Basically, if you have signed up to speak and s `, she's speaking for you, we are going to take those names off the list, so that's the way :' " that process works and she will be given additional time to speak and, really, I think ' everybody's best interest is served that way. With that being said when you start give ~` k , your name and address, please. e~Pt~° 1+'i ~, ~4', r` _ i,,, ,. .. ~: e`,4 ..'.'$, - Pt~r, .. ,w.. ~ w ~~ { ~s.., ` ,~< ~j ; y t ~, Yx . ~, ~ y ..~~ ' Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 13 of 86 Newell-Lemaster: My name is Kimberly Newell-Lemaster. I'm the Homeowners Association President for Bear Creek. I live at 2640 South Bear Claw Way in Meridian, Idaho. This is will be a co-presentation with Karen McGordon of Bear Creek also. Bear Creek is a planned community with approximately 354 homes and the values range from 300 to 900 thousand. The density in Bear Creek does average 2.6 homes per acre and the figures that we have for Strada Bellissima is 2.5. Bear Creek West is also 2.5. Bear Creek has a lot of amenities, pedestrian walkways to the Bear Creek Park, lighted streets, and walkways, planted mediums, separate entrances with plants and street trees. Shepherd's Creek, as it is proposed, that 55 homes on 12 acres, does average 4.6 homes and we'd like to point out that we are not against Shepherd Creek Subdivision, we do have traffic issues and we do have density issues. There is no distinct and separate entrance to the development and although he was talking about the amount of green spaces they have and that it's higher than Bear Creek and the Bear Creek Homeowners Association currently pays to maintain 13 acres of common property. Access through Bear Creek and Bellissima and there is no primary outlet burden for the access on Bear Creek. We currently have a petition that has been signed by 243 Bear Creek homeowners that share the same concerns and we have also -- we have eight additional signatures that were added as of 9/20/06. Again, the homeowners concerns with the proposed development and now the Kodiak possible collector street. Access -- our issues are access issues, including the newly proposed collector street and, again, this appears to be by the City of Meridian staff, because ACRD was totally against it and what their concern was when this was brought up on 9/6 was they are about Meridian Road becoming another Eagle Road and we all know what a nightmare that could be. Our other issues are the land use and the density. The lot size, more than the home value. Drainage issues -- we will show you some pictures and Karen will talk about the fact that this 12 acres does sit up. The elevation of it is quite a bit higher and there are drainage issues with homes that border this subdivision on -- it would be the east side of Bear Creek and it would be the west side of the proposed Shepherd's Creek. Other concerns are the amount of open spaces. We feel that they could utilize and maybe combine them into a little bit better utilization for their - - for their own people that would purchase homes in that area. Other issues that we have is there are no covenants, conditions, or restrictions that are being proposed with this subdivision and no transitional entrances, no street planning, anything that would match up with the way that Strada Bellissima is and currently how Bear Creek is designed. Vehicular traffic issues. There are no alternate routes. So, I know that they talk about this great site right in here, this is the proposed Shepherd's Creek and they do have an outlet to the south, which they kind of wind through Strada Bellissima and end up over at Victory, but until the light is complete, which, like Matt was saying, thankfully they are working on, we also believe that it will be as easy or easier for these people to turn down and go out Bear Creek's exit onto Stoddard, which this would be Grisly. There is a stub street that comes in at the end of Bear Track and so they would take Bear Track down to Bear Tooth and go out the Kodiak access, the center entrance of Bear Creek. The stub street that the city is proposing is this one that would come off of this east -- northeast corner of Shepherd's Creek and come across the church property. And so it comes out onto Cub -- I guess this little section right here is currently called Alaska Way. It turns onto Cub, goes down through this section that `~Fr x = >> i-T "~ 4°t $'+ Mme` # Ji t~jvtt3~ ~ ... ,, G S ~r, Y n G G'7 l: ' t ~ - K f t i ti ~i SY ~ a;'y ~ ~ ~` ~ ~`~, ~" ' . ~i~' ~ t a`~`,9i~i°r~°"~=~~f~~"~~~'q~ 2~`';;~ir~"dFE ~ .~F"~ •;~ ~e a !ry?t~ °"°r~%f. r ~. r ~ ~ ~ 4 ~. r y;r :,~.. Ila.• -~~ n1~'S ~ ,v~'~t~ y :~'f a r .H t. ~ysi ~ ti ~"~{'~yv'C~"'h+ t r „''3 ~f aye;. c. <f~ fir r` ~1~x ~. - ti]k!~ - - 'L is l ~~1 ~,~W~r _jr~ ~~ sr- Y.,y ,F ~tw"a ~_' i ' i}~dr~q+F~+E: s ~ 4-d~.t ~ n ~ r Nti~. ~ r7g A ~ 1 t.r y~ ~ksr ; tl S '.~!~ ~ ..~r{'r ~ ~, 4z ~y :,,1 ~ 1 - 5 a _ 'r .' t ~, '~,54r4''~ r` ££f""n''}j ~~~~ R c+~"~~W7FT`~zws~.d~ ,~ ; ~k ".f'`k4`kY'fii+~~..~,~~;~~~'+~,.", :~#:~ .many. ~ -. ~ , $1n.{ :'i is ~ 3 ~ ~'~'G v ~. i '.~ ~ re k, , a:~v , 4..:. .. .. a _ :r 3s - ~: '_rs. ~. a t ,z~, ,~ ,i s t ~, u ~~ ~- t, . "; k , ~ i ~ ';' t, - ~,r ,k;y; ~ ar i~ ..: 4 ~~~{vr r.k_.,~..t { ~ ~'~T a~ --~ r,~'}*~.S~rd,t~, r 2-vr.., r "YYy C G ~~ 1~ y .k ) ,may ~- '~TA S.~i`~ R ~~1 N t fy,F~T~'~'_ E~ f ~ ~~~~y~'S-:~~ L Y'~' ~'~j ~ ~~7 . _ .. 4' '~}'~~~+' •~+ ~~Sr~+~:Yirr.~~ , ~-r ~ ~~ ~~ ~k` >~"-sir ~ _t,~'!~' i~+. ~;~r6f _~ ~.~ r,1;:,m~",?yt~` _ S ,, ~' " ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning " r~ ~~ September 21, 2006 Page 14 of 86 _ ~} . ~~ .~ ~ Kodiak and onto Stoddard. And, then, fortunate) , we revised our presentation and we Y 5 ~~ ~ ,~ -~~_ don't have the pictures and Matt was talking about how well traffic does move through , ~~:, here, but I have seen traffic during the rush hour in the morning that is backed up back y : , '~ ~ ~ °' to this center entrance-exit into Bear Creek. So, it's backed up pretty much close to a ~~ half a mile from Overland Road on Stoddard, because the traffic is always backed up to Linder Road on Stoddard in the morning. Let's see. Shepherd's Creek -- we -- we are >; a ` ~ ~: ro ectin that She herd's Creek will create a roximatel another 500 vehicle -- 550 P 1 9 P Pp Y ~~ vehicle trips per day through Bear Creek. Bear Creek generates approximately 3,500 ~~ vehicle trips per day and the Bear Creek West we were figuring will project probably to ~~~ ~•*'~~ ~' 300 -- or 3,300 vehicle trips per day that will add to the traffic on Stoddard. We also , ~~'` ~~ :, have the other subdivisions, Edgar's, Pebble, Kentucky and Model, which estimate -~' ~~''~ another 1,400 plus vehicle trips per day and with the school that's projected here, we s-' ~ `` don't have an idea how many that -- but total trips between all of these subdivisions, it's `r ~ .r approximately 8,180 vehicle trips per day. Shepherd's Creek traffic will primarily use -_ •, ~~ ' Bear Creek roads and this just puts a burden on the existing roads with no distinct ", ' ~ ~: '~ ~ = entrance. Alternate needed to reduce the congestion, they need to have a direct ;~~~ ; access to Alfini Way that crossed over to Victory Road and when Matt made the e~.. .~~; ;~ ~ . comment, we are not saying that we are worried that the children are going to be hurt by r x5, ~N ~-" this development, we don't dispute that -- that the development could be put in there, we ~ dispute the density and the number of vehicle trips per day that would be added and the ~x connector road that the city is wanting to put in there, because we do think that it will get ~'~ ' ~ ~~: ~ utilized a lot more. Again, advised by ACHD of the inclusion of Bear Creek -- let's see -- ~: ~ ° ~,f~ homeowners association and yesterday's 9/20 meeting, we were unaware of any ~~ ;~ _ ~ actions the city and the developer had regarding the collector road and maybe at the '" ~~~' - ' ~. ~~ ', end of this presentation Mr. Nary could comment on it. We question the legality of the ~;~ ~ ~~ change in the meeting with the ACHD when he wanted to have their recommendations ~ ~ ~~` .~ removed from the 9/6 meeting, because it was our understanding the public was supposed to be notified and there were no letters to the people that live within 300 feet -~ f~a ~~ of this. They were notified of the original meeting, but no one was notified that he had ~ ` ~ gone to ACHD and asked to be put on the agenda and, then, I had a phone call and so y ~ ;_ we were really unable to notify the entire neighborhood. We had two days that we ~_ ";,3~ ~ notified the homeowners on Kodiak and on Cub by putting a flier at each of their homes, - . ~+ ~ ~ but we didn't have a chance to notify everyone in the neighborhood. And at this time I'll ~`~ ~ turn it over to Karen. ' r .. _ McGordon: Karen McGordon, 2631 South Hibernation Place, Meridian, and I'm going to ~~~~ ~ ~ ` cover the next section addressing traffic issues and addressing issues with the collector . I'd like to state first that the Bear Creek residents do oppose and are concerned with the ~`' proposed collector street that is currently being proposed by the Meridian Planning and ` ;' ' ~ Zoning. I want to present a series of drawings and maps that address related traffic ' ' ~~ : z issues specific to the Shepherd s Creek development and the City of Meridian s ' ~`'~ ;. proposed collector. Starting with the Shepherd's Creek, this map one, the Shepherd's x~ ~'~`'"' Creek traffic impact as proposed -- Kimberly covered some of that. I just want to go a ~ -~ little further with it. No outlet to a primary road. The burden for traffic does fall on Bear `~ Creek primarily. Currently, with the no light at Victory, people do tend to go out to ~~ Stoddard and, then, to Overland. All the traffic does funnel that way and there is no ff ... - ~i r .}~ ; r 1 ~ ~~ ~~ " ~ ~ "~ .~ 2 ~ t 9. ~v ~ ydy :r ~^ ' .f, ~: e' ..n~'Ef- ,;r. ~~_ r ~ - i . < ~ ~ t k ~• - • -.. ~~ iw F t Nt- E'tl. t;x{ 4 la.~. p ~t n 4,'3 ~~ ,~.. ~ k 1. ~~ rr~ € ~ i ~ ~ 1 rAU -y ~.. , ~ ) x~ t j~,.7 ~w,6~,, E ~ -~. _. .. ~~i ~. 1 +~ ei~ - d ~ r , i . ,~ ~ c fi = c+h~r't 5~ E ~ ~ ~L' '~ ~yt~~ `. ~ 7 ~ L ~ ~ i T J r h~ } 52~ lr ! 1'~ } ~Y ~ - yy ~3 4 ~ .., ~ . ~~ ~ s - r ~. r ' ,,. ~ >~ ' 9 ~r d. x ~h ~ [~ ~ {'t ~ F ~ ~ `4 '~ , `~ Y.a+S? S,, L k? ~,~jT N x ,t,? ~..~.'~ ~~JHSINl'~fa4'- f ~~` iS E F"yrr+,1,~yFl}~l ~yY4 i~M Z~ 1 i~ L~P`l:i.,?~ . '. ~ 1~ F _ k 6 ~ 2 ~r (,. ~ '[} ?~ j ~{~ S. t, '` .4> Y a y ?.N1 I .Y' ri 1 ` ~- i~r . r f ~.' ~7 ~ i e ~' t _ wa+~'~~x .y }.Y.. K 'R EE i "N: i t ~Aµi•C yy,, ,kB~ +; ,~ f ~~ k:~ ~~ ~:~ ~~x~~,: ~ ~. 531. ~ r #E~ S Z [+b +? 1s ~ sue;. ~ ~:& r ~e -~ . ,~ i ~~1 ~~ ~ s ' i 1 t ro , ~ -~ < Y r~ ;,~. ~ r ~ ~j~h., < ~ i-. ~; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~~~ I y, ~, ~1,"ca i ,~ ~ -~ 'uv _ > '" " ) ~' ~~ ~"' if ~ ~ x ;C ~-s ,~ `}' ~.~ ~, ~ ~.~ °° ~{ M~ ~'' . = ~ ~, t= ~~ ;_ ~ . ~ ;> ff,= ~; ,~.. w ~~ i t ' ., .xi +~, , ' ` ~ . ~~~ - t {F r ~~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 15 of 86 direct fire and emergency access. Boundary of Bear Creek is in that light green color and as Kimberly pointed out, there is those three primary roads that do go out to Stoddard. Now, the subdivision does have their -- does have an alternate -- their route that goes out -- that could go out -- potentially out this direction to Victory, but we also have Miestra here as well, that would not be able to be utilized directly, you'd have to go out and make a circuitous route to get out. So, just to point out that there are also other alternates that -- alternatives to this that we would like to address and I'll address those shortly. I want to address next the proposed collector street. The residents of Bear Creek feel that this collector street would have residual impacts on Kodiak. The existing Kodiak Street does not meet any of the ACHD technical requirement for a collector street, but it would certainly be used as such without benefit of ever having being designed as a collector street. The park's there, a school is proposed, you're going to have another 330 homes in Bear Creek West. We have all the traffic that comes down Victory utilizing Stoddard. People are going to use that. There is a light, there is a way to get to Meridian Road. You're going to pop through that subdivision. So, that's primarily what we will be -- I'm going to be addressing. Kodiak and Cub Streets within the subdivision -- this is Kodiak. Cub goes up here along there. The proposed collector would be at the back doors of all of the individuals whose homes are on Cub Street. The other impacts would be the through traffic that would go through the subdivision. Again, Kodiak and Cub would be directly affected by the collective impacts that this proposal would create. There would be significantly more traffic on a residential road that was not designed as a collector street. The higher speeds, the cars backing on -- into oncoming traffic, there is approximately 50 homes that front -- have direct lot access along this section of the road. There would be conflicts with children playing and pedestrians. There is a large number of children in the subdivision. There is mostly -- primarily young families that live here. It's certainly an issue. It would turn a quiet residential street into a very busy, noisy and unsafe street. The proposed collector street in this situation where it would tie into the existing Kodiak, is not good design and planning. That development was done some time ago. That street was not designed -- the remainder of Kodiak there was not designed as a collector. If a collect street is going to be an element of good planning, it should be designed into the city's Comprehensive Plan. If we know that every half mile we are going to have a collector street, we should be putting that information right in the plan and addressing it at the planning level. It does not consider the impact to the residents and the homeowners that purchased their properties, unknowing that government officials could arbitrarily make changes that had significant impacts on their property value. The values of the homes -- the average from Cub all the way to there is 18 and a half million dollars in value. That's a significant value and a lot of money that these individuals have put into these homes. This collector street would encourage through traffic through Bear Creek and, as I said earlier, the impacts with the other developments along Stoddard, it's going to be significant. This should not be added as an afterthought. Significant issues with Kodiak as a collector and also Kodiak again not designed as a collector street. Next slide. I would like to address in this next series of slides the requirements of residential collector streets and the requirements of collector streets. Starting with the residential collector, the ACHD requirements are on the left, the potential impacts to Bear Creek and the existing Kodiak are on the right. The ACHD requirements for average daily 2 - ~ ~;, .t t r _ ; Z ' j~E c ~t'c4~ t. t~..r ( ',L n 1 w S x a~T 9~ ~i ~4~ j, i ', '~~f~ y ~`~` d;~ ~ "' .~Y rr o- . - "J- m .t-_ - ,~ ri j csF _ s. ,- w ~h'F-.i f ti ~ r -~'' j S ~' r~~Tfr _ 'J*2IF}a / ~ ~an~jf ~ ~'t'~Y ~'.rr-~'^~„jLV a 1 1 .{ sf~ ~4N v~ r..~ F u ~aa ',~ref''r ~' E '`~~OC~a~~.'~ r. ~ rrt~~~+~~ "t~~`~j'.'a;E~~~ ~+'~H,~ ~r~~~.:;y~t~ ~, ,4Ltyv7~ S - - _: J _ 1 Y 6r K~1.. f+f~ _ W -r - ~' :- t ~ - { ~ 5 y ~j '. ~;. .r ~, ~ ' `mow Y~ b fi'r4 a C~ ~.'; r '!~ r zw}t~ ~t,a W r x ~ is ,~7'~`eA- ~~.'~d 'L HJ Y` • r ~~ya.~ y/t;. t+ ~/~ 1 ,~ f t ~n r - '(5{;t~, }~ b..t_,t~ ~y.~ a A ,~'_"Y .` .~2rgP:,.~'.~ *.'X~+fhi~ NSr ;1,~_'h'^i` `T ~.'C-S:r...44 `rs .S_Y -.~< ~ ~ i t - i a,.2h. 'fir _-t .~ .j~ ~~r ` 1 rr' ;~, '~~ x ~?~~ ar ~'s. ~~.: " :Ct- t sb .' a°f*~,4 ~,' f r, ~ ~ {~ ~ s '~,r{ 'T t -r7.4,•r;-~r ~c~'{ ,. ~~~.YP!ri~ r ~ r t~ `i Ac~~k ~'+ C~ f. ~ ~/~ F ~ ~~ rs~~i ~ K _ ; ' ,:~~. s ~. ~. $ ~ ~ ' «~. ~+^.l';'~t - ~.=a v ,=~'.'.~~ziKS~~'''a?~.'$~.~~~-~~`'W~.k-s,; ?@')~e~~,.r.~~§ ~1.r. ~'tf"~~Y~ ~ i,:~.~y,Y. t x: ~x`r,ji~?~ f d~ -, ~-, ~4_ - ~, ~ s O~ttt i { % t - t i ,~ P't` F` cc ~fifi ~L~S7p1 e .,Y ;!y ~ . ~. ti i+Elt..~ l: ~ Y -. ~ 1.°yr'4 ,c Ln Y 3 '~ ~ ~. ~ 7 r~-r , ~ ~ r +'6.- ,„f ~~-~ ~ ~ - ,.71 ink ay~~~{~~ ~~f ~ j ?Y 7~1~~~~"~ a4 _ S ~ ~~ n t ~ Xa r a°k`~tr ~~ti ~o{t'~!»g~2r~~la'.A ~ A~„~~ d r M ~' wy~ ~ F~,~~: ~i ~~~:-" r `K`+,E `?S,I!^A'r'iY~7KMt~`R;k.~E~{,~~`~~{~t%a r'r pG'~ei A,~a-3ta ~}rv~.t.~d rti~;`i ~.~ 5~-+r~; 5rr i,..~ - ar o ~y ~ ~ t_ .~, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 16 of 86 traffic is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. If you look at all the potential that's going to happen, plus what's currently there, we are looking at roughly 8,100, potentially, that could use that street. Vehicle access, the guidance says to discourage direct lot access. Again, on the portion of it that's going to be impacted, there is approximately 50 direct lot access points. Through traffic. The requirements are use for through traffic is discouraged. Through traffic is going to be significant. The park, the school, Bear Creek West, the other subdivisions, are going to contribute to through traffic. The street pattern. The requirement says it should extend no more than 1,300 feet into the square mile. Kodiak is going to be used as a collector and it goes clear through, it's full half mile. Again, a continuation on the residential collector street. The requirement, the traffic considerations, the RCS should be such that it doesn't interfere with an area's livability. This proposed collector is going to interfere with the livability of that subdivision and of the people who live along there and live within Bear Creek. The speed control, the RCS, 30 miles per hour is recommended, this Kodiak, if it's going to be used as that, which it will, it has jogs and curves and six intersections and it would not support 30 miles per hour. Pedestrians. There is definitely going to be issues with conflicts with pedestrians. A couple photos of existing conditions within Bear Creek. This is Kodiak on the left. The width of all streets on -- of all sections of Kodiak, with the exception off the entrance off Stoddard is 36 feet wide. There is 90 degree curves on Kodiak. There is a second 90 degree curve where Kodiak and Cub meet. Showing the intersection of Shepherd's Creek Road and Alaska Way, it's currently a 36 foot width and the road alignment Cub from Alaska Way, again, 36 inch -- 36 foot width. If you put -- if cars are parking on the streets, which they do, because a lot of individuals have visitors on a routine basis, you reduce the clear width of that down -- essentially, you take 20 feet out of it. You're down to 16 feet and, granted, it's not that way clear through. But I would not want to see cars parking and increased traffic on this width of a road. And, then, just to show you the 36 inch width. The RCS requires a 36 inch width - 36-foot width. A regular collector street requires 41. Collector street requirements for a full collector street, average daily traffic requirement is 2,500 to 8,500. Again, potentially -- there is a potential for 8,100 and it's unknown how much the school will generate. The vehicle access -- direct access -- lot access for a collector is prohibited and, again, there is approximately 50 direct access lots. Through traffic is encouraged. We would hope this would not happen. There would certainly be direct traffic conflicts. Street patterns -- the collector street requirements discourage continuation of a collector through an artery and it's going to happen without question. So, there would be definite impacts to the -- to the existing Kodiak from this. Again, just more -- more of the ACHD requirements, the traffic considerations, speed control, intersections, and pedestrians. I'm not going to go through these point by point, because I have already made statements related to its similar impacts -- potential impacts. This collector street, we feel as residents, would be costly for taxpayers and it would impact the homeowner. The lighted road -- obviously, the developer, if this were required, would probably have to suffer the cost of that. Kodiak and Cub Street would have impacts from the significant increase in traffic. There would be safety issues along the existing Kodiak, with a direct lot access and the increased traffic that this would generate and it impacts 50 homeowners' property values. The light on the state highway would be another impediment on Meridian Road. It would stop traffic on the ~e'.~1=(k31MT{7~'.~t 3.~ ~ .P:t4Y5 'A~ .c$~b ~'Y'~;. ~}.1-^ .., . _ _ is ~ r ~ . X' i 1- ~~{ _ =~f ~ S~ ~ ~ E~^Nk• 5v~~~+lKyst :. "~'~ !'n!3r~ys.{ *.I~iA y.~ L '<,~ }'Li hF~J ~,.~~`'~~~iH~ 3' ' ' M ~ ~ Y ~< ih ~ ~~ ~ ~,~~ z c '~ i .~ 11'~±1,53 - . , ~ ~y"~S•7'y~ l j~;1 i~~ t i,. c, ~S ~ ~' e~ I'i~'/`L ~ t~~ t ~ ~~ "~ ~ t.. r dd~~ ~`~~/R\'~ "y,.' _ { ~~ ~ l f.'.+~ f I` L ~11r -.Rq qq~ r ~ "i C1 ;tS^' T..~ ~ Sf M~ ~ M1~! ~ 4 v~Y~ _.Y ^ JY"'.t f {M7 i~ } •}'i. ~ ~M1f'~5~ ~'TA r,A `+ '~+ Sr~:r:'J .~'h~.jf'1 ~UevFf t ba - ,: v t .a ~ k r:~ gi ~ fit ~i +~'1 A~ ii" _ ~ t`' , . E .~ ~ ~ k , ~ , ~ .+ k„~ta 'K 1 rR r h. A 17~' ~ `~~ rr .3`,7,,~yi :~, ~'M.~ r - ~ ~ ~ k 4~~y ty,~cwy~ ~{ ` - .$rn V`k '£ ~f~y,~ t K:( t' My1y~. ~~ ~ ( ~y ~ i t A"~Y .Xa 1 .f~~, ' f R: ~I r ~ ~'~~ a`3'H^r~ 'F i 't" "'-~~ _~~.. ~~ 1`: l ` ' . ++ F a - .-ISr ~ ~ f 34 ~a y t 1 L t.: ~ h~ ~ L ~ t~1K r ~~I~?W ~> ~ ~ y t ,~.~; f ~r~ ~ ; 1, - ~. ~ rP~ ti~~E~r~ ~~ . r~~i ~ ~ j o S~{'? ~ /' 1'4 i ~ ,~r,M ,, £R '~~ ~ti~ ~~?~-~~"~r t'~ i$' „,.~7 #~3' 1A~..Y"3;~n > ~?~:5 ~" e C.la-'2 { "1~1'f~~1~' %z'~ .: ~r ~ . 1 4 ti c 'i ~` ~,, 1..~,,, Yi 'ta^3: ~ 2. 'S4 _ ~ sv..6 L ~- `~ 1~ ~ .+ ~ 7 "~ ~ 1 x~ v .iI k ~ ~ ~ . ', S~ .. .. i '~ „off.. , 7 f~ f i 7. ~ a r ~ ,~~ ~ '~. >yc ~Fy,:t'~~jNf. ~ ~ ~ ~_~fr ~~~. ~ • : ~ - r^`arf 3 P' s9 .r:: r .. ~ ~~$$ ry~C!{ ~~. ` .y~y p', {P ~ ~~ ~ ~ i .i ~ f ~1..rt Yy, ~' ~ ry ~ S¢ ~ ~~ ~ k r ,d- e r` ". y '~ ~~ ~ #' ~~ - ~ ~ " `r~Sirf i t~ ~ 1 3+~ 1 ~~.L~,.~,. i ~5°~' ~~ r , ~ ~6 '~' T'.7 r ~~11ti ot~ l~ {+~~ " ~~Lh~~ 1 c ~ .J¢,{ `k ~f,~,L,L ,~.F ~ t .. k~}`.. ~ ~ ~ y4 '~'~ { ~ p~!'Y. ~ 4~~ - 'j~7~~Ar°~ ~ ~ X44 ~~1,:`fki ~{ ^~.!i '`''gg 1r ?j?2 A'fi'A. i~i:~.XC . ~. `'~- .~ 3y:.~44`~'~{-.1'~~..gF ' } ~ ~ J'j r **~~ ~.i . ~ t J ..h 89+'~~;, }4`'`~ NF ~~N. Y~ hr5 ~VR,~('.,i.r. ` ! ~ t ~ 14~t '~ ~ ~e,1-~'fi~}~}Y~:'~t~t .. S - ~ S~ ~ ..I ~~ 1 _ -~.•c°' r .r rr -4 ra ~} ~~ +,~ {-. ~4 ~~: ~ ty _ / ...fit-~1.~ .. L ~., ~Shk ~ ~~ ~ t `~N~ ~ 4 ~ S - ~ ~ ctrl ',S r ~i~ ~ ~~y ~Ik~~`'~4f~~3 ~ ~`~ ~ R 3..~ w7F ~ 7SY!~xSR r - . a ~:' .. '' , An . -r~g~ryFxy 'i. ~y .'1x.Y~E `r ,~~ y ~'. c~'~ t ~ _# §3:? ., ~!"td _ _ .... i ~'L,1~ ~'*}.;'.~` F~'.•~;~` .~~`;s. t-. as. a''~.i4.b ~ .."~A:s'= ~ ,' - .... yp ~ .:.. ~ 3 t ~, ' •• ' ~~ r a 1LY ~ , ' ~~ .x ~r~ ,~ ~.. > . _ ~~. ., s_~ . ~ • xS ' - ~ r ~ . ~ , : ~ + r ~ h' ft, .~ $ M `~ ~- w _:. r ti., r i kti c v a ~ ~ 'H S~ t. ~ ft ~' i ~~ SS~yy t h>^r4~ ~.. z.:~3... .:t ~ ~ ~ ~,,:d~, ,; 'p~~ ~,:.. . R .'t~`4Y! t~.+~~ , Fb $Y'p4 -. '~ i,£'7 ii !1' °..•=d, .. ~.•~'t~ JS+Y; ~a ~r,~ - ~ ~- _ 5i! f .- f r C F C 6 ~ ? ~ h ~ x ~ N{~ t r t"~ ~ ~3 t~ ~~ - x t ~Z~.rd ~i4~~'±.~A~~~ff?~ id y,dr x~ 't+TV E`, '"9 ~F~ .7.- } T ~. ~~ '. ,, '~ Y % i' !w ~!/y 4 :! ~ R aNr `~ Y it f r .~~ h K.; ~ ryy~-~.i~~~t~ *be `~7. ~ ra r hr_' ~ Fx~~{ j .:F~~i'y~1~ ..~j~+~ ~+ - ~~;``. L F ti,''~.'t ~~ ..i.i: ~""~ ~~ ~i'~ a r,$ ~ t ~ ,,; r_.,~ ~ ,-~w x'.; •• w u ,thy ~.,,~~ ~ t.. a ~ xy .e9 'A ^µw- s~"fi-.. .,.~. ~ ~ ~ kfF.y~~~tt'~~~#, `Y'~~i~r~+~ ,?{'x'.~ i-fit>~a ~u!M.~4.`~ ~ g "f f~~{`Fr.R ~r~-~ "55; ~ tk {.~:. + y rir~w`i~. Y c ~j~~~~k~ a ° s k~f a.r ~ ^x° f'~~.y;, F~ u:-4 -4:,4t~ .fin ,..r:?E"r .~ ~~ 5 t 5 a . '~ " S. >'jt _ ' - r 1 i ~ ~ ? { ~ ~ _ - r # t jr4, '` '$ ~`3`ti` ~i~ad7~-*~f is,.~y~~~k"^n'~.'.t5 ~,` F r x ~. ~ f y~~'t-• ~ F % ~ ~ ~~-i~' ~'~ ~ ~ - '. N .2` {F ~ R f a y.. ~. ~'~ t ~ r F -.At7 fir ,f~i ~„ y~ }+ ~~.~~ 1~~T k .. +~ ^' , 'r IS+~,r h ~ ~y{.1 ' ~~jc ~'~tro~ ~' 7, ~ ~ v Y 4'~r~'' ~~,~ Is'.~.~+ ~fr ~~ L ~~~, ~~`4 ~'PT~-'~ iii ',~`t ,'-~t "~ R. w .i .~r'k ' -'F }r~-.~`i «~ ....- ~.rv ~ ._ P ~ ~ r 5 `a~i ~ a ` 't ~ { ~ ~ ~' 1 l~ K v £ ~ ~ - ss F{ . ~ ~ ~.r„ n ~~': 'a ~~a. •1~#.tY ~~+~;~i~x~i4s,t ""c+..r~ i ~~a rt,1l~s~.,}'x Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 17 of 86 state highway and it would create more issues with traffic flow. Now, I'm going to jump from the collector issue back to the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision. This proposed alternative that was proposed yesterday to ACHD as an alternate to access out of Shepherd's Creek and what we are proposing here -- this is the subdivision. This is the church property here. Currently, as proposed by the developer, this road goes straight out to Garibaldi, then, goes out and exits out. What we would propose is that on the second road, a direct access out, and, then, a direct road out to Miestra, which is the right-in and right-out off of Meridian Road or a direct access out to Victory to a light -- soon to be signalized intersection. ACHD did not approve this, but I still want to offer it up tonight as another alternative. It does provide an alternate route to a primary road. It can be used -- it would be able to be used soon when the light at Victory is up or Miestra, again, you could go right in or right out. Takes pressure off Bear Creek. It allows better emergency vehicle access and it places some of the burden on Shepherd's Creek for improving access. There would be minimal to no cost to taxpayers, whereas a collector would involve significant cost and impacts to the homeowner. And there could be residual lawsuits, issues with the proposed collector road. Prop 2 is on the ballot. I think all of you are aware of that. We are concerned about Prop 2, just as I'm sure the city and county and state governments are, but it's certainly something that's looming out there and it's something we are concerned with also. Newell-Lemaster: Well, I just want the Commission to know that Bear Creek isn't threatening lawsuits, it's just more of making sure that everybody is aware that Prop 2 is out there and we as taxpayers don't want to be paying lawsuits if roads like this are approved and homeowners suffer a loss. If Prop 2 is passed, then, they will have the opportunity to open up a lot of lawsuits for our city and county governments. McGordon: This is just some photos of the -- this proposed location. Miestra right here -- this is Miestra coming off Meridian Road going into Bellissima Strada. Over here is the church's access road and, then, the road from Shepherd's -- the alternate proposed road from Shepherd's Creek would come in here, tie into the church's access road, and, then, dump onto Miestra or it could go straight out Alfini. Alfini is shown here. The church road is shown here. Just a quick summary of the access and collector road issues. Want to make it clear that the Bear Creek residents do oppose the signalized collector street. It was not originally designed as part of Bear Creek development. It's now being proposed as an after-thought. Bear Creek roads are not designed to handle that amount of traffic or that potential amount of traffic, so it's certainly an issue. We do support also the alternate access that's recommended by ACHD at the meeting yesterday that was held. Other issues with traffic -- construction traffic. We do not want construction traffic going through the subdivision, provide -- our recommending to provide an alternate access for the construction traffic, not to go through Bear Creek. Fire and emergency vehicles, again, no direct access from a primary road. I think that's a critical point. The safety of our Bear Creek residents and children. Along one segment of the road where this goes out there is over 35 children just within about 12 houses on the other segments of the road. There is roughly 65 to 75 children. So, there is a lot of small children. So, I was very happy to hear Matt suggest that tot lot .~; y .~, Meridian Planning & Zoning ~:' ~ September 21, 2006 Page 18 of 86 __y `=~~, would be put in, because it certainly would serve the large number of children that live on the two streets that stub off going into Shepherd's Creek. ~,._ ~`' ~~ '`'~- Rohm: Ma'am, you need to conclude here pretty quick. Your presentation has already `` exceeded the applicant's time and really this -- in fairness to both you need to -- "~:; McGordon: Okay. I'm going to -- - ~:-:' Newton-Huckabay: Your presentation has almost been a half an hour. s : Rohm: And that's why I have allowed her to continue, but you need to -- -;, ;~ McGordon: Okay. I'll go through the rest quickly. "~ ;; Rohm: Thank you. :~ n: 5 McGordon: I'm -- these are proposed actions. Obviously, we oppose the collector road. rc~ We want to reduce the density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day. Provide '{f t: Y.; ' direct access to a primary road. Require a separate construction access. And require a t` ~ direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency. Density. The big issue. Bear ~:~~: Creek is low density. Shepherd's Creek is medium density. The original zoning of the church property was public-quasi public. Proposed density of Shepherd's Creek, 55 ~•~ ~~ >: homes on 12 acres, approximately 4.6 homes per acre, versus the 2.6 of Bear Creek ~~ ~ ~' ~ and, then, 2.5 of Bellissima Strada and others in the area. Transportation access is the ;. key issue for us. The surrounding land use is a definite consideration with the density, ' the location of this, the intensity of the existing use, are definite factors in lowering the r_ .. density of this development. We proposed that the city judiciously apply their own guidance, the intensity of the use, the underlying zoning, surrounding land use, the ~" ~ location of the ro e p p rty, and transportation issues. In consideration of this, guidance from the adjacent views, lower the land density, land use density, consistent with land ~ ~? use surrounding Shepherd's Creek, which is 2.6 homes per acre. Other issues we have r ' are home values. The values of homes in Shepherd's Creek -- or, excuse me, in Bear Creek range from 350,000 all the way up to 900 000. The increased density we feel s' '~ , would lower -- would negatively impact the values of Bear Creek homes and to maintain ~' our property value, we feel that the less density and -- would help in that -- in that 4 r; , manner. Actions. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Bear .- Creek. Reconfigure and add usable green space. Drainage is an issue. Bear Creek is generally lower in elevation than the adjacent property. We want to assure that the site ~~ and the drainage plans address containment within the development. We didn't see ~' ~ anything in the ACHD report, we didn't see anything in the Meridian Planning and Zoning report addressing drainage, so we would like to see something that addresses that. Again, actions -- recommend that we require a drainage pond that addresses x ~ containment and management of all the runoff within the development. Open space av. and parks. Shepherd's Creek has minimal usable, it's all pass-through, it's landscape medians, limited value. If that were reconfigured and all put together in one location, it ~- ~ ;: >" would be much more functional and usable and add value to the development. Y f, I~ i ~ ryj~ ' .v.. :. _ ~ :. = ~ _ , 1 r "~ y,~ '~z.. f ~. ~1F,ine'w.~ . '.~. K fi~ `. ? i~.ll Q ~ ~ A ~I~ ~ ( Cy ~. ` <r~~~. ~~; ~ - ,:;fir. {~, :~ '-5 dye f ~+~rR `, ~y~ k i~%x P :' l,f:P ~ ~_ f ~~ '`9~ f ~:sc ~ ' ,~ y. ~` - ~r;-. s ~: y~' ~; f ~~ ~_, zr '~ R3; V •l~~.y, , { E A ~'1 ~~~{ ~ ~~~ s1 - _ , yl~l.~'1.~7 _..: ~J~ ~~ _ ~ '' `~' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning - September 21, 2006 P age 19 of 86 a, ~~ Recommendations. Required the redesign of the open space. Locate the leftover spaces collectively. Just stated that. Provide amenities that are usable. A tot lot. Great idea. Bear Creek residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development. Requires CCRs for Shepherd's Creek that are consistent or equal to those established for Bear Creek. ~~ ~ ~~~ Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish a homeowners association or to join Bear +~~~ Creek. There is no street tree plantings proposed within the entire development, only ` ~ limited. If property values are to be maintained, then, at a minimum there should be " ~~ street trees within the development. Recommendations require street trees and median plantings throughout the Shepherd's Creek Subdivision, but at a minimum require '~ ;: transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads, so it reflects the adjacent character r:<s. and quality of our neighborhood. I'm at the end. We request that the Meridian Planning - and Zoning give careful and informed consideration to the issues that we have raised ,F ~ : tonight for the 243 people that have signed this petition. Thank you. .~~~; ~~ ~: # Rohm: Thank you. Are there any questions of this person that gave this testimony? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. L . Borup: Just a couple. I had several written down, but most of them have been '. answered as the presentation went on. But maybe just a clarification for my end that #~~~ ..~ may affect the other, but several of your comments were there was concern there was no outlet to the primary road. I assume that your proposal for that was the access to h~~ ~ ~~ Meridian Road that was on the south -- south side of this? That was your proposed answer to that? Okay. ~' ` - McGordon: The Miestra-Alfini Way outlet. , 4:':~- ~ Borup: Okay. The other may be a comment and that was on -- you were assuming that ~ ~; the 8,200 traffic volume on Kodiak. That would be one hundred percent of all the traffic from all seven subdivisions -- ~~p ~,, McGordon: That's correct. ,t, '' Borup: And that is, obviously, a very false assumption, that a hundred percent of all ~' seven subdivisions would travel down Kodiak. I don't know what that answer would be, _ ~s but, obviously, it's not that figure. You know, a traffic engineer would show that, that -~`~k ` that would not happen at a build out. y f3~ ~~~ McGordon: We concur with that, but just showing potentially what the local area generates. ;, -; Borup: But not down that street. z; ~_~,~ McGordon: No, not down that street directly. °.~; ~. ~= ?r: '~~i ;q; ~ ~~" •4 Y. _ ~{5 lh?~ t ... ~~ ~1 '• f•': I „~ s ~, ~, a ._~ ;.~- :~~~. _; "~ gg~~ ,~ ,, F}79~ 4 u~ ,: ~~; ~ ~~~ ~. ~~. _' ,. ;; -< ~~,, . ,j'r f: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 20 of 86 Borup: And I didn't understand your comments on Proposition 2 on how that even affected anything here. McGordon: Well, yes, in the -- Borup: Other than that by denying this project they would be the ones that would have maybe grounds to sue. McGordon: Well, I think the concerns that were raised yesterday at the ACRD meeting were that if this collector street went through and it had impacts on the existing Kodiak, people whose property value along that -- Borup: Right. Proposition 2 had to do with eminent domain. McGordon: No. It also has a section on taking based on city and county governments, establishments of zoning and ordinances. Borup: Okay. McGordon: There is a copy of Prop 2 in the folder for you. Borup: Yeah. I read the section you had underlined. McGordon: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I mean that is a proposal on the ballot. It doesn't have any impact on that. I think it's just for illustrative purposes is why it's raised as testimony, but it is not the law in Idaho and the law as applied in other states don't relate to what this presentation is talking about, it relates to the property owner, who is the applicant, as Councilmember -- or as Commissioner Borup has stated, it would apply to the applicant, not necessarily to everyone else that might live along the street or anything else and that's how it's been applied in other states, but it isn't the law here, so it is just for illustrative purposes for the sake of the record. Borup: And that's what I had understood, too. Maybe just a clarification on the comment on open space. You talked a lot about redesigning here. Is there any usable open space in Bear Creek? I'm not aware of any tot lots or -- McGordon: No, there is no tot lots, but the Bear Creek developer gave the park. Borup: Right. That's the city park. McGordon: Right. Borup: Okay. And that's what I thought. There is no usable open space in Bear Creek at all. .; o ~; ;.;;:+ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 `' `? Page 21 of 86 _ McGordon: The open space are the connecting pathways that go from the different blocks to the -- ;; Borup: Right. But you spent a lot of time talking about usable space. }~ McGordon: Right. ,„ ~ ~ Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. ;-;_: Rohm: I think as opposed to going down through the list of names that have signed up - to speak, by all means, anybody that has something additional to say is welcome to and I think I will just take them one at a time if there is -- ~' Nary: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record you do need to go through the list. ;~ If the spokesperson has spoken for them, you can check that off and they -- but you do `- "'~~ ~ ;~ need to go through that for the purpose of the record. ,;; Rohm: Okay. I'll go through. Austin? Has been spoken for. Ann Croy? Been spoken ~ for. Eleanor James. Been spoken for. Rodney Larkey. Been spoken for. Leslie t~ Madsen? You may come forward, please. ~;> ~~ Madsen: My name is Leslie Madsen and I live at 465 Kodiak and I do confirm mainly ~ ~~~ what has already been said in issue with Bear Creek, but I would invite each of you to go into Bear Creek, if you haven't already, and drive around Kodiak and some of those very curvy streets. I have some real concerns as a homeowner, because I feel like there was some deception with my developer if, indeed, this becomes a collector street, which it was not originally designed for. And so I do support all of the arguments that :~ have been given this evening. But I would invite you to come to Bear Creek and I would r ~ invite you to think about your own homes and where you are and if you're living on a _ quiet street and built your home there for that purpose, that you wonder how you would ~ tip' feel if that suddenly became a main connector. I don't think it has the characteristics that we need to have as a connector street, which has been supported by ACHD already. And so I just want you to know that as a homeowner we are very concerned about the change of complexion of our development if this does, indeed, take place. So, come and see us in Bear Creek. ~~~ Rohm: Before you step away from the microphone I'd like to just offer a comment and ~,~ all three of the developments surrounding this 12 acres all have stub streets into this 12 ~ ~~ ~"~~ ` acres and I think that it should have been understood that that's what those stub streets were for, that there will be additional development and there will be additional traffic on the roads and we, as a planning and zoning commission, try to encourage _ interconnectivity between developments, as opposed to having each individual development have its own access to -- of the main thoroughfares. ~: :z~1 ~~ ~,+ ,, ~: ~~~ :; ~,~~. ,r~~ '. ,. , ti_ s ,x ~,3 ~ .~~, r ~- ~; Y {-~~: ~~ w, ~~,. Yr - r'I ,,. .~~,~U~. ri3,~ ~% gat ~ j :~~ -, ~; .,` r .;,~, -~, ,~ ,, • s Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 22 of 86 Madsen: And I am not opposed to any of the development of Shepherd -- Valley Shepherd or whatever it is. I understand that that was going to be developed. There are the stub streets. What I have a concern about is connecting Meridian Road with Stoddard, which is already an access road between Overland and Victory Road and as Matt has pointed out, I believe that the Ten Mile connector on the interstate is going to take away a lot of the traffic that comes along Overland, leaving those free for more access for the school traffic and so on that will be needed on Stoddard. So, when we get that interchange, which has been promised a long time ago, hopefully, that will take all the people that come from the northern Meridian area and travel Overland, that little leg of Overland. But, thank you, I just wanted to -- Borup: Ma'am, I -- a clarification question. Madsen: Yes. Borup: You said you felt that maybe your developer had deceived you? Could you elaborate on that? Madsen: Well, because when -- first of all, when we built our home, the ground behind us was going to be church property and -- Borup: No, but how does he have any control over that? Madsen: No, the deception is not so much in that, because it would have had to have been a very huge building to occupy all of that space and so the development I have no problem with. The deception is that if this now becomes a busy thoroughfare along Kodiak when it was a quiet residential road, it, to me, is a deception. Borup: How would it be a deception? Madsen: Well, it's unfair, then, let's say, for the city -- Borup: Oh, so you expected that the developer would have known four years ago that this was going to happen today? Madsen: No. I guess I -- if that was approved. Then, maybe it's not the developer's deception, I guess it's the city's deception if you approve one plan and, then, change the plan and I'm just asking that you consider very carefully that -- if you change that configuration of those streets to make it a collector street that does affect a lot of them. Rohm: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I know all the Commissioners are aware of this, but since the last speaker brought it up, while the matter is pending you can't go out there to the site and go view the streets and drive through the subdivision. The Idaho Supreme Court has Y~.~':.. ~~t~° Meridian Planning & Zoning .r,~ September 21, 2006 ~''- Page 23 of 86 ~y prohibited that type of action. So, just for you and for the other applicants to understand ~;~ that while this matter is pending you can't do that. .. ?~ w:.4r Borup: I have done that many times already, though. 2 Nary: But as -- but for the purposes of making a decision for this project you aren't able ' "~`~ s to do that, so -- .- ~~ Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I'll quit as well. Okay. The next name on the list is Randy '•~" ~., McGordon. You have been spoken for or would you like to speak? Okay. Shawna r °`~ Mitztra? She's been spoken for. Chad Whipple. Joel Hammer. Would you like to y.y~ come forward, please? r~ : Hammer: Commissioners, my name is Joel Hammer, I live at 327 West Cave Bear '` ~~ Court in the Bear Creek Subdivision. Just a few comments. I agree with what has been ,a- presented as far as from the homeowners association in relationship to the collector _; ~ road. I, too, am against it and would not support that. I think the only point where ~' disagree with them is on the density as far as within the subdivision itself. I am not opposed to the density as far as it's being proposed by the developer. I think that a ~`~< development with mixed densities in there, such as a Tuscany or other developments like that, creates a strong community environment, as well as providing opportunities for `~ ~~" all to come and live within the confines of that development. I don't believe that the r.-:`~~>} homes themselves are going to be a value hinderment to the Bear Creek Subdivision. . ~ Based on land prices, based on appreciation rates and so forth, I believe that the homes , `~' ~~ - ~~ there will be -- again, as the developer stated, somewhere in the 300,000 range, entry "' level, as well as with the larger lots I think that you are going to see some large values ~~ :~~° 4 within the homes. And so I do not believe that it's going to hurt my home value or the ; , ~^~ values of other Bear Creek residents within this development itself. Again, I believe that '- ~ ~. a mixed -- a mixed site within lots is healthy for an environment. I think it's healthy for a <r community. I think it allows different ranges of income and of other areas to be able to ~'-i come into the development and, again, we are not talking substandard here, these are going to be nice homes and these are going to be homes that are going to have value ~- ~~`,: within the community and are not going to be at the low end, they are still going to be a -' ~ ~~ mid range to a high end home within this development. That's all I have to say. ~_ Y. Rohm: Thank you. h Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'm curious. What do you do for a living? ~._ :~': Hammer: What I do for a living is I develop. Moe: Thank you. N; Hammer: For a portion of that. I mean I also have other businesses along with that. ~t ~4 Moe: Appreciate that very much. ~' ~ -~ ' 4' ~+' '. ~ 1 ~. a, . i -.. ,. - ~t'. -.c '"t g - _. .A -; ~: cap - ,z " a(:a$~t s' 'S , f t t.. 'i ~ . { i ,~, , gAp ::e; . R x „ ', , - - . 1 I I I , M ,-:-r i ! N ; J 11 i¢ ` ' -uy}... {. ~ y. ~~ ~ .. a k' .. ~. . i .~ •- .. . . +.la . - i I 9 ~ . • ~. F ~• .1 Y.:+" `i waa '~~ i . i ' '^ } _ i h Q - .. 1 t ~ 1. ~' a s ~~~ 1 ~ F'., 'fi'T ~ y,*{~ ` ... ~' ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 r °; Page 24 of 86 `t Rohm: Okay. Good question. Okay. Tim Graver. Been represented. Carolyn Seagle. `''~lk: She's been spoken for. And Carolyn Smith. Been spoken for. Did I miss anybody? I do have Ray Schild. r__ - Schild: I'm an attorney for the developer. I'll speak during rebuttal. :,, ~,. ;:: ~, Rohm: That's why I bypassed you earlier. I assumed that was the -- that is all the ~~" people that were on the list, but if there is anybody else that would like to come forward ::,.4 to speak to this matter, now is the time. Okay. Before we get to the rebuttal, we are going to take a short break. Thank you. About ten minutes. '` (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and before we go any further I'd like the record to reflect that Commissioner Borup is in the attendance tonight and that's noted and -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? a- ~.~ `: ~`~~ ~. ;~i s ,,_: - `' ~. ~I ~;~~ ': i;~ =~ ~~ ~1 ~:: z Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Before we have rebuttal I'd like to ask staff one other question. I was curious in the earlier testimony it was made note that -- that the Bear Creek group supported the alternative access that ACRD had proposed. In this report there was an alternative that -- okay. Hood: Let me explain that a little bit. They originally supported an alternative access and I can show you on this -- again, two weeks ago they required the applicant to build the street over -- let's see. Where is Miestra. And connect with Miestra, which currently ends like somewhere in here. So, that would have been the fourth access point. The applicant, as was mentioned, asked ACRD to reconsider that action and, in fact, yesterday they reversed or overturned their original action and did not require that. So, in effect, what you're looking at here is what ACHD approved. Their other change was that they extend this stub street over and cul-de-sac it onto this site. That's my understanding. I have not seen that in writing from ACHD, but that's the other change, I guess, that they made yesterday. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Well, to expand on that before we go to rebuttal, if, in fact, they extend that stub to the east and left the cul-de-sac there, is it not possible to tie that into Meridian Road at a later date? Hood: It would be. That is assuming that this -- a portion of this church redevelops in the future and there is some feasibility of that. I mean they have some -- a large portion Y h 2~ 1 W }, ~} x ~7 }fr T --' s', R. - ~~l'.' to ~~ t_ _ t ~Hw r .~ - ~; ti ~ r '"k 3 ~ r 1 z. t; t ~+; e.~ ~{..~ ~`~ ,~' ~ ~:~ n~? ~~ -Fa •: ,,.,; ,~~:i. TM ' w j; IF.`, f a - w ~~~ ~ 'n~ ~;~t 1 3 ` ~ .r, ~~4$~ r j~~~i Fr , + ~a ~',~ - y5 ~ ~ _ ~ r:Y. `.~, r , ~M ~ F `,'~ W C ~? r R~ i F~ >. 2 - .. ~, `~ ~,,,, ,,~? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 25 of 86 down here that they -- I don't know the church's master plan for the 20 acres they are retaining. There is some potential I see to do a similar thing and subdivide it again and `~ potentially split some of this off. Something else that Ithink -- since we started talking s about bad accesses is just a point to note is that the church does not even tie into the ~~:` subdivision that's proposed here and people that are living here that may attend the r"~ R, church have to drive in their cars and drive through an adjacent subdivision just to get to church and to that end as well, if you look at the people exiting church, will have to drive through Strada Bellissima to get out to go anywhere and, in fact, they can't just use Miestra in the future, because that's supposed to be restricted to right-in, right-out. They have to drive through a residential subdivision to get out to the light at Victory. So, ',~x~y you have not even interconnectivity amongst the subdivision. And I'm sorry I didn't call =~F~ that out earlier, but it's a good point by ACRD that, you know, you're not even providing ~~` that interconnectivity amongst your own lots, so -- it's something that -- to ponder, "' u{ 4 anyway, and to think about, too, which isn't called out in the staff report, but something that -- ~t' . . , , `~Kti ,,: Rohm: Where is the church going to exit currently? ~r~=' Hood: Oh, let's go the other way. So, the church -- this is their driveway here. So, this . b :~: is the one and only access point they have. They will come down and today you can ,~~ turn out on Miestra and make a left or right turn. The approval for this access point given by ITD in 2004 or 'S, I believe it was, with the approval of Strada Bellissima, was conditioned that this shall be restricted to right-in, right-out. Now, that hasn't happened ~' i~ as of today, but the permit granting for this access says right-in, right-out. So, that, in effect, turns everyone in this subdivision again, to have to go down Strada Bellissima, '~ a ~ ~ church patrons, in and out -- you know, they could come in still, I guess. You could still ~'-~ right-in if you're coming -- heading south, but that is the dominant movement today. `` Again, in the future it would be down all the way half mile to get a signalized '`'~`~ ~~ ~~ intersection. ~~ :r:: Rohm: And there is no access off of Meridian Road into the -- Hood: Correct. No access. !~rV~L ~,9 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we go to the rebuttal at this time -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Y" Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~~'_ Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, I was just curious, what would be the point of the cul-de-sac ~a~ -- I mean I know you're trying to build homes around it on the church property. ,~, ~~~ Hood: Ithink the intent of that -- and, again, someone that was there may clarify, but if I understand correctly -- I mean it's either you have a stub and if it's not going to be ;.`ti 5~a~ a} S; ,~k, ~~i w ?. .~~. .. !u"~; w~t~; ~Y4';, %~, t~ ~r Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 =::~Yj Page 26 of 86 extended, make it a turnaround, you know, so it's not forever just a stub hanging out `}~ there. I'm not quite sure why they didn't just make it a loop and chop off that whole thing. If they aren't having the street go out, I'm not quite sure. But that would be my ~~: guess. I don't -- '?' Newton-Huckabay: Some effort to make it look finished. Hood: Exactly. That's what Iwould -- '~` Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come back up, please. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska, representing the ~~~,~ applicant. If I could start with Caleb's comments first while they are still fresh in my mind, because I didn't write them down as thoroughly as I did the testimony before. Start with the first thing of that stub street. He is correct, the very end of the -- of the recommendation there was a little confusion from ACHD about that. I talked to her _ afterwards and we are going to round that off right there, because it is a stub street that's only 90 feet long. We have done it in a few other places. Make it look permanent. ~. There is no need for a turnaround if you're less than 150. So, there was a little `4 confusion. Staff -- Lori Hartog, planning development director, has agreed to -- not officially in writing, but we have talked about just doing it that way and -- that's not working right. ~~~ Rohm: I have got another one right here. ' ~=~ Schultz: I have got one, too. Just to round the sidewalk -- extend the sidewalk to -- extend the right of way there that -- if something changes, which I don't see happening, but let's just say something changes that, you know, it could go through. It wouldn't °'~~ change a thing, but for now it looks finished. And it is pedestrian and we could connect ~~, fire and emergency there. As far as church patrons driving around -- you know, I drive ~, to church, it -- it's not very far at all. Pretty quick trip, actually. Not to go out on the main road is pretty convenient. And that's how -- I know how the church leaders feel about it, ~,; x it's a lot better than their downtown location that people have to drive to. It could be convenient if anybody happens to live in the neighborhood or the surrounding neighborhoods for that. Back to the alternate access, just to clarify. Caleb is correct, at the initial ACRD hearing the commissioners were seeking a compromise and they didn't have enough information to really evaluate the fourth access. I mean we have three accesses for 55 lots. I showed them that there is about a 20 second jog in here that's different than that. You know, it doesn't add any appreciable drive time reduction. If anything, it does provide a little jog, which I think is beneficial. I know I live up in Bear Creek where I drive further than these people will and I find it very convenient where I live near Meridian Road. So, I don't see this as any great reduction. And once ACHD saw the numbers, they saw the facts a little bit better, they said, oh, yeah, you're right, we don't need that. Three accesses is plenty. In fact, these three accesses, based on .. - << ,,, T 7~,1i~; ~ J ~4' I~ ~~ ~ fit. ~t '+ ~l ~j ff ~~ l~ ~~~ ~ ~~ *: w Y, r IQ 4 T.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 32i r, ~L fif ~. ' ~ ~ ;rF~~ ~A.... ~ ~Y ~ ~~~. 3 ~~~ ~ ~ ~,~: ~ 4 Y.y. l: •~#ii. f V Y k'~.~R i ,~y ~J. {~ a [ »~ "f ~{ ~~ ~ yrt ~ r ~} s ~,~,~ ', ~ f^ Y r~~rc~.i~x'tA' i A r -S K ~7i~ I~ `~~i~~ y. Tfi - ~ ~yy `~' %~ „'`~ I t ~' }` , s~ ' `~,~~ a .- ~+~~ c ~~ ~ ~- a• xt' • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 27 of 86 ='' our traffic study, would handle 150 homes. Not that that would be politically advisable to propose that many, but, technically, it would. So, we are way under any warrants °~ with those three accesses for the traffic. I'm going to dive into -- as quick as I can, but still to be as thorough as I can with the very thorough and professional presentation that was done by the homeowners association. I do appreciate them showing up. I'm not going to belabor the collector point anymore. I think everybody is unanimously opposed to that to be built now. Or, really, ever, in my opinion, but somebody could change their '`t , mind later. Like Joe Hammer said, these price ranges, based on his experience doing other developments, are going to be 300 plus, just like Kimberly said Bear Creek is. This is not going to be any different, the lots will be a little narrower, the architecture ```%~.: may be a little skinnier, a little bit deeper, a little hallow, but you still have the same square footage homes -- or close. You're not going to have the 6,000s like we have with South Bear Creek, but you're still going to have the same -- as much as you need. We do have pedestrian walkways. We do have lighted streets. Meets standards just E like Bear Creek. The density is different, like I said, but we do believe it's a transitional .: r4,, ~ density, it blends in perfectly, it does provide a mix. And when you look at the bigger ~ }. section of Strada Bellissima, Elk Run, Bear Creek, it is all one big subdivision, really, interconnected. The density is about 2.6. With our addition they go to 2.7. We are not f`' drastically changing the bigger neighborhood that we are coming into. It's a very slight ~° slight increase of density. A distinct and separate entrance. We are kind of { geographically limited to have a distinctive separate entrance. If we were close to a main road we would have one. With our three stub streets we think we are more than $~ covered. We do -- like I said previously, we had -- the way Meridian planning and zoning ordinance calculates usable open space, we have six and a half percent. Bear . Creek has three percent, if you exclude the city park, which was separate from the rests 4 of them. Strada Bellissima has three percent. Elk Run has zero usable open space, because that was done back in the mid '90s when there was no ordinance. So, we ~: ~ exceed on the way it's calculated. Now, it may not look like much, but we are only 12 acres. We do exceed the requirements of anything in the neighborhood for open space. And it is -- it's usable. We are going to put a playground in there. We didn't originally. We will revise the landscape plan to add that before we go to City Council and make it more usable than it was before. There was a comment about a burden on Bear Creek. I see Bear Creek -- can you go back to an overall? Yeah. That works. I see Bear Creek residents driving out right now through Strada when I drive home a night. Not everybody is going to go this way, some people are going to -- we all share these public ~`~ roads. We all -- they are built to standards that allow parking, they are plenty wide, you know, we have got to watch out for the kids. I mean if there is one house or 50 houses, .- z. we have got to be careful when we drive, obey the speed limit, but we all share these roads and we are not a burden on any one subdivision, we are -- it's very well dispersed with our three stub streets. The petition -- you know, they only got -- they got less than half the homeowners. I do appreciate their -- their getting organized and I do appreciate her participation, but -- but -- I'll just skip right on passed that. The lot -- she says she liked lot size more than home value. Not everybody wants lot size more than home ~' ~ value. Everybody has adifferent -- we think we have some of each. We have lot size - and we have some that are smaller lot size, but still a good home value. Drainage ;:: issues. This is about 20 feet higher than this. There is a drain that goes through the ~- riT ~~ ~- Yom' L~- ~ ~11~.~ `.. - - try~'' !s 1 .V ~'. W ,C ~ ~~~ } ~. - t?/~_ ~ ~~~~~ ~ '~; W ~ 4 . r ` 1H ~ ~R ; Y ~, k'; ~ 1 JY< P 6 `~ f ~~~ ~• x~~ ~fi ~ ~,~ ~'~~ r h~~ n ~ r r~ a~ ,gz sM 3~~'i'~ `~~ -~~' _ u r ~. Y'{{r- t a i~y~~ - - t~~ :y k .Ve h ~-~ }~ ~~ ~~ it 1., ~t SS l:f ~ 4 .~R ~ M1~ ~t y1 q Y' y " t -,fi A _ ~ k ~ 6~,~. -t, ~ . ~'~ ~~~ - - 2~ a', a •ti ~ ' q.`.~._, ~~ :-, _ . t _-.; r ~~ 5:, 7 , ~ ~ , = :, ti ~. , ~ ! ~'~ S _ ~ ~ xa ~~ w ~ ~~ ~> T ' , r ,~. ~: .t ' hti. s;H }~ 4~• T ~~r. ~~ ~tiy~ ~~Y f Y ~ t ~ x :~5 )~~ ' r I ..f ~ fisa ~ rte ';~' i . ,.i, . r h ~ .. S~ .~ %Y f~1c t ~. ~`' '' y ~.- ~L,= r Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 28 of 86 middle. We are going to put that underground. You know, I left working for Bear Creak when this was just getting started, Bear Creek Seven, and I think they didn't finish this property line too well, so that rear line -- there is a little low -- I think when the farmer was irrigating this in the meantime some of that drainage may have ponded back there. I'm not sure. I know when we come in we are going to look at that real closely to see what we can do to -- obviously, we are going to -- they are not going to farm it anymore, we are not going to be flood irrigating, but also to see what we can do to help the situation that we didn't create, but we will try to fix, if there is a problem there. That's just some of the comments I have heard at the neighborhood meeting, but this is an issue right along here. The elevationwise, it's 20 feet from up here to down here. There is a pretty big slope. CC&Rs. We are going to have some strong CC&Rs out. I don't believe it's a full requirement that we debate those. It's a private enforcement issue. We are striving to have a lot of the same builders that built in Bear Creek, maybe some different ones. At that price point we have got to do nice things, we have got to enforce - the architecture and just not let anybody build anything they want and that's our goal As far as joining, I don't see that happening right away. It could happen later after we get built and those homeowners could join their buddies across the fence if they wanted to, but that would be their choice after we get it up and built out. The alternate routes -- we have got Calderwood, Miestra, Alfini, Grisly, Kodiak, Christopher -- I think there is six or seven routes out to major arterials within a half mile. It's really exceptional if you look at it compared to some other areas of town. But we do have good alternate access, we - do have good emergency access. As far as the traffic increase, it's a five percent increase in traffic, compared to what's already there today, with the 550 lots, going up to about 600. Again, I already commented on the density increase being 1/10th of a percent. As far as notification of that ACRD hearing, they were well prepared for ACHD. They found out, they presented their point well. I don't think they lost anything by -- we didn't try to get anything by them, we were just trying to clarify a certain issue and I guess we forgot to notify them, but they showed up and were very effective in making their point known at ACHD. The fire and emergency access, we haven't had any specific recommendations from fire and emergency access. We have heard some vague concerns. We believe that this location here, if you look at its distance, is . superior to some locations up in here, like where I live, but I still have great access. There is some areas over here, you get the line back in, they still have good access. I really don't see this as any major deficiency to emergency access. However, if we need ~ - to connect an additional emergency access back here we could. We have allowed for that. We haven't heard that recommendation yet, but we have allowed for it as it comes forward. We have -- we have added the tot lot. As far as street trees, if you want to plant -- to have detached sidewalk with street trees, it requires a 62 foot right of way these days. That's what ACHD went to. We don't have room, but we will be providing street trees in the yards, just like Bear Creek has. And we are not going to not -- it's shown on our landscape plan, but those are required with -- with the lots per the CC&Rs. As a developer we require at least two in the bigger lots, at least one in the smaller ones, in the shrubs and everything else. It makes that streetscape look good. You know, I could speak to Leslie Madsen's note on the deception issue. I know worked for Greg Johnson on the original and nobody ever ever thought that this collector would come about. I remember having specific discussions about, heck, no, ~ :H~'~" °~''"r~?M`±.siy."yn,s `-'+.oct"i,'xr~;: Y ~.x~ rr -j{< - _ ------.-- - -- -' - ~ r i,q .. '~ I * 1~~: x.s y yQ~~4 ?` r ~~, ntS~ ~ 4'+4 }~~ ~ ~.T?• C, to - ~~ t ~ ~~d ,a{-. ~k",~+t ~,~. }~ Ft ~ n.~~ r r L~!1,~. ~~t t3 $ ~,, 3 4~ ~~"'C ~ A `+.~r~ f r'~~ ~ ~~ gs r ~ ~SP t~~~t ~ ~ Lt tii -.i ~t X41 '#r~~i~ ~~v~~ itti _r ~i r~~~ k '3:5 :. - ~ -'yi T t 'f' jxv ~•~ y,~ - ~ Y, iy, ,fii t j y.>,,}~ r ~ i i ~ - S~*~' i ,:.> > r}~,,~'++~~tF"F~~~~~3~I"il•:~~ i.~y.4.r'~~s^~~.'1'S7 ~''!L."}fi,3'4-~°.'2f'1 ~i~ s = ~ y,$ x~r 1 ~i ~I~~ :,slid ~,~ ~,n ~~?~~1~+3. - `~ ,r 42x5: I .;~` ~ SkF' emu: $:~~' ~r~ ~s.~~ F + s ti~r'j ~ ° ",'v1 s "~.,~"t?• +~~+~kt?3µ t.. . ~, 1 y r ,r ~ -.~ .c " ~ ., l " x J-,c r- ..::<..,~.,w h ..4~~c ~s. y.F x ..( r cl 44 Ei vy -;lir - ~~ .Y ~ ,1.5 Y Ft_} ff ~ ~+R~3~~•~ ..y.~Y??TC ~. L'!g1•ju ~ 7r ::~~~~1 ,~ _•y ~?~~3 Tq ` k 'S4> R f F~~i ~Gf li., t tYt 7~ ::r1. ~'~ ~~ sv'w~` Y~ 'P~~' ~S't'~~ ~'~"A°`I`~"1 ~t~~ ~~' ~~ jfk.~ , 'k• ~ t•' ,.. . ~ ~~ F{ ; v L,i: +i J~k' §.'y ...r x z n ~ } j. ~ t+. ~ ~ ,~ rr _,.'s i t {'~ Y ~.{,,. ~. ~{ R t rC~x~K'1~~rZ~: ~~ x'''y~~iy~°lF~j'~'}~?'x~.p. ~c ,rxirh wz.~"~~t,. r.' ~ ' ~ ~ r~ J I '~ ti ~S~ t r roc r •~ ~ i ~ r .~~~t .,-~~ f ~.' _~~ ~F~~yy.,~r TLi,hn 'kl~f 3-r-c YID .tom 2? S. :,a ~ ~ l~~ Yy . { ~ •~~ i~ ray ~ '{-q~ '' ' J 7i ~~.~. G~~i. .. ~~] R'fs :'~Fl~l 1~~y ,~'S~~~ ~~~. t h~~+Z1i~7F~.. - _..-. - - - _ -. .. ... .-L .'is ... .. ~;~ 3, .. ~~ j -` • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 r' ~ Page 29 of 86 ~ '. '• ~ we are not going to have any access here, at City Council just a few years ago. So, it's ~= ~~ really kind of come back full circle, so it was a real surprise for me when I took this on to _ see that it was back and it wasn't going away very easy. But I do appreciate stafFs ~ planning for the potential for a light there. That may be totally appropriate once you see ~~:; what's going on over here. They are really access challenged on this side of the road, because they don't have any mid mile collector behind them and they don't have any }` ~ stub streets. So, this might warrant a signal there. I think it's just -- that's fine. Put a - t signal there. ITD will let you. Just don't connect it to Bear Creek and I think that's the f.:.~ ~ main concern. I do appreciate, you know, the amount that responded, 14 different ~,~ people said what they wanted and they were very thorough. I do believe we have a good mix. The mix is good. The R-8 is not an adverse zoning. It could have been if we Y': .~ u`''~~ would have crammed 66 lots in there, which would be the maximum I could have got with an R-8. We went with a compromise. This does reflect a compromise, I think, in the initial design. I don't like to get up and jam as many as I can and try to negotiate at s' F the podium, because that could go south on you real quick if you try that route, although some guys might try it. But we have put the thought into it and hope that you will F,_: support it as proposed, with the accesses as proposed, and move us forward to City Council with your recommendation, with the respectful, you know, recommendation for 7 R-8, even though staff did recommend an R-4, we believe with the lot -- with the size of ~ _~~ lots we are dealing with, an R-4 does allow a 64 foot wide lot, it just needs to be deeper. ~ ';'~ We don't have the luxury of depth on this site, so 4.5 to the acre is just very very slightly ::~ over the four that's allowed with R-4. So, I think we are really close and I hope that ~- ~.~ works for you and we can move forward with your recommendation. So, thank you. ~~i Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? r ; .:<F Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. ~ F ~~ ~I Rohm: Commissioner Borup. `~_ . ~: x ' ~`- Borup: It just came to me -- it was on your comments concerning the R-8 and R-4. Has there been any preliminary decisions on square footage sizes that would be in your ,,,1 ~. CC&Rs? °' ~ Schultz: Honestly, no. If I could speculate as to what those would be, though, I -- on th - ose 50 foot lots what we have been seeing m other areas, the minimum you get down ~'I to is 1,400, but you're seeing more 1,600, 1,800, up to 24 hundred, 25, on the 50 foot l t Th i o s. e s ngle story, if -- every once in awhile you get somebody -- like I have got a •_~~' gentleman -- my grandmother, she just wanted a 1,400 square foot home. That was ,~ plenty for her. And you will find people like that -- Borup: And that's what I was wondering, the minimum on the R-4 is 1,400. ~, 5 '" - Schultz: And there is no minimum on R-8, is that what you're saying? We could live .:~ with that 1,400 minimum that is in the R-4, if that's what you're asking. We could say yes to that, if that could be part of your recommendation. We haven't -- we could use i. Meridian Planning & Zoning 4 September 21, 2006 ~ ~ Page 30 of 86 that as a guideline for our decision to move forward and that's not going to be a ;::, . ~" ~ hindrance to us. ~: ~ Borup: Okay. I just wanted your input on that. Schultz: Thanks. Rohm: Thank you. That's a lot to digest. And I want to thank each of you for a very _~ well orchestrated presentation and a lot of good thoughts went into that. Let's do a little ` ~ poll here. Commissioner Zaremba, do you have some thoughts on this before we -- Zaremba: I have a whole range of thoughts. !~~ Rohm: I'll bet you do. Ili, L" 'Y , ' ~ r~ Zaremba: And I do appreciate all of the presentations that have been made. They '~x r~-~;' have been very thorough and informative. I have not yet been convinced, though, that ` . '!, staff is wron g. I feel that staff is absolutely correct. One of the things that was ~ mentioned is that we don't want to turn South Meridian Road into another North Eagle o-~, ~~~; :_ Road. The difficulty with that is the traffic that is on Eagle Road is not necessarily ~ f ~ ~ Meridian city traffic. A lot of it is from our surrounding communities accessing the , ~ !. ~~ interstate. The same thin will be ha enin with this lower section of Meridian Road. 9 pp 9 ~~':I As Kuna grows and even as more of Meridian grows, the impact when the sewer finally ~iEr ,°~, goes through and development really takes off down there -- we haven't seen anything ,~ ;; ~ ° yet, when development really happens down here, this section of Meridian Road is ~. i 4 going to look like Eagle Road looks now from the traffic. What we have learned from i ;~;. Eagle Road is that having access in odd places doesn't work for the traffic flow. It is no 'a~ ;': surprise that the City of Meridian has a development along the interstate and along ~~. . state highways ordinance that was adopted sometime ago. When the CUP for this ,, property came in earlier, they provided the collector road on it. I don't believe the City of ~'~ `~ Meridian told them they had to, they offered it. We had some discussion about it and ,- €~.:- don't feel at this point it's been phrased that the planning and zoning staff or the ; l~~ ~ Commission has created this collector road out of nowhere. It has always been on the w plan back when we talked about annexing we talked that there would be a collector road ~~~ G there. When the applicant -- or at least the church applicant brought their CUP forward ~_ "~ ~ to build the church building, it had the collector road on their drawing. There wasn't any ~~~~ '' i~,_~ question that it was going to be there. It provided two directions of access for the h h N h c urc . ow, w at the collector does -- and there seems to be an assumption that all '~~ the collector is going to do is allow traffic in. It will also allow traffic out and I believe the ~~_ :' people that already live in this area will use it, as well as anybody that needs to access (~,,. ` ,: this new subdivision, if it's approved. It will be usable. What is not being emphasized -- ~{ and we haven't seen it on Eagle Road yet, but the Eagle Road corridor plan is medians ~~ '~ down the middle of Eagle Road, preventing left turns everywhere except the half mile. ,~, That will eventually happen on Meridian Road. There is not going to be full access to ~~:; , ~: any road, other than at the half mile. We have talked about focusing these people on a road that comes out of the quarter mile. That's not going to be effective ten or fifteen Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 31 of 86 years from now, because that will be a right-in, right-out only, as will the other road a little farther north. These will be right-in, right-out. Anything here or down here will be right-in, right-out. The only way for development along the state highway to have access is at the half mile point or at the section line roads, which is already there. And I'm not sure if people are visualizing what impact that is going to have and, unfortunately, ITD has delayed the Eagle corridor -- actual construction of it. They have all the plans, but they have put off the construction of it, because I think it would be helpful to actually have that and see how it operates, because that same situation will apply here. I still feel it's necessary to have the collector there. I'm not as convinced that people will go around the circuitous two or three turns to make Kodiak part of that collector. Collectors sometimes are very short. They get passed the church and I'm not sure traffic will continue to go the circuitous route to go farther, but it does function in two directions in this area and to give it up I think sometime in the not too distant future, will seriously impede traffic flow not only for the current developments, but for future developments there. So, I'm not opposed to housing mix. I think that's a good idea. We have had testimony on previous hearings when there was an existing subdivision of a certain density and a new subdivision was going to go in next to it with maybe a little higher mix of densities and the testimony has been that it would ruin property values. We have had enough of those now that some of them are actually built and operating and gone through resale market and they have not damaged the property values around. As a matter of fact, they have made the communities very attractive. As the person who admitting to being in the development community said, having a mix of housing in a neighborhood allows different types of people to be in the neighborhood. So, I don't have a problem with the size and shape of the proposal. I do have a problem with losing the collector access and I don't feel this is a surprise that P&Z is putting on this applicant, it's been the subject all along. It has always been there. It's the applicant who has said, uh, we don't want to do it. And that part of it I think is wrong. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I guess my comments would be addressed to two areas, one on the collector road and the other on the subdivision itself. I'm -- I'm not seeing the necessity of a collector road today. I think there is enough -- obviously, there is a lot in testimony, but I'm not worried about today, I mean we are supposed to be -- one of the things we are supposed to be -- I mean this is a planning -- that's in our name, planning commission, and I have heard too many times over the last decade about what were you thinking about -- when it wasn't us -- but, you know, what was the city thinking about ten years ago or 20 years ago to let something like that happen. That's -- and you can't always -- you can't always look to the future and know what's going to happen. But think we have got enough experience on Eagle Road, being probably the experience, on what is going to happen and my concern is not today and whether it needs it today, but what's going to be needed 20 years from now. Twenty years from now I may not be riding on this -- driving down this street, but I have children and grandchildren that will want to. So, I would be -- and I don't know how this is going to be worked out and I do not feel it needs to be built toda~~, but the other alternative could be some type of preservation of right of the way, whether it's in a deeded -- a deeded common lot or ~ s`Y F 'ypP(~1~fff(((p~~~Le~ 5~+ , zv ^S", ~ 5 . ~Y1 ~b~pN'i. kk ~gt'¢£Yyt1 f %*- Y ~ r~ b .s3~rro ~~ *~Q ~ ~r : ~.a,~rt - .. d, ~~~~'~~i:~ -;~ ~ f -.. .. ~ ..i,y y Sz u y F r ~.i ~y ~ ~ yl ,i h "f . . ~, ~ '~rr~r ~'~ E fi~ ~ ,~~ ~~~ ~~ µ ~ X a e ~#~, ~ ~, 3 7 ~ ~ ~ „i n ~~ t~~ . ~ . ` ~~ ~ F rP F r3 ~ } r ~'f~~ G y .l dlk t ~ ,t,{''j P q i k ~b~` ~ ~ . v -f~ h ~ x Jr- ~ 1 f: ~ ; .¢ R i ~.Li Y ~ .. : . . ~'~ 4 -: T . {',$.'' ~,.trJ ~~ ~ ~..~ ~ K~ C~~' ~ • , i f Y ~,~. +t~F ~~ .g r-'- -;'~~""~ N _ y, E r _ ,,s ~. , , „ K ~ r, k. ,,~ ~ ,r'1,, .. t :""Y :~ p ( ~~ 3 p_Yk"•'•Y~ .~~(.~+S ~r 'l ~ lY~~~~{ r f . ~ Y ', r 'a ` +iti~~'' ; ~ ~ ~1~it~r . ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ } ~~~ +~` ~ y ~'~ R'f?~Y - r ; ... ~t;k~ : r M~~ ra s:r r ~, `,riz ~`~~ ~ ~ } n h .Ki ~ ~t # '~ .~Cty,~~~.y~ Prr ~~ ~". ;~a t ~ f ,: .,, ~~ , n, r t , m' ~, y ~S"~ ~ ~,_? k~ ( i ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ry~ H -~ ~M ~ y t ~ 3 z-r~r ~~~ ~ r, , ~ ~~. ~;, dx~ `, fir ~ r ~. ~. ,t, ~ ~ ~, yr~~ ~ ~y,Y ~~»' t(.. r + f d3 r ~~~ ,r .~;Yt~ ~~Ji~+~.ra ~ _ i ~~r '- t ,.~ r ~ ,~>t , Meridian Planning & Zoning ` September 21, 2006 Page 32 of 86 whatever and I -- that would need to be worked out by someone that knows a lot more ,;~ about it, but that's a proposal that I would be in favor of, but I'm not in favor of ~~ eliminating that possibility for all time. Comments on the subdivision -- and I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, our past experience over the last decade has not shown -- I ~,~_ r~x~~> don't think anyone can point out a single situation where property values decreased by a different density subdivision going in. It just -- it has not happened. If someone could ~;, ' show that, I would certainly be open to looking at that data, but I don't believe it exists . Lot size variety, there is some benefit to having some variety. My first impression was I _ would have liked to have seen it all complying with the R-4, but there is a variety -- I h ~ ~ mean there is a number of lot sizes there. I think the transition is good. I also look at ti~,~ this as an overall community -- you know as far as the tie in it's not a lot different than if ~,~~ ' ~ , , this subdivision -- if these 12 acres would have been part of the original Bear Creek, you ~'' know, it would have all been -- had those stub streets tying in and everything. I would be in favor of -- if we leave the lot sizes as they are, I think a good compromise would be a 1,400 square foot minimum. That is the minimum size for an R-4 zone. I know there are homes in Bear Creek down as small as 1,500 feet and more than likely that ~~~ will be the minimum size that's going in here anyway, because I think Bear Creek had a `~ f, ,.r; 1,400 minimum also. That's the end of my comments. ~ .,e '_ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. _ Newton-Huckabay: I have got a question. Dave -- so the collector was on the annexation application with the church? Is that what you were -- ;, ~~` `~ Zaremba: Annexation applications don't actually have them, it was in the CUP that '`~" came -- earlier this year -- ~~ .Y,~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: I believe it all comes together, the annexation and -- °~~~, Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the annexation actually was approved in 2000 and the Conditional Use Permit for the church was approved just this -- K F~ Newton-Huckabay: Just this last year. ~-~: _ ~ ~ Hood: Yeah. This last spring or -- ; Newton-Huckabay: Okay. ~ Hood: -- late winter. >::~>~`, ~~~~' Zaremba: Earlier this year. r Newton-Huckabay: And it had the collector on it then? ,T Hood: Yes. s ~ ~z, r ~~ : l .n i; ,.~. , Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 33 of 86 Borup: At the same location as -- Hood: Generally the same location, yes. It's never been fully said it needs to be right exactly at this location, but there was a roadway shown on that site plan, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Was that -- arnd you're saying it was disputed, then, by -- Zaremba: No. It has never been disputed as far as I know. It was just -- Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember that either. Zaremba: -- offered by them in their CUP and we have always assumed it would be there. Borup: Well, I think the other thing -- is my recollection there -- they did not include it, but they did a concept plan for the whole site and was showing some residential use back there. There was talk whether it be kind of a retirement center with -- with patio homes or -- but there were some -- some multi -- multi-family and detached housing, if I remember right. But it was just a conceptual plan, it wasn't part of the actual application I don't believe. Newton-Huckabay: I don't remember any patio homes. Borup: And this was way back in -- I think at the annexation time. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. With the patio homes. Borup: Yeah. I mean it was small lots -- real small lots and, then, some multi-family type of dwellings also. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I wasn't on the committee -- Borup: It was not part of the approval, it was just a conceptual plan that they were -- that they presented at the meeting. Zaremba: But my recollection on that was that the church would retain ownership and the purpose of it was, essentially, for senior church members. It was not sold to a separate entity. Borup: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so it was kind of like a retirement community type -- Borup: Yeah. ~n~ ,- F,~; ~~~.: ~„ 5, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 34 of 86 ~' Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's -- this is a tough situation. I don't -- I still have some thinking to do on this. I don'•t want to have anymore comments at this time by me. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. ~:,::;~ Moe: Start coming this way next time, okay? All the comments are taken care of. Quite frankly, when I first started reviewing this project and, number one, in regard to ~` EJ : the collector, when it was noted that it was a disputed roadway, I, too, remember that, . :- basically, when the church came in that road was there. I never anticipated there was any dispute to it, I anticipated that that road would go in. So, therefore, I was a little bit surprised there. In regard to the -- the R-4 on the Comp Plan and whatnot, you know, _' everywhere it's noted as to be the R-4 there. I do believe the applicant has done some ~° ~ ° decent transition in those lots next to the Bear Creek area that will take care of, you ~~ know, my concerns in regards to it going to an R-8 and I do agree with Commissioner Borup if, in fact, we go that route it would probably be a good idea to have the 1,400 s,~_ square foot minimum on that -- on that house size noted in that. A couple comments -- ` ' you know, I have been a little bit surprised for the simple fact I, too, think that the collector road, quite frankly, would be very beneficial to the Bear Creek, for the simple ~, fact is that I ride Overland Road every morning and I am the one that's way backed up f. 'S onto Linder Road waiting for everybody from Bear Creek to get out and everywhere else s° .:~ and traffic needs to disperse. I am concerned as far as Kodiak, how it does wind ``"''~~ around. I'm going to anticipate that you're not going to see as much traffic -- I, too, _,~51 •: agree with Commissioner Zaremba that I don't think once Overland Road is widened ~" ' ~' you're going to see more traffic taken through that route as well and therefore I don't r "°^ , , see that you're going to see this collector being used as much as everyone may think I r ° $ ~ . am quite surprised that ACRD d!oesn't want to see this roadway go through and, t ~ actually, I'm looking forward to reading that report, quite frankly. But I guess that's ~~~: about all I have say to say right now. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. I have a question for legal counsel. In reference to the CUP that was originally granted that shows the collector road on it, r7 .'s, , even though there wasn't specific ri ht of wa dedicated at that oint in time is there a 9 , Y N requirement that if, in fact, this new subdivision is stubbed to the remaining property that ~;~,;F;' the church would have to take it the balance of the way to Meridian Road via their CUP? • •°fu{ Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd have to look at the conditions, {: ~"'~" but I would guess that they probably don't address that. They may have had that on their concept plan as some potential conceptual future use, but without seeing the ~~ ~t~ actual approval and the findings, I'm going to guess it probably wasn't required at the d time. I think it may have been a discussion point, but, remember, that this is an ~_ amendment to an existing development agreement. So, if it's within the purview of the :`~ Commission to grant approval based on the conditions of whether it's a stub street, ~ whether it's adedicated -- it's a dedicated lot, whether it's the cul-de-sac that's ~` ~; proposed, whether it's emergency access, whatever those conditions, this Commission '~~" feels is appropriate, if your desire is to grant approval, is all within your discretion to recommend to the City Council. If you -- as some of you have stated, you don't see the .~: ~n j.'. 'yN~ 3 ' ~ I . ' •. ~ T y 5 ~ w T • .~ ~. -r , ~ ~ ar ~f,. 4 3 ~ ~..+ .... .. ~ ? ~~ ... 9 .. I. (r? ` .io~ ~ •9f:`~;~-~`'r'~~,i :ex':;!'~~~r..~, i 1 ~ _ - y,~ - , .. .....^: n .x '~:R ~ ~•f Y Y.;:..~;i^"~; n a 'i L':: ^-~= ~'~+; ~ ~ ~ ~ i• . ;te y • ~ K s:A; , I.n N ., NA; ~ : .t I :k.p,g:• ~ ~ ii • i ` ' , . _ f ~ , I ~ g 4~ ~ ~ s',:r~i; •a3•.~ • s:~;~,r" "~ ,. ~ • •es . f ,y ~ ., ~ is E ~•, wi`"~E+ •4 ~ pp,G, .t ,~~j i, 3. :~ °:':~•.k. ~ ~ ~p+ai~s • w"'t'-.' f .`F f j ' " .; : -;'. ~ ~.;~ sa , ; - ;:1 .': : `: ~ ~ ~~•" • a ~ , .<.: € l . . ; ,;,, ; ~.Y~:.;. ;~: ~ •r . ~ J i l • ~ I I ~ , 4y.: I , ,r ..~ s * ::{;~' i .• ~{+ ' f E P ~~' S k` E~` E "£ r•~ ~~4 t`~J4f ~ff, :\r.4 ~ dd t :•j, a e • r4 ,, tt • • '~ ~a ' ' • Fyy ; ~ ~ T . , i ,. ~ i, ~ . - . 4 r.~Y,:K.._ 3 .7 , 444 , e~*. ~ • ~ ~ is<.~ : .s~','• 'el'f. 'i; ? } i4 ni'' ' y,?,y,V ,.. . C , ,.. ~ ' a 4 7{ Y } • • ~ i ' P . [ :R '.Ii P •:j *:' ~ ?= "'F • '3 y * 'x < ., +••~ r ~ ~ sak .x .•3~: . ~v, - . . s..l! +'y.:{:: ..>... I :... ~, ~_ ~' •~ Meridian Planning & Zoning '} ~" September 21, 2006 "_ 1> Page 35 of 86 "~'"`~ necessity to build out that street today, but to just preserve that right of way ability in the future through some sort of dedicated common lot or some other form, you can do that. F"~~" If the applicant doesn't wish to do that, then, they don't -- then, they don't necessarily :_~: have to agree to that amendment and they don't have to agree to amend the -` development agreement to allow {for this. There is no entitlement currently to build this }:~~; subdivision as proposed without that amendment to the development agreement. But ~'_ ~~` there isn't anything that I can think of that was probably requiring that if -- if an ~: ;:? application for residential properfi~ was going to be on this parcel in the rear part that '' f` they would, then, be required to construct a roadway. You would have to make that a '~ condition of this development agreement and those recommendations would, then, go €~` ~',' forward to the City Council for their final decision. ~; Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to add onto what Mr. Nary has talked about, a little help with the CUP that was approved last year. The reason that that wasn't dedicated at that time is it would take a subdivision to dedicate the roadway or you are, in fact, splitting ~_':~~~ property by having a road bisect the southern part from the northern part. So, in that staff report it talks about when this back piece develops it all needs to come in as a :~,:~;~ subdivision so we can get the road dedicated to the public, so -- and, in effect, what it did was say we realize you aren't platting today, but you're going to have to, because . Vie:-: the collector roadway is going to bisect your property and that's how you split property is ,`~'~ you do a subdivision and build streets and so that's, again, kind of how that evolved. ' ~_' And there is some analysis in the staff report that's actually in this staff report that I copied and pasted about just that, you know, the collector roadway is here, to get the `` collector roadway is you plat it, therefore, when you plat this the church gets platted, ;x. too, and you get the road. So, that's just to kind of finish up now what Mr. Nary said ~=R also about the develop agreement, you know, that's just kind of some history for you, too, because I think that's where your questions originated from, Commissioner Rohm, - ~~~' was how come is there a condition in the CUP for the church for this roadway and not ;`;~ explicitly, but that's implied with the preliminary plat, because that's the road that they were showing there. The only wa~~ to dedicate right of way, again, is with a plat. ':t` Borup: And, Caleb, the site -- the site design that was submitted and approved with that CU did show access at that location. Hood: Approximately. I didn't compare the CU site plan to -- ~` Borup: But it was up at the north end of the property. x;. Hood: Yes. Generally in the same location. Yes. Zaremba: And I remember a discussion was what do you do with the little piece that's north of the road, how is it going to be landscaped and the discussion, essentially, was, well, when they come in with a plat, then, we need to talk about the landscape plan. But I don't remember any doubt that that road was going to be there. We did discuss it at length. ,;~~~ µi, ~,~ ~,:: < 9X :l:~P ~~ ~.ati kry. ~rr,u_ t ~ ~,~ r_ ~_ ,,, ' F;7i ;4 I f ~.t ~ 1 h 1 Y Y v. 4 ~( :.. ~a 1 FaRkt~ iT y~ r 1 ~.+ rt'j `~~ ~ ~ r ~, :l'S"'F t}W" e y~'r ~ Q~ F, ~. k . E~ 9 y ~`, "f ~ r `.. a ~. ` t . ?. ) _ Y ~ ~ ~~ f E~`~ R l ~. ~~~Z k ~,J f-~ ,Y it W- q~ qyt 1 - 1. E {~ ~ ~ ~l'M°Y . li.... ~ 2 L ~ ' 1`'~p ~~ / ~1~ Y y' ~ 4..1 ~k. k. a . ~ 3 X' ~-~S^ v ~ ~ ~~ ~ i~~ 51. fi ~~P p ~~ ~~~.~ '~r '~YK' i i.SP , { ~,r',.at t -' Yx~~n tt; t' `;~ _ ~~~' '. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~; ..s Se tember21,2006 P Page 36 of 86 ~~~-~ Rohm: Well, it seems to me -- ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Ihave -- Rohm: Oh, you're ready. Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. t.:sr' ~~`~ Newton-Huckabay: I was curious, the Kodiak has always been -- at the half mile would have been predominately on the half mile when Bear Creek was built and did we not `~~ 'y'-':~" consider -- I mean the city, I believe, in defense of everything the homeowners have said, considered that they might want a collector there some day when we were putting that development together. So, I do think that the homeowners have a very valid argument from my standpoint there. I was curious when -- was it Sadie Creek and Kohl's -- was Sadie Creek south of where they are putting the Kohl's on Eagle? What's r9'4~.; that called? Sadie Creek? y ~, ;~:: ~=~~ - ~, ~~.# Zaremba: Ea le and Ustick. 9 `~` Nary: Sadie Creek. Bienville. Newton-Huckabay: Bienville. Okay. We had recommended full access collector type J '~s~~- roadways at the quarter mile because of missing the boat, so to speak. What was the }~ resolution on that? I don't know what the City Council's vote was on that. ~~~, ~ :~~~ Zaremba: Caleb probably could answer that better, but my recollection is they did not take our recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was thinking. ~:~~~; Hood: They did allow just -- ITD's permit board and chief engineer over there, boy, just '~~_ maybe in the last week or two weeks ago approved the one access at 880 feet south of ~.~. Ustick Road to Eagle Road, shared by Bienville and Sadie Creek. I don't remember that ~` , .,x~` ' part of it. ~.,,'~ ~.:~, Nary: Mr. Chairman -- Hood: Okay. I'm sorry. ;. k { ~ ~~` Nary: Go ahead. k5 ~y~~. q,, t ~ L Hood: Temporary full and, then, it will be restricted to right-out in the future. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that was the City Council's ~';~ recommendation was a full access at 880 feet to be full access until the access at `~~ fi ' Ustick Road came, but it was a shared access at 880 feet. ~ ' 1~~~ -_ f~}~i.: `~~1yi y'J',:: ; r fit; v:`; ',: ,~: ~; ;'~ '1 ;`.~' s~~,~,. >~~:- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 37 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: So, it was only temporary, though. Nary: Temporary full. Newton-Huckabay: Temporary full. Nary: It will become right-in, right-out -- Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out. Nary: -- when there is access to l~stick. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we have -- then, are seeking some precedence that we are not putting full permanent accesses at quarter miles or in that vicinity and -- fair enough. Was that what -- Nary: What was your question? I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: During the conversation on that I had kind of thought that we might consider putting -- you know, keeping -- endorsing a full access at the quarter mile, rather than the half mile, in some situations, but based on City Council and ITDs actions, that is not the case. ~: Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members oif the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, that is correct, that's not what the Council recommended and they had this similar discussion in regards to this roadway at the corner where the Walgreen's is supposed to go and the same issue about whether full access would be allowed. But, again, it was too close to the corner for ITD to support an intersection -- or for a light and that was where the discussion wasn't even at that -- at that project of the light being at the half mile at this point. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. On the -- overall, I don't have a real big problem with the lot transition, because I think they transitioned it pretty well, but I do -- and I am concerned about the subdivision transition. I think developers, particularly because they don't have a direct access, that -- you know, monumental access, whatever you want to call it, needs to go to extra efforts to make your development blend in with the Strada Bellissima and the Bear Creek, sa they do look like acontiguous -- or as close as they can. I mean I understand if you can't do street trees, but I do think that -- that some, you know, extra ordinary effort should be taken there to at least blend in with and support, so that it looks more like a seamless development, rather than that and I mean I happen to live in a subdivision where they did not transition between subdivisions well and it is -- it's obvious and I don't think it would be too difficult to accomplish that. With that said, I remember the conversations somewhat on the collector and the church, but I, unfortunately, don't remember exactly how I felt about it at the time. But I would wonder if there is -- there has got to be a compromise here, if it's even apossibility -- <s S: ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~7:;~~ September 21, 2006 " Page 38 of 86 because we didn't take advantage of the -- making the Kodiak area a proper collector when Bear Creek was built, is there some kind of compromise at an access into x Shepherd's Creek that starts with some kind of calming -- you know, substantial calming -- traffic calming capability, whether I -- I am not a trafFc engineer, I don't know what all those options are, but -- a 90 degree turn. '~`~ Zaremba: Three of them. Newton-Huckabay: But I guess that would be my only thought is to maybe go to one . ~~ more effort to make that less appealing, if the collector does go through, to zipping through there. And with that said that's my only notes. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. We have heard from the balance of the Commissioners and I'd like to 1 ~~~~ ~ just throw out my two cents worth here. It appears to me that there is very little support ~~ " 'i ~- for the collector road at this time, but I think that the city has done a very good job of ~ . ~. setting the stage for future and I think that we would be remiss if we did not take this ~ r opportunity to at least provide for that down the road. I'm not sure that the collector ~~;~; road being installed at -- at the same time this subdivision is necessary, but if we don't ~>`~~ take the steps to make sure that that's available down the road then we have missed a , , very good opportunity and it seems to me from Mr. Nary's comments that if, in fact, we were to make an amendment to the development agreement that currently exists as ` ~~~~!, part of our recommendation, that would include the verbiage that would make that :'~`I collector available to the public at some point down the road when it becomes necessary, while at the same time not doing it at this time when the subdivision is put in, ~<~' k f. seems to respond to all of you that have spent your evening with us and at the same time take care of the needs of the city into the future and that seems to be kind of a `~' },; balance between both sides and it's -- that's what I would support. i „~ ~;~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the functional difficulties with going that direction is that t~"z~° ACHD does not build collector roads, the developers build corrector roads. ACRD does E °`~' not fund them, they don't impact fee them. Essentially, collector roads are developer _,:~ driven. The only way to accomplish that would be for the developer to trust or bond for '' " i` t the future building of the roadway, as well as putting the right of way or -- not a right of f way, but putting on an easement in a separate common lot, but they would also have to ~:,;4~ bond for the building of the road and just let that money sit there until the road was built. It would make more sense while they are building their other roads, for them to go _ ahead and build it. ACHD isn't going to build it. They don't build collectors. Rohm: The devil is in the detail, isn't it? Zaremba: Yes. ~. ~" ` Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~.': ~ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. y j~- F ~~~ 1 R~ ~ 1 aa.~',, t`x r i s "<}~ h 3n >a;*,;~ ry Yyii. ~,.''.r ~!~ ~;w~ ' Y~~' y `;` .' ti -~ ~~~ r ~;* ~ -*~. <~,, ~. 5rt ;~ s` a ~ a n,y e; } Y.-. 4.O. P. NS <~F-M1~~I Z w~ ~~~ .d . 1 ' 'F ~ r, Rx ;~h y e r ~-y. i y M1 ~i~ at y k~ ~'.'i?~'~'Yr f~- z ~ ~;~ r r;~~~a y~: ~~y ,-;,>. ~_5~.. M~-.~ ~,:~ ::~~~; SS =;r; '~~' ~~ -~ ~~~ f :., ; r~ _.;.- _.. ,r,,; r' `.`,~; ~: ;;~,; .:~:• °- ~}~. j~' ~~ r ~= . :, ~,~:;; ::' _,,: ~~~ '~~ ~~: ~~ .r: ~~ *~; ~ ~~~~ ? ^~i~9 i ,*` .~.~~ r:.:~,. ~~i~.% `. y~~~' ~~':: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 2l, 2006 Page 39 of 86 Newton-Huckabay: Can I recommend that we maybe wind up with getting a feel for what each of the Commissioners is recommending and, then, see if we have something to make a recommendation. Rohm: We could sure -- we could sure do that. Let's start with you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Without coming to some agreement on transition into Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima, making some agreement on going the extra effort to do everything we could -- if the collector had to be -- had to go in at this time, is making a substantial effort for some type of calming .effort, I would be voting against recommending approval tonight. Rohm: Wow. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I do not like to send things like this onto City Council when there is so many questions of -- I don't feel comfortable with my decision. Am I being clear? Rohm: Yeah. No, that's why you're here. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: At the present time I would be in favor of supporting staffs recommendation for the collector road as it is at the present time and I would also agree to the R-8, because do believe the transition is there. So, that would be opposing not -- staffs recommendation to go to R-4. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Maybe a question for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay first. And that was on your understanding of what you were talking about, the transition. You're concerned about the traffic calming; is that the main concern? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I will be honest with you, I -- I can't make a definitive one way or another on the -- how I really strongly feel about the collector. I just -- that is not very comfortable to me. Borup: I understand. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: But I'm talking about transition from Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima into Shepherd's Creek -- I keep wanting to call it Sadie Creek. Into Shepherd's Creek. Having it look like it belonged there. A seamless --amore seamless transition than just -- because when you go from a subdivision that has street trees and detached sidewalks, into a subdivision that has the curb and gutter, et cetera, it is an obvious transition and I would just like to see them go to some efforts to mitigate that, so that it does look more -- Borup: Do we know that it does have -- _ . _ _ rye ~., ,~, 7 ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 _r "' `` Page 40 of 86 ~..~ Newton-Huckabay: That's what I understood. } `~' Borup: Do we have separated sidewalk at the stub streets? Can we just maybe clarify ~~ that one thing? ;, ~,. '~ Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open. ~ Rohm: The Public Hearing is still open. ~~ Borup: Because I know only about half of Bear Creek has the divided -- the separated sidewalk. 4.`~ ~~ ` ~~- Schultz: Exactly. I believe this portion of Bear Creek does. I have been paying ~~~ attention, but I believe Strada Bellissima does. I know this portion of Bear Creek does not. I know everything around the park had detached. I know this has some detached. Everything up in here did not have detached. I'll just respond to that one question, but -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. `. ~" Schultz: Thanks. Borup: They could do that transition. It would decrease the lot size right there, you didn't have a concern with that, but they could do a transition at that point. At least on the ones that -- I mean it's not going to make sense to do -- to do a separated sidewalk if the one it's tying into doesn't have it. You're saying make them both compatible. ti; ~` gin:. ~~~ .. ,:v ~y: "~~a, ~ ,. ~: ~, `<c. ,~ k4 Newton-Huckabay: Right. I get the luxury of not having to design it, I just get the luxury of getting to pass judgment on it, so -- again, having not been out there on Bear -- Bear Track or Cub or Kodiak in quite -- you know, in -- probably in the last few months at least, I don't recall exactly -- particularly the pictures that public testimony brought forth. I think that's a pretty valid concern that -- to look and see what's possible. I'm not saying that we -- that we solve and design that tonight, I'm saying I would be more comfortable if we would have some agreement that that would take place, as in the recommendation of City Council. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: But I would also say this wouldn't be the first time that I would be voting in opposition to the rest of the Commission on recommendations either. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I don't have any concerns -- real concerns with the subdivision. I would be in favor of it as presented, other than adding the 1,400 foot -- square foot minimum. I think ~P F Tti / t l S i N 1 7f'~~~'~ Yr: J .1; i',: `~`3 1 ytir r ''V1 ~ 34 2, - f t, ~ 2~ ~7~< t:i s ,i f ~~~ A ~~> 3 x~ ~ i~ x~ ~ll ~.:{ `~ i~` iii:-: a =. F rk ;. 'YY ~) l ` h ~ '~ ~k'z' t~~~ i~ti ?~~{ ~~ ~. ;T, ~ r "~.u ~` ;~4- sr ~;;.,. ~, ~r' _ ~~ ~~;~ {( 4 q t; u tt .:r t;~ ~~7'i~u'ti~v ~~ -. w i } o- ~. =^'~ 5 ~ 't -t ~r ~ Y ' ~'.~ ~ :: .' fikee 1 '~~ l '1 ~•.~ ~ i r `t! .. =t Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 41 of 86 ;ti ;_s, ~,7, X: iA~ :,"I: w .,r.,~ ?,.~f;+ tf :_ r,~' . _.,: t ~J -- I think that would make it more compatible with Bear Creek. I am -- I'm undecided on the collector. I think it's very necessary -- I'm not undecided in the long term, Ithink -- would be in favor of some type of preservation, if it's legally possible. If there is no way to do that, then, I would say now. If there is a way to legally handle it that it could be preserved for future, then, that would be my first choice. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I think a number of suggestions have been made. I would be able to support leaving the zoning as the R-8 that it is, with the requirement that the minimum house size be 1,400 square feet. I feel the collector is important and the only way I can see to do that is to have it built with the subdivision, but I would also agree that it's not a bad idea to have some kind of traffic calming at the intersection of Alaska and Kodiak. There is a couple of those intersections, but the intersection that would be within this subdivision, whether it's a traffic circle or an island or a little bit of a chicane or bulb out or something, I -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I like traffic circles. Zaremba: Okay. The only difficulty with that is they take up a little bit more space and the developer might lose a lot or two to do that, but -- Newton-Huckabay: But they are fun. Borup: See, my feeling is a 90 degree turn is the best traffic calming you can have. More so than a chicane would do. Zaremba: Well, that was my original feeling, that with the three 90 degree turns that you have, to continue on Kodiak, you have to make three 90 degree turns. That seemed to me to be satisfactory, but I could listen to an additional traffic calming, if that was the thought. That being said, I, actually, would like to see that drawing in that form before we forward it to the City Council, so my feeling would be to give the developer some instruction that pretty well parallels what staff has already said, but to see it in an actual drawing before we pass it onto City Council. Borup: To see what specifically? Zaremba: The roadway. Borup: Oh, the collector? Zaremba: Yeah. The collector. To actually have it imprint in a drawing. Schultz: Is the Public Hearing still open? Zaremba: With the alignment decided. So, the question to you is that possible? µj,~ , ,. .~.>:.: . ~ .. , ~r ~~~ r r r '~'s ~~ ... .. .4 .~~:;~ t a q :xrk Y 'r 11 7 .':C', ' ' N,G. r 3 fr +~1 ~r"y `~ ~` v~u.,,,•LZ. 2 ?~ ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning r;".. September 21, 2006 Page 42 of 86 Schultz: We have an alignment that's designated here, if the Council so decides that _ that is important to put in now, then, that would be the decision. I'm not sure ACRD { would take it, but that would be their decision. Like you said, there is calming -- some measure of calming. I think anything -- a traffic circle or the other things you said are maybe a good idea, maybe a bulb out or something, but a traffic circle would be overkill in this area, but we have an alignment designated that the church is -- has accounted _ for. Do they want to build it, do we want to build it -- we don't think it's necessary, but it could be a recommendation that we build it, it could be a recommendation that we reserve the right of way. And we would -- we would take that forward to Council and talk to them about that and say, yes, we can or here is why we shouldn't, but there is -- you can see there is room for it. There is no structures in the way for that. There is a big tree I think right in that area but other than that that's the only thing in that area. , , °-~ So, I don't think it's necessary for us to pencil out some different alternatives in that area when we have a straight through alignment. Our residential subdivision has buffering here, no on-street housing, so we wouldn't have to revise anything if that were called a collector. So, we have accounted for both options listed as design, just so we wouldn't have to some day redesign it at this point, so that's what I'm standing up to avoid some redesign when we have already accounted for it, hopefully, so that's all. Zaremba: If we were to do that I would want the word disputed to be removed. Schultz: You know what, it's interesting that Anna and I laughed at each other when we _ -- and Mr. Nary was there. We were in a group meeting -- that we talked about -- Anna ~'7 suggested it. She says why don't we just call it disputed. I said great idea, because, ~~~~ you know, we are friends, but we are in respectful disagreement and that's just where ~~~~ we are at. So, we could remove disputed off of there. But it is a point of concern that nobody's recommending -- except staff and this body, which is important, but ACHD ,~~ isn't, the homeowners aren't. Not to say in 30 years it might be a good idea, but, `' I hopefully, we can just move forward tonight with your recommendation and Council will .'~ have to -- they have never seen this and they will have to, you know, take everything ~`' into account and make the final call. But, hopefully, that was the recommendation. Like said, it won't change the layout, it doesn't change the design at all in terms of what ~ ~ ~_;; works and what doesn't, whether that's there or not, so -- Borup: And how about transition on this street, on doing a separated sidewalk, just on „ y,y >~a this -- just the depth of that lot. Now, you have got to -- you have got a common area here it looks like. ~.::~ `~ ` 5r Schultz: Yeah. We have extended that common area that Bear Creek started, so that will be a continuation. ~' ~`~I Borup: So, these sidewalks are already align to each other? ~ ~ . =~ ~ .F ~~,~ ~~ r ~ J` _.~'~; a ~_ ty ~ f 2 ]` ~x~~h~ ~~ ~ : i._fti' .~~ C +~ ;gift, 3v3 A"",~_ ~ ~ 1-~,1,y-,~, yy .5: C4 j' 4;~ tia v ~ d~ 4Fy, f ~, ~ ~ ~' ro ~ met` ~~~`~~'~ r :F i . -~~' ~' ` e L~.,a. ~~~''•, S s '" - _~' r{~` z >~ i `~~ ~~.~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ , ~a ~~ ~~ ~' ~ z ' ~ > _% ',, i ~, irN ~~ ~ K > ~ ~,-. a, GF tiSt °~~ rr r ~~ ~ ?J r,~' ~;.~ ,F. ; 4~i ~ t ~- • rr y z i~: ~~~' ,, 3~ ~,~ ,7. ~a ~ _ lµ ~, t~: !~'f `~ T r~` ,,T~ y `;~ ;: =.s ,~. ~ri ,.r, ~;> -r =t#:` E y~~ ~; ,`~~, -~N~ ~~~ . ~q ,~3 'S,- ~r ~~ _~`. F Y/ .Y ~~~~; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 43 of 86 Schultz: I believe -- I don't know if our survey exactly picks up whether that was detached or not, but there is a 20 foot landscape buffer that Bear Creek put in that we are going to extend at that same location and -- Borup: Okay. Schultz: -- the sidewalk could be detached in that area real easily on that location no problem. Borup: So, you're tying in the landscaping to give a continuous design there? Schultz: Exactly. Yeah. It will be a continuation of what was started. Borup: Is that kind of what you were thinking? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't want to see -- I don't want one sidewalk to stop and four foot over another sidewalk starts. Schultz: No. It blends in. That's always been our intent to match this in as best we can architecturally, tree-wise -- we don't have enough room in some locations for the detached, other locations we do. So, as we look at that we go to our final design. We can add those in, no problem. Where there is room -- the main north-south streets, we just don't have the -- like Mr. Borup said, the lots would get smaller or they'd have less yard. We would have more for the detached, but you give up something. So, we will final design -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But I -- Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Just so that I'm clear on what you're saying here, you will match the sidewalks at all of the transitions to all of the subdivisions around you. Schultz: We can do it here, we can have detached. And we can do it here and detached and kind of probably come back in right about right there and, then, right here we could do it detached. And up here it's attached right now. Newton-Huckabay: But it's attached on -- Schultz: Bear Creek. On Cub -- or Bear Creek. This is all attached, isn't it? Newton-Huckabay: Right. Schultz: It's all attached. Borup: So, it would just be the two -- it would just be the two. ~;: _, `;`!' e,,' ~:~F .~ ~'} ,;,~; i~~~,, _ ~;., , ,,~ , Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 44 of 86 0 Schultz: And we have full landscaping on both sides of this road. I mean there is landscaping here and landscaping there. I mean there is a good buffer. Landscape, tree, shrubs, grass, to help with that transition. Moe: Would something to the effect of landscaping to be designed to similar standards as the existing stub street? That's where you're trying to start a stub street. Newton-Huckabay: And the sidewalk. Borup: It's the stub street. Moe: Well, I'm just writing some things down here. Landscaping and walks. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Last and possibly least, my -- I think where I come down on this is I'm in favor of the development. I'm in favor of the 1,400 square foot minimum house. I'm in favor of preserving a right of way, but -- and I don't know how it should be worded, but I don't necessarily think that the collector needs to be built at this time, but it needs to be preserved and I think that kind of falls with the balance of the public out there and if Mr. Nary had the -- could give us the verbiage, that's the way I would recommend that motion be made to forward onto City Council, but I'm in favor of the project as a whole. So, there you have it. I think that we have discussed this pretty thoroughly and at this point in time I'd like to get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP 06-040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we want to discuss -- well, I guess we have got two choices. Someone can make a motion and see how it -- how it votes or we can discuss some of the issues where we have got varying opinions. And it sounds to me like we have got varying opinions on the collector road and, then, the transition would be the only other thing. Well, I don't know if we have varying opinions on the transition. Moe: I think that's well taken there. My concern on the collector road -- you know, we are trying to do something -- you know, have the developer bond it or whatever -- I'll let legal maybe answer this, but my biggest concern is is that -- I mean we can anticipate - o 0 - _ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 '; ~: Page 45 of 86 :. -~~, the cost of down the road or -- my concern is if you try and bond for it now and the road "° ~ gets put in in say ten years from now, who is paying the difference at that point or are } rri s~~,~~~ they going to anticipate the bond is going to pick that up and take care of it at that point? ;; Am I making any sense here? Zaremba: Uh-huh. ~~ y` Moe: That's why, you know, I'm in favor of anticipating that road to go in now, because y ;~ I'm concerned -- I don't know how you're going to be able to get it done later, because ~~,~., Commissioner Zaremba has already made the statement that it is the developer's responsibility to put this in, so I don't know how you can get him to do it down the road. h: Once all those lots are sold and he's pretty much squared away and that road is not in , I'm not sure how you are able to get it done at that point. Zaremba: Well -- and I would add that the cheapest time to do it would be now. If the ~~ ~ bond's more for it than it would cost him to do it, because if he's already got the -~~~'~ equipment out there doing the other mile or so of road that's involved in the subdivision, ~ you have the same equipment and materials, build the road while they are there. That's to me the cheapest possible way to do it. ;1:. a ~ Moe: I agree a hundred percent. ''' Y, ~j Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend that we make the motion, leaving staffs ~: recommendation for the collector road as is, Commissioners vote their -- vote their opinion based on that. We make changes on the items that we agree on, such as the '` ~ ~~ transition and the R-4 -- or leaving it to R-8 I think was the general consensus with a , 1,400 square foot minimum. >~. Rohm: I think you're well on your way of making a motion. -'w f~ Borup: The other concern I still have is when the conditional use was approved for the ri `~~~` church and it's showing access there, how were they able to build with not complying rY;~ ~`"~ with that? I mean a arentl pp y -- obviously, the plan changed. ~. , ~~~-_ ,,` Newton-Huckabay: Well, let's ponder that another time. Borup: Well, no, that's part of -- that's what we are talking about changing. And we are talking about changing the development agreement right now. That's what this is all _'~~" about. ~,t~: ~ ;~ Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's why I'm recommending that we leave -- regarding the ~,; collector street at staffs recommend and -- Borup: So, is this -- but is that whole cost on the back of this developer or is that shared with -- with the other development? v y;~h ti ~~ -... , .ti ,_',tit. F~t dt~l'% ~li.- '~' Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 46 of 86 Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I may be able to help out a little bit in that. Although the church was the sole applicant on their CUP for their church, they I don't think ever intended to Y, 'Ea actually construct that roadway. It was primarily -- although they were showing an '`F access northerly to it on their plan, the road was to be constructed by others, assuming ~* they sell that back -- whatever. I didn't know that they had decided on 12 acres at the time, but sell that off and that developer or some other party would build this road there. ~. -~:; Borup: Right. That's -- and I think in the site design they had to move the building further to the south to leave room for that. There was some discussion on that. Okay. ~. Zaremba: I think the discussion about moving the church farther south was whether or not you had to have abuild-able lot on the north side of the road and to do that you -- •ft =~- the road will fit and move the church a little bit and I think we left that up for when they ~~~ came in with a plat. '~ Borup: From what I heard, it sounds like we had two Commissioners in favor of preservation and three that wanted to build it now. Does that sound -- "4 ~` Nary: Mr. Chairman, just maybe if I -- so I can be clear of what -- what you may end up 5L, .:. with, part of your concern or discussion and the testimony that you heard is the ~~ ""' connection of that property now to Meridian Road. ACHD has one opinion about that. We don't have any ITD opinion about that today, other than that's the logical point, ~~~'~ based on their current policy, as to where the intersection would be. The concern, of ~, ,,, ~~. , - course, of the testimony you have heard from the adjacent properties is the connection 'j- 4 of that roadway today and I think you have addressed that a little bit in your discussion. ~:: Is your desire to connect that roadway today, we do not have enough information to do ~3, "' `~~ that, or is your desire to construct the roadway short of that intersection, because at the ~r ~~ point that an intersection is going to be constructed there, that may not be the exact point for it. So, if you want the roadway to be able to be connected to a future {_~ intersection, it may not have to go to Meridian Road today. They can construct it like ~" , '~~ "a any other stub street would go to -- to the intersection enough to connect it, because, `~ again, it has to line up with the street across and the street across isn't constructed '~~ ''~ today. The intersection would have to be constructed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, ~~ ,i. N~ :~ signalization and all of that five, ten years from now, I don't know what the standards ti `{' '~~ would be. It may not make much sense to try to connect that today, but it does make <{ ~ sense, from what you're saying, that a majority of the roadway be constructed today. And, again, I don't know if that was your desire, but I'm just concerned in trying to ~~ £ti fashion this development agreement if you wanted to connect to Meridian Road today, ;~ we haven't had any information from ITD if they are even -- well, other than they are saying -- I mean they are saying the logical point again, but they are not saying -- `~ Zaremba: There is an August 31st letter that says ITD supports the city's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile location and future signalization. ,< Nary: But I'm thinking on the point of from a design standpoint of designing a roadway "~ ~~~~ to generally match up with a roadway that doesn't exist across the street probably isn't ~: o <; ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ r 'y;x.~ i » ~~ ~" ° ~~l1 Y 4 zn~ a:. ~? ~, a i~ h .a. ; Nr ., {, t z _'G ~~ti"r"f :7;;W s e t ~~~ r~ y,..'.; ~. .fir: ' ~?~} ,r r 'i r r ~ .:,~ .r ;'~ ~C r ^~~r 7~ .! - < ._...... - _ '.'fi M SS d " "} i V~ f ~ N@ $Fa,`~ 9~ s9.y 5~ `:a:' it ~,~ ~ ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning • September 21, 2006 Page 47 of 86 very practical today, but can certainly make that roadway within 50 feet, 25 feet, or whatever you suggest to the edge, so that it can be connected in the future, but I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this development agreement and connecting it there when even ITD isn't telling us where it exactly has to go, but it would get you there - where you would like to be, I think, if you consider that and at least address some of the concerns you had in regards to the connection today, which may or may not be 'u practical. I don't know if that helps you, I'm just concerned in trying to fashion this s < agreement based on what your desires are. ~~ Rohm: Wow. That helps. Let's see. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to -- my same recommendation that we add things ~~ that we agree on into the development agreement and forward onto City Council and vote our conscience on staffs recommendation for the collector road. `~? Rohm: I tend to agree with what you're saying. I guess the staffs recommendation ~, ~~ doesn't provide any definition to the collector road, though, and so just to say you're ~8.. s:y ~': ~ going to have a collector road, that is not very well defined by that being included in the ~ ~ staff report, it still doesn't get it defined, so -- f Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment would be that it really can't deviate very much, the final engineering decision about where it goes probably can only deviate by five to ~~ ten feet north and south, if it's going to have to have a curve, roughly, to follow the property line of the Bear Creek north of it, essentially the alignment that was on the CUP and that is -- that is shown on this as the disputed part, it really can only move a few feet when it's finally engineered. But it's got to be essentially where it shows. Moe: I agree. Rohm: And I agree with that. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you had a great idea that -- to move it forward to City Council with the changes that we have discussed and agreed to and go from there. The staff has recommended the collector street and we want the 1,400 square foot home, and -- '~ Zaremba: Transitions at the stubs. Rohm: -- transition at each ingress and everything else we are pretty much in agreement. Would you like to make a motion to that effect, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Caleb, on the change to the Commission recommending that the R-8 zoning -- where do you want me to place that condition? ' ~- Hood: There is, actually, two places that it's probably easier, Commissioner Newton- -~~ Huckabay, that it's probably just easier to modify two of the existing -- one, the development agreement provision on page -- oh, Exhibit B, excuse me, at the very top { _:~ ~I _,q, z Y; ' +'~ '~`., sy ` ~ ~~ '# z.. ~ a t J Y x ,'~, ..~:i~#..,F~VS>~i~:J~SS?,:i~,~r~ h•;t t 1 ;? ~ . i a 3r nn + ~ 0. : 'l ~Y' ' ' ~ ~ , ~:M tl r ~ ~ G : ^" Stry a ~ tt ~ ~ ' „ .'•~ . t 2 . 'i . i • a ~~. I' . r ~ '~{ ~ '' ~ ~;, ,~i;y': nee ~.: ~ , .;, ,~,: ~.~> ~,3_ ~ t g l a ~ 4 f i +~ a`~'i S p f 1 L E q.. 'k ~x~'~ I ~ li n~.~ ~:, q.~~. .., *. .. ,. .. :. ,a. I .? •• x. ,. . .~ ~~~' .'s" ~`•.~ `.t"': " is ;1'~ . ;7 + ;',i ,. i •s'. il` •:•~ s°. ;''•.zt .•.. tx,x >'69+. t .. ~ ~~. I~ ~je+:.. . +'}~iY.:. ... A. ....?F+h.`: . ~il l~ ,:f,':. .~ ~~;: ,~ ;',`2 :~.~ '+" ~~~ :~,,. { ~_ ~, ~'~ f: ;-s ;~ ~~ ~~~ 1,r ~. ,.:3*~ - :~;. rr;; r :~r. .. y. i ~T'3~ < ~,. ^,f5 11~`- ~~~~ -~;_ -?try r try '~~: r~` ~ ~ _. . :=~ ~ ' .~~; ,; Et x ~~ . ~~~ -~_, ;u~~: rr~, 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning O September 21, 2006 Page 48 of 86 of the page, miscellaneous application one, it says that lot size frontage and density standards of the R-4 zone, just change the R-4 to the R-8 zone and -- Zaremba: Plus a minimum lot size. Minimum house square footage. Hood: And you could add it there as well. Yeah. And a minimum house size. So, I would just modify that paragraph. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wait. Where is that paragraph -- what, one point -- Hood: It's one. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, just one. Prior to the final plat being -- Hood: Yeah. There is some bold and -- there is bold and underline there. That's what's being modified in the development agreement or proposed to be added to the development agreement. Newton-Huckabay: So, leave -- and just change that to R-8? Hood: And add your minimum house size, either in that same sentence or start a new or -- the other section is in the preliminary plat. It says some language about the plat not being approved as submitted. You could either leave that language or -- and approve the plat as submitted, take the disputed off the collector roadway -- you kind of have -- if that's the direction you choose to go. That's -- you have some options there. But that condition would need to be modified to begin at -- it talks about the R-4 development. Newton-Huckabay: And where -- what number is that one? Hood: 1.1.1. Same page. It's the next paragraph down. Borup: Oh, there we go. Hood: So, those are the preliminary plat conditions limiting the residential portion to the R-4 standards. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, where should I put the comment regarding transition of landscaping and sidewalks with the stub streets? 1.1? 1.1.11? Hood: You could either add a new one or if you felt that putting the landscape condition, that's 1.1.2. We could add a new bullet there to that -- it deals with landscaping, not so much with sidewalks, but it's, essentially, the same thing. Newton-Huckabay: Can I put the whole statement there? ~; .. ~~ k:hy ,, ,.; ~~~ - _~ ~¢ ':. ~ o Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 49 of 86 Hood: That works, too. Borup: And Commissioner Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: If I may. I might have some wording to help you there. Newton-Huckabay: That would be great. Borup: I'm not -- at least as far as the location that the sidewalk landscaping transition would match Bear Creek along Bear Track Drive, that would include that whole -- that whole stub. And, then, Alaska south of Whitehall, if that -- if that's what you had in mind. So, that would be this whole area here and this whole area here. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we already match on the north. Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Based on the plans today. I have a question. As the staff report stands today with the statements regarding the collector, I am not in favor of voting for recommendation on all points to City Council. Is it still appropriate for me to make a motion and, then, vote against my motion? Well, I think that the collector issue -- that's what I was saying -- is to -- too complicated for us to decide tonight and whatever we decide tonight is not going to resolve the issue for the developer and/or the public who is here tonight, going back and redesigning or -- is not going to solve the issue for the public or the developer as well. The only thing that's going to solve the issue for the public and the developer on this collector is for a final decision to be made. I would hope that you would agree with me on that. That's the reason why I recommend that we move it on to City Council as written and vote our conscience on the remainder of the report. Borup: So, you're saying you don't really have an opinion on the collector that you want to vote on? Newton-Huckabay: The way it's recommended in the staff report I am not in favor of it. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, I think probably Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comments that for her to make the motion and, then, vote against it wouldn't be appropriate, so let's just -- would you mind making a motion and I think we have -- Borup: Well, I don't think I was going to make the same motion that she would. Rohm: In any case -- Borup: But Mr. Zaremba probably will. sk rt~'?i=. ,,~1:.: ~t ;'~~~# :~;< ;w ".: f , , ~~ ~ , ,;, t ,:~ ~. ;~: ~~.;~` ~y ~, . >_ ~~ ~; `:•.;. #~ . t ,~_ :t ll ~, ;~ 1 Y-~{ "" ~.t ~' ; r ,,~~< ~; r :~ ~~} ~- a, -,a- ~: ~_~N ~: ~~~' . ,: 1 ~ f~~~S r~4~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 50 of 86 • Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to -- Borup: But I would be glad to make a motion. Rohm: Somebody. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I don't mean to be difficult here, but I -- Rohm: No. I agree. Commissioner Zaremba, would you, please, make a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- one moment while I find the first part of the notes here. Oh, here we are. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 06-040 and MI 06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Exhibit B, the first page of that, under miscellaneous application, paragraph one, within the bullet where the bold underline is, I would change the beginning of the bold underlined to read: And development of single family residences on 12 acres that comply with the lot size, frontage, and density standards of the R-8 zone, instead of R-4, with a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet. The second sentence prior to occupancy I would leave as is. I would add another sentence after that that says that landscaping and sidewalks will transition at the stub streets to match the adjoining stubs. Then, in site specific requirement preliminary plat, paragraph 1.1.1, in the middle of that it mentions R-4 development, I would change that to R-8 development. In paragraph 1.1.2 I would add another bullet that says landscaping and sidewalks adjoining existing stub streets shall match. Mr. Moe. Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have got one question for you. Zaremba: Yes. Moe: If you look under -- back up under number one in your miscellaneous application, in your last sentence in the bolded area, what -- do you want to do anything with that? Zaremba: No. It has to be -- it has to be a public roadway. It can't be a private one. Moe: My concern is accepted by ACHD when we have been told that they will not accept it. Zaremba: Well, if it's built they will accept it. Rohm: I agree with that. ~~~.,.:. 0 0 _ ,,;mac Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 51 of 86 `.~~ ~r Moe: Second. , 1 , Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending ~. 'jz~C'' .- approval of -- let me put my glasses back on -- MI 06-004 and PP 06-040, to include staff comments with -- as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? ~,•,_ `~` Newton-Huckabay: Aye. ~`~~ Rohm: There is four in favor and one dissenting. ;~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Schultz: Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in and this is the longest hearing that we have ever had that I have been a part of and thank you all for coming in. And we are going to take ,a~ another short break and when we return we will talk about the balance of the agenda. t~~- ..,. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 ~,~ < acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: 6, ,;,~ } -'~~` Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 s, residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone ` " fi ~; for Portico Place Subdivision by Tom Park - 1780 E. McMillan Road: ~ Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the public -- the regularly scheduled :`, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with -- do we have to open AZ -- the Portico Place Subdivision to accept withdrawal? ~;, ~,~ ._ w: Borup: Go ahead. It will cover it. rn ` ~V~ 'r Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-039 and PP 06-037, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision, for the sole purpose of withdrawing them from our agenda. ~r Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept their letter of withdrawal. ,~~r ~{~ Zaremba: Second. ~:.., :; ~ r. i~ ohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept their letter of withdrawal for AZ 06-039 and PP 06-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion . carried. Thank you. ~. t. `~_ " . '= ; : ~ , f J' ~~. vs~ :. .-... ~.: - i:~i. .. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 52 of 86 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a F. 280 square foot Coffee Shop with aDrive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C-G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-028 associated with ~` Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru, for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly . scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for the date of November 16th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. s ~.~' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we continue CUP 06-028 to November 16th, ~:'~~ 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. ;~,; MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. z Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 06-003 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Meridian ~ Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey Engineers - between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between Columbia Road to'/4 mile north of Amity Road: `''' Rohm: All right. Moving a little faster here. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 06-003 related to Southeast Comprehensive Plan amendment and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This application is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, which, again, by state law you can only make a recommendation to the City Council at a minimum -- or a maximum of one every six months, so I'm going to -- I don't want to rush things. I know we spent a lot of time on the last project. This is a huge -- only in land area, but there are huge development projects that are going to be coming before you. In fact, there are two of them that are within the area proposed for amendment in this subject application, but I am going to run fairly quickly through the proposal. Now, we are bound -- part of this area is currently within the city's area of impact and our urban service boundary. The -- let's see. This map's a little bit tough for me to read. There is Eagle. So, right here is our current area of impact boundary. No. I'm sorry. That's -- so we are a quarter mile south. You can see the dashed line there. That's current area of impact. So, two of the properties, which will be the next two agenda items, are currently designated low _~ ;;~~ 5 ~ ~~ ~ ~c t V ~~ ~`' ~^~ X F .N :t. :1.. y 3u`. 4Zt ~" INh p+~f j;,. 4Y ~s~ { t ~ } '~t L :~ 1 ~~ Y ~~ r ~~ r n.~ ~'~ ~M s$ Y ~" = '~. k a w ,~ '".,' ~ K (k~ H'II i-'~I. '~ ~ir~ { H. ~ 3 l,~! ~` ~ r?~ a~ r~-. 1 ~, ~~`` - ~'~ 1 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning I September 21, 2006 Page 53 of 86 density residential upon our future land use map today. The applicant is proposing to modify the map with all the areas that are highlighted in the teal blue or whatever color that is. General boundaries, again, are Amity Road -- just north of Amity Road, Eagle `" Road, over to Meridian Road, and southbound to Columbia Road. There is the aerial. As you can see, it's -- you know, you would expect largely agricultural rural. There are some within the four miles that this generally encompasses. There is a seminary. There is a lineman school for Idaho Power. I think it's one of these. I can't quite make it ~~ out from here. There is another -- I think a church owns the parcel here. ACRD has a gravel -- I'm not exactly sure what they do back here, but they have some type of a pit back there. There is another -- and it may even be associated with American Paving I ~. _ think is the company that's right on the corner there, but this is all within the geographical boundaries of the map amendment. Now, the applicant, again, has a direct interest today in what is highlighted. And let me show you the map that they propose to the city to amend our Comprehensive Plan map with and, again, I'm going to ~` focus on the darker highlighted areas. There are these cross-hatched -- it may be a 'k little bit harder to see. The yellow isn't very vibrant and you can definitely make out that that is part of their application. Some -- a thousand acres, around 1,100 acres, roughly, composed of -- I can't remember how many parcels, but there are several parcels that .~ are involved with this. I'm just going to call out the neighborhood center here at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. There is another mixed use area. It does not carry the neighborhood center designation, but a mixed use regional designation shown on Eagle Road. Also potentially shown is another mixed use neighborhood center on Eagle Road at the Amity intersection. Afire station being proposed. This fire station currently on the map is at the half mile. The fire department's okay with moving ''`' that designation to this location. The park's department previous discussions regarding parks in this general area thought it would be kind of neat to have a -- I'll call it an -~ ~ but there is a -- they are filling in this area now and it would give it alternative park , some -- it's a bowl almost today and they thought, here, that would be good for maybe { sledding or some rock climbing opportunities or -- not your traditional soccer field green ' ~~ space park. So, I'll get to some of my recommendations, but that's in my recommendation for the map. Essentially, to cut to the chase, staff is recommending ~ ~=T that everything currently within our area of impact stay with the current designations. I'll : ~~~ ~ jump to that real quick. That area is highlighted a quarter mile south. So, everything .~; would stay as it's currently designated today, with the exception of moving the fire station here, adding amulti-use pathway to the map along the Intermountain Gas pipeline. That's going to be a great amenity, which hopefully you will see here in the next little bit with some of the developments that actually are adjacent to it. And, again, i_. moving the park designation there. But, again, the only real change up here are what I `a just mentioned and I'm going to jump back to the applicant's proposal real quick. So, ~~ that -- that change does affect these two projects. It affects them inasmuch as they are low -- I'll let the applicant actually get up when we get to this project, I think there is ~: some -- I didn't read their letter, but I did see that there is a letter from them talking ~' about the density proposed there. I'm not going to go into that too much, but, generally, ' . leaving this alone, because we -- the city is currently going through looking at the L greater south Meridian area and where our future -- our 20 year build out line -- area of `''~~' impact line should be, essentially, between Kuna and the City of Meridian, Boise, what :.~-' a,F ,fi:~ ''-i~~ ~a.'r'''~~ ~ Y^'~y :i YY t ~ Lfc r 1~ ~ ~ ~ 5~2 °~`l, ~ ':~ ~~~~ t1y f '~' ~ .iii ~ ~. .,,x 4, ~r >~ ars ~`~; r~e.t'>ipSa - .~, !~-f~ i t ~, ` Ft c r~i. ~ ~ r`~~ I ;i° .7 r •' ~y } i ry k ~} p'p`` ? 7 w ~~]~fr 4 J :~7Y c 1.y .'R'4 F2~~~ __ +i{, Y ]. ~' ~k ~ - ,. i I. ~ ~~,, 4~ti~y*~ ii'i' '~ S ,~-~. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 54 of 86 :] can we service, what can they service, what are appropriate land uses -- there is a huge study going on right now. Matt Ellsworth in our long range Comprehensive Planning side of things is here this evening if you have any questions about where that study there is. There was a meeting last night regarding just that and getting some stakeholders involved in saying what do you see for this -- this isn't the first meeting, it's ongoing, it's been going on for a couple few months anyways. So, staff felt that it wasn't right to bypass that whole project and, actually, approve everything that the applicant is showing on their map. Now, again, they have an interest in the highlighted stuff. I believe that we should let that process take shape and I understand that this map that staff is proposing is probably going to change -- maybe not too substantially. Quite honestly, we are -- from what I have heard -- and it is secondhand -- most folks that do own land down there do want to keep some type of a rural feel to this area. So, designating three-quarters of the land down in this four square mile area as low density residential -- probably is a best guess. I mean, really, I don't see -- I don't see that changing a lot. Now, there could be some more commercial maybe along Eagle Road, maybe even some at the intersection of Amity, as the applicant had shown, and Eagle Road. One of the major changes that I'm -- I don't know if it's major -- one of the changes I'm recommending to the applicant's proposal is that the neighborhood center shown on their plan go from the regional designation to the community designation. That just, essentially, steps it down a notch from being the Costcos or those uses where people will travel from Nampa to come here and make it more community based uses, such as maybe a smaller grocery store or something like that. But you're basically drawing people in from a couple miles around, not a regional draw. Not a Cabelo's. So, that's one of the changes that's been recommended. The other change -- and I'm going to keep my pointer on it right here, if you kind of just look in this general area there. The applicant is showing low density that generally runs right along the ridge and I'll let him talk about the topography, because I have not walked this whole area and I'm sure Kent knows a lot more about the topography. I did read his letter and do know that this is a pretty predominant ridge that runs in this general location. The idea was to have low density, nice views there, kind of make the medium density transition there. Staff has recommended that they move that line essentially on the ridge and make it out a little bit more low to that, still, essentially, keep the same 45 degree angle, if you will. Again, this is a guide, so it doesn't have to fall right there, it -- there is some wiggle room in exactly where it transitions from low to medium or maybe low to medium to high in the future, if that's what the study says, but -- but that would be another change that I'm recommending to their map. And, again, that we, the city, adopt this addendum to our future land use map, with the understanding, again, that it is going to be subject to additional change is six more months when we come before you with that detailed plan saying we are fine tuning even, you know, this area that's low density on this plan even further. I hope that makes sense of everyone, but I didn't feel all high and mighty and want to tell everyone what their land uses should be and really bypass that process that we have hired this consulting team to undertake here and it is -- we are shooting to make the December 15th cutoff and, then, again, we can only bring that recommendation to you or a Comp Plan map amendment to you six months after you make a recommendation. So, the earliest would be March, I guess, if I do that math in my head real quick. April -- to the 1st of April, I guess, would be the first that we could .. . , ` ,. , ~.. : ... ~ ~, E ~ r '> n f:. .. r t , 1 :' ' ~ I ~+~ , ~~~ aid .. s i _ . ~ r • • ..:;~ . , , ~. . . . I I ~ { a ~ 3 ` qq Y, `; l •`2 J ( „..~~>~. L.t"'. 1 t :~' ~ e•1_ . il{ "~~ ~ F !B t t ~ :(' ~'f';e,t~~')YrcF* w }~ ~' ~xSe^+~.1. 3 . a7:. ~ _t ` J V i;r 5 j, ~-~~':,i•J~s&, Y ' e t ~ " ' ` "'"b' ct s -~iy,;ma•.-i . • ; •$ :3?,, ;1 .;•~yc~`.~at~~ r' ~ ~ sY~ .~qq ,.',3 y.a~- ,~ ~ i..~J{~ 1t : a ~ K t k ~a . } n f' • ~ ' ; 1. . yr, t5 ~5. ~`a;:;~~"~~ ~b,~,v'' 'd •`~.*".1 i~':~;,.,< - i Y . a e 1~ i i,~ s V l.a, ,~ ~f:vt. 41",.'a6'i~t'.xt.> .~'.rr.. ' ~ 7 . ' = , .3 ~ fi . y,~ ~. - '4 ~' • 9 ; . ['s,;.:y~t •. i ) I ~. n x Y ' ~ j ; j tr,;..- . 2. „Ra'i. ~ rk .. . ~ ~ . t a . .; ,~. ~ x - . ,~ , r. ;J..R i °~ i : ~> h " ~- .•, - -.. t :. ~ i , t >i ~ ~ C 'K 1F $ . • I t- I , . x .. ~.1 ~ y ~ , ;4 ,!j 4a A Yl~ `•xt ~ l .c.".?y~ri . '.l +tj2hX,(7 ;~,., n ..1. t .. .f F , , 3 ~i '' ' c~li` I. = :' ":~,J .s( ' I£ . ~ ~ ' J ~.'~ y~~ '~! si~~~ ~.~ ~. ~. '.•1 !y y ; ~;a; '.= .T"°r .~ if':,'nt' ;:; =w+~'i I (` ~ ~ 4 S „~' i ~ ~ «~ ; k 4'.y'~ ~ '~ ~ ~ I V ~ ! I 1 .> ~ ` ift .i..".{...{t. ~ H'j ~:~~'w„ " 4~ . II l 1 i I_ 1 ~ ` Y~ ~', M1 ' ~ ° Meridian Planning & Zoning " ' ~ September 21, 2006 *~ . _ Page 55 of 86 ' ~°. actually change this map again or recommend changing the map. But in the interim don't think there is any negative impacts to that. We may get someone here that wants to come in and do a low density subdivision in the next six months before there is that ~, ~; opportunity. We will be able to address that and the best interest question individually .'l, and I just thought, again, that we will start at the bottom and work our way up, rather :.~~ than having some be designated commercial and bump them all the way down to ~_ - medium density residential or whatever, it makes sense to start low and let's work our ~ , Y~ way up, rather than starting high and jumble land uses all over the place. So, that's kind ~ of my thought process. Hopefully -- again, hopefully, that makes sense to you all. ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~` think that's really -- I did list the changes in the staff report. Those are the major ones, th h I thi k ith th t if l f th it' thi k i t ff rt -: oug . n w a -- you repo oo at page n ne o e s a , s some ng -- ` ~~ ~~~ the summa and recommendation section, it does list -- ou can kind of follow alon rY Y 9 ~~' you can look at their map and, then, these are the summary and recommendation ' ~ changes, but through the applicant s proposal, essentially, there were the -- the two ` ~ modifications of staff -- three, I guess, if you include the change to have the stuff that's ~ ~~ currently within our area of impact remain as it is. So, with that I think I will stand for ;:;,, any questions. :. ,, Rohm: Any questions of staff? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood, I just wanted to clarify. Basically what you're <;. ~'~ saying is to keep it a little more basic at this time, more the low density, until the south Meridian plan is adopted, anticipating that -- that this designation would probably be ""~' temporary and that the south plan -- south Meridian plan could change that and it would be able to get a little more specific, is that -- A° Hood: Let me clarify that a little bit. What the applicant has an interest in -- which is, = again, this stuff that's highlighted darker -- Borup: Right. Quite a bit. Hood: I don't anticipate that changing -- there may be a tweak here or there -- you know, maybe -- maybe this changes to some other designation, but, really, they have development plans for this property that corresponds to what they are proposing. Borup: Okay. Hood: And they are ready or getting ready to submit those to you. So, I do not see what is highlighted here as amended here changing. It's the green -- it's really the light greens that are not part of this -- they may well look exactly like this when you get through the Public Hearing process, I just do not know that. I think the applicant did a good job of proposing a pretty good transition between their project and adjacent properties and showing some additional commercial and, you know, a lot of residential and -- but we have got market studies going on. We have hired professionals that have looked at Meridian over the past 20 years and trends and are going to throw a bunch of i 3t ~~~ ~ ' ~', k_4 yi y ~ r ~ 3" ~'~:"~ ,t ~~ ~ '1 !~2'xnu a5~~ "5- , Aia 4 ~ _ r ~ ,mow S , S t 'i;' { A ` r i. dx "$ `j.l __ ~. },~. ~ 'C i+.:, ri it* at ~" ~~' 7 ~'r~ y r n _ 7F ~.U. ~~ ~ . t ~, e;~ ~. z a ~: ~.:~ ~ n _ { ~. ~ ~h~ ~~~ E ~.~ :P 5~' ~r~~#~}~ ~ ~~; ~ M' .>;, ,. .~ ~,. _ .. - ~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 56 of 86 c different studies that stake holders and you guys here in six months and they will further amend what the applicant doesn't have an interest in today. So, just to clarify that. Borup: Thank you. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle, Eagle, Idaho. It's been an interesting process doing one of these plans, trying to get what the city wants and what ' '' they had envisioned. I mean just to take something simple like that neighborhood center, I mean the comment was the first time I showed them after listening to their comments is that my circle wasn't big enough. So, we have gone through those kind of gyrations, if you will, and we have talked with many of the governing agencies, the "' school district, the fire department I have been in many discussions with the irrigation , company and the Williams Pipeline people to try to work something out that made sense and, realistically, the only part that we have any authority to even recommend y that you change is the part that our clients have option agreements or they actually own and so that's why the line is around what we are showing. And yet some of the logic t;;_. that I used and what I was doing is that you currently had the Ten Mile Creek shown in Tuscany and the developments to the north as a pathway and so I just showed .. ~ extending that. If you take this and follow it just a little bit further, you're to Boise Ranch Golf Course and it runs along the toe of the slope there along this prominent ridge that we are going to continue to talk about a little bit. The Williams pipeline runs -- well, I - brought a project before you off of Black Cat and Franklin Road, the Williams pipeline ran through that property. It ends up being some 80 feet wide between the two pipes that are there. They really don't want houses on top of it. They allow you to cross it ~::~ with roads and those kind of things. So, it made kind of sense to turn that into a greenbelt and it comes out south of the Boise Ranch Golf Course and heads down to ~;.-~ Utah. So, it, actually, makes a pretty good fence. And it cut through the intersection here at Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, which created a -- kind of a different design feature that was kind of unique in the fact that you had this area inside and, then, you `: have a canal that's located in here that made that kind of unique shape. So, I did go ` ; before the parks commission in this overall area. We are proposing a neighborhood park at this location, which the parks commissioner thought was acceptable. It kind of sits off of the existing asphalted road. The green area, the low density portion here, is already being platted as a non-farm subdivision called Black Rock. Those are acre and half acre lots with really great views looking out towards Stack Rock and Bogus Basin, which sit on this predominate ridge that my letter talks about and I -- you look at the areas -- if you look at this mile section from Amity to Lake Hazel, Eagle Road to Locust Grove, you have four lots that were developed here in the Diamond Ridge Subdivision and you have a couple of the estate lots that are in here and, then, a few scattered along Lake Hazel. You have an LDS church that's located on the corner there and, realistically, everything else is just a couple farm houses throughout the majority of that mile section. You're in the same boat here in this section. You have a church site located here, a few farm houses, basically, along here. This was developed as a ten acre subdivision to the south of us and, then, my client owns that upper portion. There is the Bogus Creek Ranch that they do weddings -- that's the only thing I know that they do out there. I don't know what else they do. They got kind of like a little facade of an i. ,; ~ ~'3 `E ~~ '~ _t/ sr~~:}. X "r _~ t ~, •.~w. ~ . 'k ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 57 of 86 old frontier wild west town type of deal that is located in this area to the south of our project. In this mile section here you have the gravel pit that's located at -- across from the old chicken coops there and, then, you have the highway district's gravel pit and, then, a few houses across from Mary McPhearson that are going down the ridge and, then, there is a street or two that go in with a few homes sitting on acre or two acres or five acres. This point right here drops immediately off to the gravel pit. I mean that -- it's like a cliff, if you will, at that point. There is a subdivision that my former firm did that's a nonfarm that's located here that's been developed and, then, there is a few five acre homes that are located in this area. This is basically just a couple homes. Most of them my client has purchased. Some of the others that are not highlighted he has options on. There is this non-farm that was done down here with these acres and, then, the Baptist church owns the corner and, then, the lineman school, a couple other people have bought in there speculating on commercial development and coming in at the mid mile collector, as you guys have kind of discussed to extend tonight on that road. As we have looked at this, one of the areas that we -- kind of talking with staff and so forth, we recommended that they look at a neighborhood center in this location, mostly because they don't have any shopping south of the freeway and you put these homes in out there, you need someplace for them to go shop and so you have Tuscany Lakes that is right here, Messina Meadows has been approved, most of this section to the north has development in it, residential development, so there really isn't any spaces left. There is a city park that's located here in Messina Meadows project. So, if you're looking for a flat intersection, because you have this ridge that kind of runs through that southwest area, the closest shopping is at Five Mile and Lake Hazel or you have to go over in Boise or you have to go north and we all know how much fun that that is in either Meridian Road or on Eagle Road. So, this made sense to me. One of my clients -- the property owners here does have an option on this piece of property, so I guess I took leave of my senses and said that made kind of sense, so -- but that's -- that's why it was highlighted there. I do have development plans and -- on most of this and what I'm showing matches pretty close to this application that we will be hearing later. The reason I suggested median density next to Amity Road is just using a rule of thumb of what we have done in the north Meridian and that most recent plan is that when you get closer to the road, you kind of expect higher densities. You know, I guess it doesn't rattle me that much if it's -- or if it's low density, because you can ask for the bump up, which I think is a nice option that the city offers that, you know, you're just not locked into that and the projects that we are proposing in that area were less than -- were three or less in our densities, so I'm not overly concerned that staff is recommending that that change. But, to me, that whole area in there that when you're close to Amity Road and I truly believe that they need some shopping centers at an intersection someplace in the southwest. This is at the toe of the slope of the hill. This one is at the toe of the slope -- or, actually, it's on the hillside. This one is flat. But we really -- you know, we are not really thinking that we are going to be the shopping center. We have never wanted to be the regional -- we are fine with staffs recommendation that that be a community. We are thinking that that's what we were shooting for anyway, that TN-R, TN-C zoning is what we were hoping for in there, with some -- just alittle -- a nice little neighborhood center. And I actually think that it will work. We have looked at -- in our development plans of making this when you're driving Lake Hazel you really will be able to tell that -_ Y. ,; ~,.~, '. "~+ f ~ `, _f",. ... r ~:~' y .kris -_~i"- ~:fn •" i { v ~y, 5 fi~ tt?S.? i t~ ~ i.4' ~ , 'F~,'; P ~ •.'li~ k' j" r4', 1 -ti :~'.. ., , :. _ ., I r, ~ a:~ I r ,~ii~~~ t 7!y .~ '~'F~ .. fi '-'[S?~ ~ ~ ~ ~. C~ A~'c Sr~~ pp ~ 7 ,~-. , ~~' ~+b . ~ L.,, : ui".:_ Rff ?'.::• } ~ 4 1 .V a;; ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 58 of 86 you have arrived at this location by -- instead of having that center turning lane, - because we are developing on all four sides of the roads out there, we don't need turning lanes, except at where we have got streets and so we are talking about putting ,f landscaping in the center, kind of what -- if you have seen some of the Eagle Road plan, putting an island in the center with some landscaping and streetlights and those kind of things are what we are hoping to accomplish there, that you really know that you're come to a destination. We even played with putting a roundabout there and the comments back from the highway district, they are not real excited about having a two lane roundabout yet in Idaho, so we will have to have a stop light. But it's just been an ' exciting project. It's been kind of fun to do. We also have proposed another seven or eight acre park here in this mile section. This will probably be the first -- the parks department is really -- and the Parks Commission really like the design that we have for this park that's along the pathway. It was a round park. It's circular and, then, it has =`s streets and, then, alleys, and the muses coming off of the other side of the circle, but this park will be round and it kind of gives you a different kind of shape. This park here -= is located with an elementary school site that we are proposing and just outside or a part of the neighborhood center. I think I have probably talked too much and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Do you have any questions of this applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner. Zaremba: Mr. Brown would you -- I know you have said you could be comfortable with some of the staffs suggestions. Is there anything there suggesting that -- would give you sleepless nights or -- can we switch to the staffs picture? Anything there that just really scares you? Brown: With the ability to ask for the bump up -- I mean we are really not trying to get ~, over four units per acre in most of what we are submitting here. We have great amounts of open space. This location here with what they were proposing is moving that line a little further than where I think it should be, but I mean my design is done, I'm ready to turn it in, the only thing that we are probably -- is kind of similar discussion that we are going to have at the next hearing is -- you know, is the zone that I'm asking for matching. Density-wise I'm fine with the density, but it's -- your policies -- the way that your policies are required that if I have a certain designation and I don't ask for a bump ~. up to a medium density, then, I can only use certain zones. I think that's basically what -- so that's about the only place that really does give me a little difficulty. Zaremba: Okay. Clearly you have put a lot of thought and work into the amendment that you're asking for in a very large area. Brown: Right. :. ~~ __ Elf ,s ~~„~~- 2 •.,:f'Y 1 I K~:~' f ~' -~ C I ~, a . N. .: r'',r :,~ .I .~k ~~~~~ .i w;, V :~ -r :. 3; S r :~v .k:-."sr0.t73n~~'~~1` 1:'•~.'L`ya E?i' .~ ms's: °^:}•'~ ~` .^33~,,~•~ '.# 1 . ~ `•;' ~ y.;t ; M.~(~q~ "'.`s'I~s~'~~F~ kb..>~, ~r>~~!;~~; ta. '~ I~ ~ ~_ I y r / ~ ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ I tl ~ ~ n} r r~`:ti ii`i';;sy; ;~` {~j ~ ~; 9~ , .,. ~,~'~;1 ~ _ 7. ~ ' r. r.: ~.. > di 3`''.~+~,~e1t4~~e~.UW~ 1rfr, .~IF 4 ~.; ,Y ~t.t ~(?:' w ~`~'i~5 `Ir ..:I A t @ f i. ;:~' f: "~. t ~~5 ' ^,t R I i .~ T 5.. ~ i fi , I• . i. S:.+E ryax, :~ d 3 ( ` .t.~.:1, K. • 3 ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~!- y i 1 i 4. ~ I f ~} , 5 ' ~- ; ~•'2Y' ? Tiyv= y qt tir1 s~^wr~.'€. { I ~.. }~ ~:.y: , rr ' . ~.. , .,.~,: :.~ . - ; .~ n:.. n ~ e ~, Y;.. . ~ ~ , ~. "x.. ~ ^~ + S nl ,'E;'F ct ' ~ S t ~ ~ Sil t I {I~` ,. _ ~t~x~t ~~i ,~V ~ T ~ kK ..M. sner t z ro 3M "W ~ ~~ i .w .:t. } s '~f ~ Ik-i ~ 3 r ~, ~ ~ :.. , '4r ^- 4 :. r~. ` • vtif ~ : g .r ' i . . . u . • re ~, .-~S ` I ~^ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 59 of 86 ~' :: Zaremba: And I think that's great that you can take a big picture like that. The converse is I also agree with the staff that we need to let the committee that's doing the south ~~ '~ Meridian plan get some of their ideas out. r.: ~r.YF r': , l,' .. _. z~ `' .'-y s, a .:~, r., li '=~"Y. ,:. ; .; ~, _. G { ~~~.~~ ;, r "° ~ _;; ={' }' ti ,~. Brown: Right. Zaremba: So, it seemed to me it's a pretty good compromise to go with their suggestion, with the exception of a spot or two that you really would like to have different. Brown: The low density -- basically what they have done is they have moved it out into the flat and I think that -- I can understand their logic and, truly, the only reason that it -- that it, I guess, doesn't really upset me is that you can ask for the bump up. If you did not have that option and if I was just locked in that I had to have -- basically what you're saying when you move the zone is that you're not allowed to have R-8, you have to have R-4 or R-2 and it has nothing to do with density, because I mean what I -- in my development plan for this particular piece of property, I'm close to 25 acres of open space, eight of it giving it to the city as a park, and its paths and other things and so, yeah, we have got smaller lots, so we really didn't want to try to approach it from a -- ask for a PUD. I mean I guess I can ask for a PUD if you go along with their plan, because I more than exceeded -- I mean I probably have close to a mile of pathway on that little project, because we put a path at the bottom of the toe of the slope, trying to make that transition between those two home products, but that's the only part that's kind of difficult. Borup: So, that's the main difference, you'd like to keep the transition at the top of the -- top of the slope? Brown: Toe of the slope. Everywhere else -- we had intended this to be community -- either amiscommunication or me being cheap, because -- I won't touch that one. Caleb will appreciate that, but -- yeah, we are fine with the community. That's what we want there. We don't want regional. We don't want people coming there to shop. Borup: Okay. But are you saying on a project this size you're not going to have any high density areas? Brown: The high density areas would be in this neighborhood -- Borup: Justin the neighborhood, that would be the only place? Brown: And we are proposing a little bit in this regional here that is -- we are hoping this is similar to Silverstone and what's out on Overland next to Mountain View High School, that it's an employment base and that there might be similar uses that you guys have been approving in this area. ~~ .~.xr ~. t."~ l~h JD t ~ {~ y1~ d ~,~1 5.. ,.f,4 ~ - V ~ •~' i~. ?~~ ~Fs, '' ~, 'w. v,. ~ -~: ''_ F ~. ~~.~ryj ~k . p'~4, i~ t '~ _. ,~'i-~ z; ,,~i ~ r; e r.~ ~.~ ~^ ty k ~ t } y, ~ aar4 `,; ~ ~; 'aa'~a'r°' f.k ~Y, ' }i , .! t ~:'. as ;~t~ :~ .~ yl, t,'l,x; v 4 h~ .} f. ~y1 j ~1 ~: 2 ^1 y' ~ ~ ~~ s~ ~: ~, i'" . 'i ~ ~ . . a~-:s <. s~; . ~,. ... w ~ .;t•KV..~. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 60 of 86 Borup: I was just thinking, you know, a thousand acres, and there is more than that out there with other properties that some higher density is probably appropriate in certain areas. Brown: And I guess this is about the only area. I mean with the medium density we can reach the numbers that we are looking for and it just didn't really seem appropriate for some of the view lots that we will end up with there. Borup: Questions for staff. Caleb, did you have any concern on -- on moving that area to the toe of the slope? I mean what was your rationale on going beyond? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't necessarily -- like Kent said, I don't have any heartburn being -- as the applicant proposed. What it's really going to come down to is when the development's proposed and having the transition be what possibly the City Council may be looking for and that's kind of what my rationale was is -- not directly from the Council, but what I have heard through other avenues that maybe they envision for this area, some more low density and that's why I felt moving it over a little bit should reflect better what actually gets constructed on the ground. Not necessarily represent the zoning, but how many dwelling units are actually constructed per acre up to three with that and not four to eight, so I -- Borup: So, that is how you determine the zoning, though, isn't it? S - Hood: Somewhat. I mean, again, they can apply for an R-8 zone and have some lots in there that are 5,000 square feet. If the overall density does not exceed three, it's still consistent with the Comp Plan anyways. ~, Borup: Oh. Okay. Hood: So, there is some -- there is flexibility. Again, the map -- it is a guide and that can shift and it's not in exact location anyway, so whether it's here or at the toe of the ~~ slope, when that development comes through -- and there is actually lots that are being proposed. That's where stafFs going to have some more analysis on we need to see it r ~~ transition better, not be at the top of the ridge and all the big lots look down on the smaller lots, but have it truly transition from your half acre lots to quarter acre lots, to 10,000 square foot lots and so on. Or something to that effect. so, that line kind of got pushed that way or I'm recommending that that line get pushed that way, so it's clear that we will be looking for a true transition from these new lots, if you will, that next block or maybe a couple blocks -- it should not jump right into -- Borup: I see what you're saying. Hood: -- 8,000 square feet, it's just that they should be 12's as well or -- ~ Borup: I guess I would to see the topography to know if that was -- a 20 foot drop off is ~ a pretty good transition. '. 4 x`"~1 ~;'~:, r~ii r.\> I ~ s' ~ T~ i ._ I ~ F s ~~~y+ ~1 r~) ti'p.r ~~ ~+ „' f - ~ 4 ~ !~ ~ r ~ * _ i. r.. .I '~} p ~a 1 Y i ' .a , s .~~ -. d ~ ~~~i_ it : ~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ i ~-~M`..:i i i - < >~Y ~' • ~ .~:', {~s':I 9._.. ' I u, .~ .F,4 7 `- p C ~bx ~sY~fr`~ka"'kTm.4a`4~w.~~, .+ I ~,2d ~ J ° ~ ` T ~.. \ +t ,ns ,. s)RY'^~w .:C.l~. ~ ' .~ ~~ ~ : ~J ~ . ~ P. .j J • 3 •_ rtY.f; ;1'X" 1, •; ` :~. i,' ~ ~u '~ ~~ r z I >M ~ .'F ~ '~~. rt ~ .:;~ : r~ s ~~i r ~~ l +~ ~f i •tys„C S"` 7 ~ '7 h i'i - ?'. i` a) -:, ' ji{ l ~t Y ~ ~ ' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 61 of 86 ,E~' ~~ `~~~- Hood: And I'm not saying yes, but if you look at lots backing up to lots, you're not going ` ``} to have your -- you know, it's adifferent -- 4 -}~ Borup: Yeah. Let me clarify on the bump up. That applies to zoning that -- or are we talking the Comp Plan designation? ~., .u Hood: It applies to both. So, you can bump up -- t-, t _:T~;. ,.f° Borup: So, you can go from low density to medium density? ~= ~'~ Hood: And you can go from an R-4 zone to an R-8 zone. Most of the time when you ask for an R-8, like the subdivision that we looked at .earlier tonight, they were an R-8 ' ~~ zone, but their density was 4.58. So, just over four. But most of them are in the lower range of medium density. '~ Borup: Right. That makes it easier, I think, for the Commission to approve something when it's -- Hood: Yeah. And I -- Borup: -- when it's close. Hood: You factor in all the open space. Their overall density of the project is going to be two and a half, maybe, something like that. I don't know, but -- Borup: Okay. Well, then, if it's appropriate, the bump up would handle it and, hopefully, the Commission would look at that in an appropriate manner at the time. Brown: It still works. I mean I signed my name in for and -- you know, and it still works, I didn't write a response letter to what Caleb had talked about is still workable. Borup: And I assume you're going to be -- you're involved -- you're going to be involved ` ` in the south Meridian study and do input there and that's another option. And that's `'~ another o ortuni pp ty -- that's another opportunity for you to change. '~ '~ Brown: This is another property, but for -- I mean this is moving our property -- the ones that we are involved with right now. ~'~ Borup: if there is going to be another comp plan change, your property could change '; ;-~ again; is that correct? Do I understand that right, Caleb? '~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that's correct. However, they have got an application they are ready to turn in, so in the interim six months we will review that r` ;z"I project -- , I~ ~~. ~~ .; `< ~~r n~ ~ a Y-.~ e ~.: ~. .' 1;~' .. .~: {~ ~ ~ y~ ~~~~i~' ~~~ fir rx;~ r.~: ~ { ff r 1 per,,. •~i I. •,r ,?y ' "fin 2 ~ j ~$ . . - :s. ..?. Ir i .1 t ` ~ '~ '' Y L .~~ . : i ,.~ .. . i•._•zt ~ y N ~ F ' ~tiJ%N~. ~ri .. - ..t,'. v F ~ ` ~ ~ . ~ ~~a~~` its ~ ~y~~.j(~~,~t 'Wh... T ~~~'~~, Y ~ f ~ e i r 4'6 4' ' ~ It .,' _J 3 „ . ll lx` ^x. K a1.. yy, t y ' j'v~ ~ .~ a ~ w , ~ ~~ f n ~^T ~ ~'~ •%'~ : ~' '.3q - h S i `~ 1 ~ J, f k .7 ;1 -i ~ i ., ,~~"r"te . ~ :f t~ [~ . ; ' a~ ~ _ ~ Y v . i , ' .~~' A h 111 ,.•~ ~f.. r ~ ~ ; ,' ,i' -rt : ~ e F'~ .'~ t~ ~~`` ~~. x `7t.,, . r 5 k~ i >~'.. `~Yi 3 rt K.. .~ x Meridian Planning & Zoning r• < ~ September 21, 2006 ~'. ~'~t Page 62 of 86 r Borup: Okay. Hood: -- if you give them this designation. Now, if you don't make a designation, we can't receive that project -- t,, Borup: Right. ~. Hood: -- because, then, it's not -- we don't -- we don't have designation for it, but -- ',~; Borup: No, I -- okay. Hood: It will be reviewed under whatever you forward on tonight, because it's anticipated you will see that in the real near future. `~~~ Zaremba: And that project is for a cement factory that's going to run 24 hours a day? Hood: You got it. Yeah. We just rubber stamp everything at staff level. We approve those. Borup: There is a hog farm right there. Zaremba: Yes. Brown: The hog farm is across the street. He has a big sign over here on the Kuna ~s side. They have a big hog farm right over here. The reason that the -- that natural b: topography to me makes -- makes where the low and the medium density and -- I mean ~' ' when you look at a north Meridian plan, for example, the majority of it is a medium density and it really does come down to -- and in both of -- basically, what we are ~~ -. looking at is four projects, four different subdivisions. The city wants me to break this ~~~~ one subdivision up into four pieces, because I crossed section line roads, so, you know, it gets a little more complicated, but what -- in this particular portion of what I'm developing there, I think the development community, when you have these large •'' "~ parcels like this and have them together and you have a market that's somewhat been ~. . changing, it's nice to have those smaller lots that would be allowed in the R-8, but at the ~s~` `, same time maybe have something that's more of an R-2, but just ask for the one zone, ~3 ~ instead of having, you know, multiple multiple zones requested for the project and that's kind of why the line that I have drawn is drawn showing more medium density on that `~-''= piece of property is it's more as to how the streets align and going around the park spaces and those kind of things, so that works -- that works for me. But I can live with -- ~y 3 just have to make another application or write some more letters or something, so -- ,_ Hood: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to drag this out too much, but I just had an idea, maybe a ~ compromise, because if this goes low, just another thought, that if these -- if we keep the projects that are parcels that are currently within our area of impact -- and this -- °~ ~ these are all low in here, if you maybe took the designation and made it low here and, ~~ 4 then, dropped it straight off or something like that, because you would have -- you would ~~ , 4i d ~~s II 6 ",'°r > 'EDS.<;3 ` •.c. ~~~~~ ~ I t J ~ , ~ r l: $ s. uidi ~ .C~~ ~5[:3t'+s~^ ~,^x srj Irx ~ 'C ~ ' , el v ..v. f~ ~ ~~ .. . ~ ~4 ! ~ ~~~~ Y, CY' 'I 6'd' I ~ J . w 77 ; isp ~*i5„v., .G ,~" . '- ~ y , ' . a ~ . _ ;,r . ` d ~ .. Yi~: y t %h '~, ' kT;` . k t i J , } r ,~ r ~ ~ , r 5 ~ ~ p 3'S.;~+in ~~ ` ~r '~ ~ ~ Y .~ 3 ^: ~°`~ ~1 ~ 3 sa,. # ``' ~ ~ F '~ F ~!i _ i~~:, if ~ .~'A~i ~.a.~~za I y~" ~l,+s~~ ~ v , : r : 7 , _'~ a, • ~ '.:+" ~ ~ + : i, , i.. ; ~, X.I. + .- • c , . is • ~ ~ x ~~5 ~ a`7~ A ~'S ' Y t ~ ~!. ~ I I . ~. , t}•;^t.,+e , nl , . t 1 R p~ r. . f ~. .. ~ 'ij , ~ , J . L ; .. 5v • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 63 of 86 have, medium, low and having a strip of medium between two lows to me doesn't -- so, if you, maybe -- you know, did something like that, because, again, this is going to be low -- or it is low today and what you're proposing here two applications from now is low, having that transition somewhere in there maybe makes some sense, too, but, again, I'm not trying to convolute it too much more, it works either way, but that's -- that probably represents the land uses that we will see a little bit better. Rohm: Anymore questions for the applicant? (i Brown: Thank you. Rohm: Yeah. Thanks, Kent. There is nobody else that's signed up to speak to this application, but if you'd like to come forward you shall be heard. Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just because of the complication of Comprehensive Plan map amendments needing to be done only once every six months, I would suggest that we continue the y hearing on this one until after the 14 -- ~:'~ Rohm: After what? Zaremba: If we decide to move one forward and one not forward -- Rohm: Oh. Oh. Okay. We can close the Public Hearing, but just not vote on it. Zaremba: I would continue it until the end of the meeting tonight, so that we can talk about 14 also. ~, w:, Rohm: Okay. I don't have any problem -- ;~ Zaremba: That's just a suggestion. Actually, it was a question, not a statement. ~ ~ ` 4 Hood: Can I put my two cents in? Sorry to butt in. x~ ,,, r; r • Zaremba: Please do. ~`;`a `~ Hood: If, in fact, you decide -- it sounds like you may be sending forward a recommendation on this one. If you decide not to send one forward on the other one, ?~: ~~ 14 or whatever it is, if you don't make a recommendation on 14 and you want to R. ~`~~ ~ continue it, I would ask you to continue for at least six months, not continue it for a ~: ; month or two to resolve whatever issues you may find there are that you can't make a -.t. ~"' favorable recommendation tonight. Either you make a recommendation tonight or you >4 continue any recommendation for six months. And that's my -- the serious implications ~; ~,.w~~ -J :.:k :l >- ~,. g:' ~: l L - ;~~+ f ~ f: ~ _ ~ S. 4 ' :~.~I ~ ~ ~ ~ .rf ti ~. ~i ~, • >y ' ' .,. s. C•.I I }l t ~.... k,, x~ `~~; ...{.3 S j~~ < • •.n S . "~; ~'~ '' ; 4 . " $ • 4 ~~ • ~ y' ~ l~v ~ 4 1 't ; "x . R~ ' 3 4y "~' ~~~~~ y R ~ ~ . . l i~ ,r , ,, ~ '~ 1 ~" '~', ~ . ', •, ~ ,~ , ~ 'i ~ { Il'~ { i~ r k ~ ~ ~ •f• ~ 2 . ye. I ~ : F '~•. 1 l ~ 'd" k hi ~' ~ w ' ~ ~ M~:', . t ' . i ",;%t •: T ; i, :';,fir '~ t .~ t Y,y_ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 64 of 86 ..~ to that bigger south Meridian area, if you just continue it for, again, a month, even two -~,~ weeks, puts the squeeze on us for -- Borup: You actually mention in your staff report by delaying this would delay the other ':~ ~'~ plans. '. Hood: So, I don't think -- if you're comfortable moving this forward, that's fine, the other one's going to be on his own and he either comes along with or he waits six months. I ~; mean that's how I look at it. So, you can still wait on your motion, but I hope it's not w~. because you're not sure if you're aoina to make a recommendation as a oackaae deal or whatever, but -- -~- Zaremba: No, it, actually, wasn't even about my opinion whether to go or not go, it was ,,u~ just the thought of keeping them together. So, I withdraw my question. `' ` Rohm: Okay. So, do you want to continue it to go together then or -- 1. i Zaremba: No. Let's work on it. ~, "~- Rohm: Okay. Then let's -- could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? :; Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-003, related to the Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. '~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I have only got one question or concern and that's maybe -- well, I guess that's maybe all there is, just the boundaries between the low and medium. I just -- I have always felt that the best -- the best -- maybe the transition or separation, that seems to be what a lot of people -- at least neighbors are concerned about is separation between different densities and that natural topography makes the best separation of anything, I think. Whether it's a canal, you know, a hundred foot wide drain ditch or a -- or a :y hillside, and, you know, I don't know about -- but the way -- the way staff recommends still leaves that option to do the bump up and -- Rohm: Yeah. I think that the low density throughout, with the option of the bumping up at those transitions as the development occurs, seems to keep us covered. Borup: I agree. Then, the decision can be made on specific -- on specific designs, but - f a~ .l ,~Y~ ~ _ n ~`' ~ ~'~` y ~' -~~ l Z +•~~ ~~ • •~ ~y, .ii-E 1 ~~ A'NL "-3 ~~, - L - 4 i~iy ~~,~ , ' fip5 C ~ i ylt , ,y' ~ i ;~ iyy ~ ~ irk ~ 1 £"_S~~ ~~.. - h ~ ..~. -'r v,; a. ~ e ~~ fix ~ *~'~ fi 4 A icy F ~ r,`~ ~;:ao. t ~~„ pa~4?' Y'"' i*~~ ~~~ ~ k ~1` ~ ~,S~f Cdr ^ht'-.' ~~~ - _~.,~r i oV ;:1 ~ tS y ~~ r ~. p;Y Ste. ni~ T tY ~1Nr J'. Mi ~'~`~'~ ~ ~~ .may. l ~~ 4~,. _ ~- - -, t'~~'R (~ ~rt'i,1 .A 1 ~~ f~ ur ;z '-; ~`` `~ i~ .b n ~,_, m 3 yf ~f~ - ..4 y. ~~ { yh , fs ~A*hy",i ~,, >. -,r ;;. t:+: r,=, .,~, ,~,~*''1 ~,, , -x r= 4 ;;,._ .'t . ;~, :-T.; _;.~~~, ~,=-,tip ~: . ~.. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 65 of 86 Rohm: Okay. Keith, would you like to make a motion? Borup: Well, I was still debating on whether I want to change -- but I think maybe the applicant would rather we just move it on. Well, what I want to change I don't think I want to do tonight, because it would be the map, so -- Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you have something? Moe: Just pretty much answered what I -- I'm fine. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Do we have amotion -- Moe: I don't think there is one. Borup: All right. That's what -- I didn't see one earlier. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I would move that we recommend approval of CPA 06-003, request for Comprehensive Plan amendment as written in the staff report. Zaremba: For clarification, are you siding with the applicant's original or with staffs adjustment? Borup: I think right now with staffs adjustment. Otherwise, we would need to continue it to have the map redrawn, wouldn't we? Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Or -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Brown was okay with staffs adjustment. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Did we have a second on that? Zaremba: I seconded it. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we -- Borup: We do have both maps here. ~Yr ` Meridian Planning & Zoning ""~r, September 21, 2006 Page 66 of 86 w. '~ °~~ Rohm: -- forward onto City Council with our recommendation of approval for CPA 06- 003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. k, ~~/ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~,,~.: Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by ,:' Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Rohm: Thank you. The next project I'd like to open up, it's AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Cottswold Village Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat approval for 62 single family residential lots and nine common lots on 20.18 acres within the R-8 medium density residential zoning designation. Cottswold Village is generally located on the north side of Amity Road about a quarter of a mile east of Locust Grove Road. You can see on the map it's right there. Amity Road will serve as a primary access to the subdivision. To the west there is a proposed Estancia Subdivision right here, which is zoned R-4. To the north the proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision, which is this area, which is zoned R-8. South and east, residential parcels are still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 62 residential lots, approximately 7,750 square feet and 15,000 square feet. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways. Fast forward here to the landscape plan. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways, micro pathways and a large common area to meet the open space requirement. An amenity in the form of a gazebo to be located in the central common area is also proposed. The subject subdivision has utilized two stub street connections provided by Bellingham Park at the north and Estancia at the west side. Cottswold Village has also provided a stub connection of their own at the east property line to provide connectivity to the county parcel when it redevelops. The site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The one structure located at the southeast corner, which is down here, is to be removed. There is two issues to mention here. First, the applicant's proposal, although in accord with the requested R-8 zoning district, it doesn't comply with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site of low density residential. It is R-2 and R-4 zoning districts which correspond to said land use designation. The Commission should also recall that earlier in the evening during the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment staff has recommended the land use designation for the site remain at low density residential, as ten of the building lots are slightly under the R-4 medium low density residential lot size standards of 8,000 square feet. Staff feels the applicant could and should meet the R-4 criterion. If approved at R-4, this ~~t $ Ft?k ~'Zalr~~e°. `~ r'i '`x ~ ,. ' 1 ._~~ F y .-~i -~:'S:sn -~ ~';%~r i ~~ ~, ~ ::~ y> . , d~i:7" f i ~' '{ N Y.``~ ~.~4 ~'~ .K?.. a. ~,~-. --,a..~-a.ah1 i,.~- ~ t t wj( _i$ ? ~. ~'px F : . -. ,. . ' { a ~ ', I {. ~ ~ r I ' ~ +4 y.,,C %~ "'" ~ ~ ' ; F f; i^tk ~ ^ ~ { '~ ~ .,{ `, ,"£ ; ~ '3 ~ ~' ~T ` ~ ~~ ~ F">~Z ~ ~ ^^Y~+J55~ $ . ! , { P ~ nn '~'e'-,Jt'?? "~1` ~ 11"' -, ~ - ~ ~ i . ; , , Y . . rx; ,o ..fit ~' , ~; , I .~ ` F ~ 3 .f ~ ~~' ~~, .; ~t ;r ~ ~ i~,a. rte... f i ', + } f I ! F f ~,~ ~ ; e 'zl•~ b 5 fig' ' .. _, v? ~.n.:l ~ .l .7 ~. i .. j ... f,-.*. ... `N r~ft~it ~.i; z~~'N f"%.a'..'~:4.'. .; _ ~~ ~~ ~ L+` ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning _ September 21, 2006 Page 67 of 86 E ;Ti development would, then, be in compliance with the current land use designation for ~j: _ this site. The second issue is that the applicant proposes six foot solid fencing along „= ~ the micro pathway in the rear property lines at the northeast corner of the subject site. ~'. This does not meet the requirements of the UDC. To clarify for the applicant, six foot ,' solid fencing is permitted along all rear and side property lines not adjacent to common areas or micropaths. The code would limit fencing in these instances to four foot fence if solid or six foot if open vision. The applicant should state his preference of fencing in ~.:4 these areas tonight. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. .;. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle. j~ ~~ Zaremba: You look familiar. °'' Brown: I should. We are not opposed to the four foot solid fence, that's just an error in the landscaping plan. The issue comes is that we were asking for medium density here ~~~~~ ~ and with the approval of the last project, basically, to keep our plan as is we need that '. :~ bump up that we have discussed so kindly tonight and what it really affects is that we have seven lots in here that are ahundred -- no, 224 square feet smaller than 8,000. If F'` *~ I make them two feet wider and make some of my larger lots smaller -- basically make everything 8,000 and everything's okay, I guess. Or if I get the bump up, then, I can ~; _ ~, v leave my lots as is. Staff had mentioned to me over the phone that there is a concern ; that if they give this R-8 that, you know, my larger lots, some of them could come in and ;~~~i re-subdivide, because the minimum is 5,000 square feet and we can commit to not ' •m~ l.~ ~.' doing that in the development agreement, which they are requiring us to do as a part of - ;'y ~ annexation and I think that we are all covered and we are all fine. Our density is over ~ - three, but just -- I mean, what, 3.3 I think is what it says -- 3.3, 3.2, something like that. ~~~ So, we are slightly over, but realistically we are compatible with what's around us. We ,. ~: L~~, have R-8 zoning to the north of us and R-8 zoning that was done in the PUD that ~µ;,Vi brought before you in Messina Meadows. We have R-4 that's next door and all of those s lots are exactly 8,000. So, we were just trying to add a little bit of a mix with some ,.'`i larger lots and just some difference. These lots in this area are like 130, 140 foot deep. ~I It just gives you something a little different than having everything be 80 feet wide and ` ` E 100 foot deep or so forth, so -- that's the purpose behind it. Any questions? 1 .' ~~': Borup: Mr. Chairman? >~~ Rohm: No questions. Borup: I do have one. Whose --question on the bump up. What's your understanding of the procedure and how that is handled? So that -- you made that request tonight. Is ,~ that normally done in writing? r ~ 1 ~ x , ~ s r ? t yy t'°"~Y ,~' ,~ ,~ ~~ . ~.~ , ~. 4 . 'phi. ~19 S t ~ ~ s 1. .: ~.,5.. ~ $ '~ =i ,,~_ , M " , i ......~ ~ ~ • ~. ' ' a ~ brs ~ .' . F .. F. ,: ~ ~ ~ J . s a, ~ _ :~ - ~ ,;.., a . ~ '~ 4 ~' 'a C w ~.~ ~.: s j ~ ~ ~ ' k . . ~. cy~r i 7 kl r,,` ~ ~ ¢ ~.~~ 4 ~, :. ~M. ,t ~:; ;:r r~ , ; ~ ~ .1 f ~~ • b ~,.,^~E ~`(" }:' Fix # Y .. ~} ,l ` a~ =^ I :w ~ • • it •'~ ~ P - t I ' :Y ~ i W ~ .iia ~'": ~ d l1 S ~F"- ~`ti' i r 'y ~k.~ L": ~ ~ i 1 .•L` sA f ~ r ,~ 4' ix a~ y .,4 "Si r" ~`, :, ~ ~::: I a ~},. ` .~ : : i ~ '~a ~ y ~ yr.s ! ~. ,t i :I ;. . F ~,\r { .,' ' }•: r,e~ y,' ' Y ' I . . _ et1. ' ' ` fk ~ ~ ~ _i 1 J. ' ~ ~ u i n~}~Q + . r `L . , 6hT'y7t?~x~~,~;2`, o!•.h' 1 r ,; YY,. ; . '!, • 4.e wi ~ ' f r. ! ~ ~ • : .. y: ~f , 'f ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 68 of 86 N~, Brown: It's usually done in writing and it's done as a part of submitting my application and since this kind of happened in between, I mean if you need me to make it in writing, ~~ I will get out my pen and Iguess -- `~ Borup: But you have done it verbally in your presentation tonight was your formal .~, "~ ~~~ request; is that what you're saying? _; ,. ~~} Brown: Yes. {; ~; Borup: Okay. Thank you. ~" ,-"~ Rohm: Thank you, Kent. I think that's pretty typical, isn't it, that if an application comes ~'s ~k in and wants an R-8 when it's zoned R-4, that just kind of goes along with the ~, ~', application, doesn't it? I think we have reviewed a lot of plans that -- ~~ Borup: And the problem I have had with a lot of them in the past when they have asked ~: ;~~ for them, they have gone to the maximum what those other zones will do. I'm a lot more ~~ ` comfortable on one like this where they are just barely over and they are not asking to "±4 have 5,000 square foot lots, which would be approved in the R -- yeah. Iguess I'm saying I like this. I like the diversity of lot sizes and the variety of plans it allows to be 4; ;?v. t' : built when you have that type of thing. I really like the looks of this subdivision. And I -- `;~, were you going to ask for public testimony? 1 ~° Rohm: Yes, I will. Yes. Is John Huffman here? Would you like to come forward, please? ~~ ; Huffman: Hi. My name is John Huffman and I live at 2045 East Amity, which is just off the map there just across the road to the south and although we were characterized ~~ ~ earlier as just farm houses, you know, kind of around in here, my wife Helen and I have `~= lived and worked this as a farm and a ranch for 30 years or so. Raised five kids and 15 ~' ' grandkids. We are actively working this land. We raise some crops. We raise horses. 1~= ': We sell horses. We give riding lessons. There is a lot of activity there. And Iguess -- really don't have any -- any problems or concerns, other than just a few questions for ~.-~ you and that is that, you know, obviously, I'm guessing that in 20 years that probably this will fit into any kind of a long range plan for this area, the type of operation that we ~¢ : ~ are running. But, nonetheless, we'd like to be compatible as development happens and s` _~ as we transition as well and so my question and concern is mostly around the fact that ~< r we currently receive water for irrigation, we -- you know, we have a need as a subdivision, for instance, there to the east of us, if they move in, that we have large L `, ,; animals, we would like there to be some kind of safety requirements or something like that that we may not actually be able to easily accommodate and we just want to be ~',~~ able to fit in and have a safe environment for folks as well, so -- Borup: Is this yours here? ,y~ Huffman: Yeah. We, actually, have all -- there is three there. So -- ., r R " r t ,Ky/Y ~' ,`l~ i..t' } ~ it. ~ ; Y~ ~ Y T a -''x r :FI:`f~S ~.T.. r?~ s'1 t°, y,J P~ ~:'c a. ~{F v, ri ,rte `- ' . t~`~.V~4-~ s° Fi± ,.'~~a._ ~. 1. 5i~ s ~ `~f r ~ `t ,~ .. _ . .. ,.. ,~.t+.., ,,.~ t i'yr n. ;-~~ W+e r ,~ • R I~ ? l I~ ~W r§yyy§y~~~~ ` 4 45 ~.4 > h Y~. ~': k ~~j . l ~... Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 69 of 86 ~, ~~ Borup: There is a pointer at the desk there. Huffman: Okay. So, we currently receive our irrigation water off of this ridge that we were talking about earlier and we are able to irrigate our fields here and, then -- but my concern -- and this is currently just an alfalfa field here, but mostly I'm concerned about the safety issue and having an attractive fence or barrier -- we do a lot of -- we have a riding arena here along the road. We also have kind of a bridle path where you can walk your horses around and so forth. A lot of students take horseback riding lessons and that sort of thing. So, again, no particular questions, but just -- I wanted to just make you aware that there is a fair amount of activity in that area and we would just like to be compatible with -- Borup: It sounds like a lot of your concerns would apply to the one that's coming up next. Huffman: Yes. Yes. Exactly. Rohm: And to answer your concerns, typically, what we do is we make a requirement they put on their plat -- the Right To Farm Act notification on all the lots that are adjacent to existing agriculture operations and just so that anybody that's buying, they know that there is agricultural work taking place adjacent. Huffman: Okay. Rohm: And I think that that addresses your concerns. Huffman: All right. _ Rohm: And the irrigation, Idaho Code says that if you have got irrigation currently, you will have irrigation available to you after development as well. Both of those things are °, taken care of. Huffman: All right. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. There isn't anybody else signed up, but if someone would like to come forward, they are welcome to. Seeing none -- if we can get a motion to close. Hood: Mr. Chair, although there wasn't really much public testimony, I don't think any concerns are really -- I'm not going to say no concerns were brought up, but the applicant should probably have the last word in this matter before you close the Public r Hearing. Zaremba: And, actually, I saved a question for the applicant as well. Rohm: Oh, good. Kent, would you like to come back up. y j'~ c 7 r~ Jti~ r, t _ T,~ a s :.~ ~~ qxo "' x r ~ ~~ ~~~ i'r iy ~~ ~~ r 3`t ~,t-.;.~. - - ... CW,a 1'tt Y: ~ ~^'d ~~~; ~. ~f z A. =r~E i+k~ X~ x ~,~ ; ~, gar 3~ ;, ~ {!~ ~ +~k~G ~ ~~,<y 3 ~ ~~x,~E" y~. d 4 ?f r.. ~;?~ F ~ .,. x .~ ~~' k ~ ~'~ dK= k ~Yj r~~ ~ ,~~R ~~t ~~~ ~.4 ~ .:~~~ f ~ ~~. ~ ~ k ~~ ~ r ~' xf -~+b., ~, F r q;- ,.c,. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 70 of 86 ~~ Brown: Kent Brown, for the record. ~: Via: '`= Zaremba: Thank you. I thought I marked it and now I'm trying to find it, but there was -- a; ; .. ~. ~ I think this is the right one. There was a discussion in the staff report about the turning ~;_ ~_ ~-r radiuses, probably, in this cul-de-sac? ~;;~~. Brown: We will comply. Zaremba: Okay. It, actually, looked to me like you were bigger than the required radiuses, but -- •. Brown: That's what I thought, too. Zaremba: Okay. As long as everybody is satisfied, that was my only question. ,:,: Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? ,'~ Borup: It looks like there is staff comment. ~` t. Rohm: Does staff have any final comment? s z: Hess: I guess, no, we are still going to stand by our recommendation of having the R-4 ~'- zoning designation comply with our Comprehensive Plan designation is just what makes sense, so -- ~; '~ Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Borup: So, you're saying the staff would not be open to a bump up? y:w Hess: There were -- Commissioner Borup, sorry, we are not exactly opposed that, but, you know, as staff stated, we are looking to keep that low density and it's -- the R-2 or ~' the R-4 zoning designations are what corresponds to a land use designation of low F"; `' - density. It's just -- Borup: I guess if I would have realized that that's the feeling I would have noted =~ different on that Comp Plan amendment. L Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I guess let me -- and they are case-by-case. The bump up is case-by-case. ~,- Borup: And I agree and that's why I felt this one was a good case. There is only eight lots that are 200 feet under the minimum. Hood: And that's why I think we made the recommendation. I'm not trying to put words in Amanda's mouth, but I think the reason that we said -- you really don't need the - >~., ;~~. ,.-;.. .. ~4.... - T;." I ~ Y.' I'^i ' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ': ~_ September 21, 2006 Page 71 of 86 bump. You're so close already, let's have the zoning reflect the actual land uses and if ` r you're at 3.2 dwelling units an acre, it's low density, have it zoned R-4 not R-8. R-8 is '~' four to eight dwelling units an acre. It's all over the city today. I mean you have got PDs -~.; out there over the past five years where the zoning doesn't reflect what's going on, but think that's the general idea is that with some tweaking of some lot lines a little bit, they ~A could conform to the R-4. Is it the end of the world, do we not support a bump up `~' because of that? No, but they are border, they are right there where it seems with -- at least from our perspective very little effort they could comply with the R-4 standards ""_ and, essentially, have the same development and be zoned to exactly be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the bump works, too, and I -- it's happened all over the city, so -- Zaremba: I can see the logic to that, except that the applicant made the point that by ;:~ complying they, essentially, would end up with the same cookie cutter subdivision that we have been asking people not to do. I like the idea of having different sizes mixed together. I guess my difficulty is there must be a way to do -- either we say it's an R-4, T' except that there are eight designated lots that can be 200 feet under, or we say it's an R-8 and all but eight lots have to comply with the R-4 -- I mean I'd like to give the ,;, flexibility of the eight or ten lots or whatever it is that he wants to be a different size, because the only way to get the space to add the 200 square feet to each of them is take them out of some bigger lot, so -- Hood: And, again, I think maybe the concern is -- and I'm not -- there is a way that they can control this, too, in CC&Rs and saying you can't subdivide your property. If you have got a 10,000 square foot lot, you can't split it. I mean they could solve that, too. The other option is in the development agreement you say this 20 acres you get however many lots are being proposed -- a maximum of 62 lots and you solve it right there in the development agreement. You can't resubdivide it any -- you can have -- if they want to have ten one acre lots, then, they have got ten more acres to get the other 54 lots in and, you know, that's how it could be -- you know, they could really show some variation in lot size. But if you like the density -- if you like 64 lots on 20 acres, f putting something -- or 62 lots, however many -- in that 20 acres, you could put a development agreement provision that would, essentially, get some rendition of this approved forever. If this plat dies, then, that's what is going to run with the land, so just `% a thought. F'~ Borup: That maybe makes a lot of sense. Zaremba: Shall we ask to Mr. Brown to comment on that? Brown: I appreciate the opportunity. And I know it's late and I know that you guys are tired. One of the unique things in doing this as a consultant and being in different jurisdictions -- one of the unique cities that I have worked in recently is Star and Star has said, you know, our Comprehensive Plan says we are supposed to have three units per acre, so get three units per acre and as long as you submit three units per acre, they are not going to tell you that if you have a 58 foot wide lot, instead of a 60 foot lot, S 'y Fi A yr r ~ `~~~` ~ 9. ~ . ~ }y ~.~ .. ~~ a., `, ~~ Y ~~ 31 l ~~ ~ ~,, '-r ~ ~ ~-.~ ~ , ,h.' . sr,,, _ 3 ~~ `~ ~ ' a; ~~'' C~ y A ~ _. x~ 7 ~ ~. F~ ~~r~K ~~ .. ~- R i~~i' a s x ~.'Fr i x~ '~. ~ ~_ ~~ _ X ~Fl r 1.:: r~ %X y C. 4;, ~:, y, t( . ~,1 .~.~^ k ati. K,•^ { "S.} F ~ ?.~~j y~ `~, :," t ~; f , 'ry',^'~, ~~~ 3.x'4 , ,~.. 3 ~" 3 e.i~ ~.. x ,,. ~~,.z~ ~c a ~A Ft ~~ a. Meridian Planning & Zoning • September 21, 2006 Page 72 of 86 that that doesn't work. And it is really nice to work with, because you guys decide, your sewer guys decide how many you want to have in certain areas and, then, we are not talking about, well, because my site's configured this way and I got these stub streets, if I can sell a lot with a little bit of a different shape, then, I sell a lot and if, you know, I'm doing a project, I got, you know, five acres, it's four units per acre, I get 20 lots. Well, lay out the streets and if I want to make the lots smaller and that's what my market is, then, I have more open space. And, basically, that's what we are discussing here right now is that staff is feeling very concerned that a couple of these lots are going to be a couple hundred square feet smaller than that recommendation and the way that I accomplish that is I take nines and tens and 12,000 square foot lots and make them smaller. I can comply with the staff report, that's what my response letter said. I would prefer to leave it as is and if getting there means I have to ask for a bump up from the low to the medium, that's what I'm -- what I tried to accomplish earlier, so -- Zaremba: I guess my question would be -- or would you be comfortable with a ~:: development agreement that puts a restriction on the larger lots that they cannot be re- subdivided, however that's put it -- Brown: I don't have a problem with that. YY. Zaremba: -- a maximum of 62 lots or -- Brown: I don't have a problem if it's the maximum of 62 lots. ~~ "__ J <,,, ' err :~~- ~~ ~:i ,,, ~; ~: Newton-Huckabay: Minimum? Brown: Minimum? Borup: No. Maximum. Zaremba: Maximum. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Sorry. It's late. Zaremba: So that they can't be re-subdivided. Brown: You were pulling my chain there. Zaremba: So, you would be comfortable with something like that? Brown: Yes. And I had even suggested that, so -- Rohm: Good. Thank you, Kent. Have we closed the Public Hearing? Zaremba: No, we have not. . ~ ~ ,~ n~ x ,~-~^ ~'~,' .,~ ~.~~ M14- - , £x 3~ ~~w~'Sl rj^ :...~ . -t' ~n - ~,k Y+~ .., ~.~< f ~• ~.~~. { ~~~F. ~° ~~ :~~ k> y r -~ ,~. ~ _ a s ;, ~ ~ $~, ., ~~ ~a 3 7t~1~ T ~ +~` - .. '~~F K ~, r ~u t ~;_ "~+ ~ ',.. ~ ~ :, )'r.:. .y ,.y~~ t i1i '_~ ! _rt ~ 9 ~~' ~rtr' ~ .., C V1 ~~ „~t .,d '..~:! `~t ~ h L ' i.~ t ~j. ` S, ~ Rv9 ~ a^i h ~,:rr _ ~~ 6 ~ - r l .ti y ~ ;;~ r ~ emu. x~ ,,, r ~ r ~' ?, .. ' x.~uz `~ Meridian Planning & Zoning • ~: ~ ~~~. September 21, 2006 ~~ Page 73 of 86 ,_ ` _ ,,.~ ~~. Rohm: Would you like to come forward? You bet. Dalton: I'm Cherie Dalton and I'm the property owner. My address is 1157 West Stillwell, Eagle. I've really gone around with Kent about this particular piece of property r- that -- I told him it had to be special, that we didn't want cookie cutters, we didn't want square lots that were all exactly the same size, and we have redrawn it several times ~~ and I have reall been to in y gg' g, you know, to make it different, make it different than :. everybody else's, and so that's what I bring to the City of Meridian is, hey, this isn't a "I cookie cutter and we didn't want to see all 5,000 or 8,000 or even 10,000 square lots, we wanted them to be different, so that we can afford in the same neighborhood a little bit less expensive house and a very very nice house on the same subdivision parcel and that's what I would ask you, please, to consider our request as is, because it does allow us to offer a little bit nicer smaller house, you know, even across the street from ' ~ one that has a very large backyard, which we think is a very good mix and to help in the , marketability. Didn't want to bring you patio homes. Just didn't want to do it. Felt that it s,:;_ was more important we bring you a mixed neighborhood. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Actually, I think we are agreeing with you, at least I am, we are just trying to find the right way to word it, so that if you decided to sell it before you actually build on ;y~ this, somebody else could come along and say, hey, I have got an R-8, I can do something different than what you envision. We are supporting your vision, we are just trying to get the words right. ~`~ Newton-Huckabay: I think we got it. Borup: I think a development agreement -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- would be the easiest, because that's permanent. Zaremba: Yeah. A development agreements works for me. T`{ Rohm: I think we are ready to close the Public Hearing. ...': _~ Zaremba: So moved. s i . . s,. ~ ~ .!, ar , •J, r ' ~. . , i ~ ~ , f ,~ ~ z# 1~1`~4"' .^~; S' b E` j ~ 'S t~ ` :'ci .(~ '¢f'.'~i ~, ya ry:~ i). F ' 1 ' .:; ~:, - ~~. ,;•~~, ,ate, , ,._ ~>y~~. _ ~ sF~:. ~ 1 '' y `.t ^~~ \~( {~}~ #F ~;T,~; _ .,,~ y ~+4 r Ag ~~ Z 7 yrr ; lJ„`7 r. . - .. -.. ~iil 3 .'! ... t,~: a~~~„` ~`,hI (4 ~ i~. ~ I'I'I I ~ I t.~ ~ i j~ ~ N F ! y~a' L~.}~ JI `.~'.f 1' F+ .,, 4 i ': Y 7 ; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 74 of 86 Rohm: Mr. Zaremba, would like to make a motion? Zaremba: Well, let's see. Yes, I would be happy to do that. Borup: 1.1.3. 1.1.2. Do you want to discuss -- 1.1.2 and three -- Zaremba: Yeah. 1.1.2. Borup: Have the R-4. Zaremba: And the 1.1.3 is what we would adjust. Borup: Is that it? Zaremba: I think so. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20 -- that must be a misprint. Newton-Huckabay: It's September 21st, almost 22nd. Zaremba: The staff report that we have adjusted for today, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. This is Exhibit B, paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.1.3, shall be changed to read that the R-8 zone is acceptable, but a development agreement shall include a maximum number of lots at 62. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you, folks. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~4 ~J _~! _iF Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: Rohm: All right. Moving right along. The next item on the public agenda is AZ 06-044, related to Whitebark Subdivision and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Oh, I'd like to open it with the -- begin with the staff report. ~~., ' -~' ~~ x, ~. ~ /~ f ~ ~tI V~lf .y;. r T: k i ~: fi• ~~ t.,,, ,.i~ e P:. ;Y:1-fit{1 j;.~ . _, ... . -.. .. .4i ~... ~ ,~ ~ a': i;. i ~ ~ ~ 4~~ ~ ~_V to A h -Y ~~ K -__ ~ ) ~K ~f ~~ ~~ xn~ it *'. , x ~ ''~. ~~ ~ ~: ~~ =~ 5 k ., ~.. i`~ ~. ~! R ~f~ 1 ~d t ~. ~~ L,.3 ,. ;. =~ ; a t ~ ~~ ~.,. ~~ ~~- ~: „'S, ~~. V~?. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 75 of 86 Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. We, as you said, are moving right along here. Let's move on to the proposed Whitebark Subdivision. This area has been discussed quite a bit tonight and it's going to continue to be discussed with this subdivision, which is to the southeast of the Cottswold Subdivision that was just discussed. The subject property is directly surrounded by rural residential property, as was previously discussed, and I don't think we need to go into too much context, since it's been discussed at length tonight. Along with annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting the preliminary plat approval of 48 single family lots and eight common lots. The total site area is 19 acres and the applicant is proposing an R-4 or medium low density residential zone. The proposed lots range in size from 10,000 to almost 16,000 square feet. With that current configuration of lots the total gross density for the project is 2.52 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of low density residential. So, this project is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation as it exists today. Currently the sole access to the development will be taken off of Amity Road and beyond this access point the applicant has proposed three different stub streets, East Bird Pine to the west, East Scrub Pine to the -- I'm sorry. This is west. It is late. East Scrub Pine to the east. And to the south it's an extension of South Whitebark Way. Move on to the landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to set aside 1.44 acres or 7.6 percent of the total site area as common usable open space and the bulk of it's open space is located in the proposed micro pathways that can be seen -- one adjacent to the -- the street -- the entry street there and there is also a micro pathway in the southern portion connecting those two streets. And the applicant's also proposing detached sidewalks in this subdivision with - - with trees. The only issues that staff would like to bring up at this time is the fact that this -- approval of this subdivision, basically, is contingent upon approval of the previous subdivision, which we talked about, because that previous subdivision, the Cottswold Village, provides that annexation path for this property. So, there is -- it's discussed quite a bit in the staff report that if Cottswold Village, for whatever reason, is not approved through the City Council, this property doesn't have an annexation path and would not be able to be developed at this time until it did have such a path. That's just a -- something that is out there and it is described at length in the staff report and included as a condition in the development agreement that the Cottswold Village Subdivision moves forward before this proposed subdivision is able to -- to also move forward. Another issue that was brought up was that I believe the applicant has agreed with. It's by ACHD and it's something that staff is interested in seeing that the proposed street that goes in off of Amity Road be constructed adjacent to the two parcels that were not included in the subdivision, allowing those two parcels to develop directly off of a public street in the future and that, therefore, they would be able to relinquish their access to Amity Road when, indeed, they do -- they do develop. The other issue that was brought up in the staff report -- as shown here on the preliminary plat, there is a hammerhead proposed at the terminus of South Limber Pine, this area right here. Both ACHD, staff, and the fire department would all -- have all recommended that this hammerhead be converted into a cul-de-sac, which the applicant actually shows in his landscape plan as an alternative -- as an alternative design. Once again, this is coming from numerous -- from ACHD and the fire department and the planning department, really seeing this cul- de-sac as a better option for this -- for this street section. I think other than those +y ~^ ~ A'F'C ~ (' 1 A'..... 4~ .,:L f f jL ~; F,t :~ ~ i ,. ~. iv €~ s r„ ~-~ ~: ~~ r ° ~7fi r ~ ~~ Ya ~,_ _ ... :.~. ~ ~ ,;4a~ 1 - ^~ ~~ i N . ,yam-' ~, - F A.f ~ ~ %p~P4 ~ F~, ~f~l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r 3:= ~~ ~~ ;t +m f - i~ ~ ~. i~ ~~~ rr. ly5 2 :-Y Y ?F i r, w~ ~ :} ~~ [gyp l ,y, ~,~ ~. ~' -i . ~e'~`. ~ a vY ~ ~ ~. ;: ~p ~..;y ~a a!r ~. ~r i~ ~ '} r ~_. a. ,_ ~ ~~ ~.~: f: +3 „ ~: -` ` '~4c F c, ~4 2' ^ ~ ~f _ I .,. Lei, _..~-. .. . ~S Meridian Planning & Zoning r ~ September 21, 2006 Page 76 of 86 issues, it's a pretty straight forward proposal and I stand for any questions. ,A,~ Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: I guess I do have one. I'm still confused on the -- this is designated low density. Does that only allow for an R-2? Lucas: No. It would allow also for the R-4 designation. The low density is up to three units per acre, which can be accommodated in both R-2 and R-4 and as I stated earlier, the density on this project is 2.52 units per acre. Borup: But an R-2 is 12,000 square feet. Lucas: An R-2 requires minimum 12,000 square foot lots. Correct. f Borup: Okay. Moe: Have you had time to read his comments back to the report and do you have any ~, ~~ comments on those? x, Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, yes, I did have a chance to read his comments. Regarding Exhibit B, the 2.9 -- he is correct, if sewer is located below a micropath, then, the trees are not required and that's something that's standard that happens all the time. So, that's usually not a problem. And on the final plat landscape plan it would be -- it's usually nice that the developer make a note of that on why they are not putting those trees there, so that the planning staff is able to understand what's going on there, just the way that works. ~ And regarding the fire department's comment, -- it's one of those standard comments that fire includes and it's kind of one of those ;'' conditions that if this happens, then, they need to comply and as the applicant states it looks like it's not going to be a problem for them at this point. Brown: On the cul-de-sac. Do you want to speak to the hammerhead, too? ~. , Lucas: Oh, and -- you know, Ithink I -- I spoke to the cul-de-sac already. The applicant's requesting that it remain a hammerhead and staffs position and ACHD's position and the fire department's position is that it be changed to a cul-de-sac. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown at 1500 East Iron Eagle. Can you go back to the other picture, Justin, please. Thank you. Yes, in our design we have -- you can't believe that this little rectangle has had so many designs and the applicant is back here smiling, so -- I know he is, without even looking at him. But we have gone through -- Moe: You have a couple that are -- a , ~~ ~;~ r ~~ Y ._4, ~~~~ ~ ~, ~` `~ "`~ ,L r. '' a~ ~' ~..~' .~ .~.R+~r~r ~..t.~ ~i l ~. + tn~9 ~t Yr4 ~:( s ,l~3 y f l f.{ % I ~ ~_~1Y i i~ '.. Y 13y ~' ~''~~" a',a, ~ y, ~ ,. 1 ~ r~n bz,: - ^a~ is i _: ~~ }~ ' ~.P1` 6 F 6 ~ C;1 F,. ``11 ~ ~ `S p~~C ::~i f _ _ f y F_ '_ k ~ ~j ~j W'. f, ~~ , ~ Lb~ ti s ~. 2^ ~ ~ ` ~t r .. } ~ ~~ 7~3 ~4~ ~yK _ d' 4 ~~1 y ~ Y ~ R ~~ ~`i ~. ~ r~{ 2i •~ 131. M1 y ~; ~ 1 ., ~~ya Z¢ ~I ~9 k4{ R~ k'yi, ~t ._ S `=' ~ ~ ~ _~~. j }~ r, . t' s xa q f '~_ `- ~~~ ~ } Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ September 21, 2006 ~q ~ '~''t Page 77 of 86 t ~ Brown: Yes, we have. We have gone through many gyrations on this and the difficulty #f ` ~, was is that we didn't want this to be a straight through road to the other development ~'` '` ~: that you have kind of seen tid bits of below there that we have kind of, in a round about z~ f? way, discussed. In our effort to provide these people with frontage, we had always :. ?? anticipated doing that. We did have like a five foot landscape island there, but we can 3:.-} also accommodate what staffs speaking to by doing a license agreement with the ~~ highway district, because we want to fence it off. We don't -- not that those aren't really nice people over there, but we want to fence that portion off and I'll just leave it at that. Tried to create a nice entrance. What my client has done is with the other ~ , `~';, developments that are going on in the area, we have tried to create lots that are deep z ~ ~ enough and of a size widthwise that would accommodate a shop being in the back. ~~`:; He's had some builder teams approach him that they would like to, basically, have that Mr. Shop or whatever in the back, you know, the -- a shop in the back of each one of .` : these lots and with that in mind and not having, you know, lots of traffic traveling this ~;'y area, that's kind of where we have gone with the design. We have -- most of the lots -. are closer to the R-2 zoning. We have lots that are near that 12,000, but we do have some that are as small 10,000. And this hammerhead cul-de-sac is an acceptable fire department turnaround. It's acceptable to the highway district. But, generally, where they are allowing those to take place has to do with in-fill. If you are viewed as being in- ~ G fill, then, you're allowed to do them and what my client wants to have happen is that by having these more rectangular lots it accommodates the people that he feels are going ,,.{ to build in here, the ones with the shop and the ability to have the room to go passed the house and go to the back and that's why those widths are -- I mean, ideally, what he a~ wanted to have was 140 foot deep and 90 feet wide and we have tried to stick to that as ~l`, much as we can, accommodating all the other design people that are involved and you `~ guys are involved in our design. You didn't realize that you're a part of our committee, ;. ~w ' but you really are, because you have the ability to tell us whether we can do a ' ; hammerhead or not. And the highway district does, too. It s acceptable. When I spoke with the highway district staff, they view as from a traffic standpoint that a cul-de-sac is -j~ better trafficwise. But that is drawn to their standards as -- and is acceptable to the highway district if the city, in turn, comes back and says it's a better design. We have ~; ~ ~ talked with your staff, they didn't feel that it was that much better than having a cul-de- - sac. We still feel it is from the standpoint that the lot shape that comes out of that is more along the lines of the design and the market that we are trying to meet. That's the issue. I'll stand for any questions. ` Moe: Mr. Chairman? : ~~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~:~ Moe: Mr. Brown, just, quite frankly, for the gentleman in the audience, can you speak to =j ~::~CYI your perimeter fencing? L Brown: We will have solid fencing. I have actually even talked to John before and told _;~; him that you guys don't allow barbed wire, you don't allow hot fences within the city, and . my client -- I went back and spoke to him just prior, because I knew you were going to .F s., 1 '~ ~~'~2 'F S" J'r ~7~~ '~'' ~~~~ ~.~~ ~~~ ~ .;t ~ ruF d i ~'i , F ~ ~%~ .. :. ~ Y Irw r FG" ~' , ~' -~~ t -~-J ~7j . . _,. .... , . . ,vf'F .. .n. C6S ~I! ! ~ i` tee ~~ ~~ M ; ;~.Y ^s r,r r .l:Y ' ~.. t r~" Y ~# ri3{ a ~- ~e t ~ b ~. S rr # c"t ,S 1 ~. ., , ~ ~ ~, '-. ~ ~~, qa6 rf 'fMr ~,~°~'' ~ a ;ice' 3r, <., ytk :e-. ' x'~ , ~ ,~. , ~ + ~_ •, ~ t v ~3F~- a~" ~r y~. y •;`~~~ :?~: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 .a~t Page 78 of 86 t'r. ask and they are going to have to sit and talk as to what they both need to do, but we :. will put a -- we will fence our side, so that it's solid on our side and, then, work with him ._ as to how to accommodate and have horses and -- ';'? Moe: Thank you very much. Zaremba: My question for you and probably staff while we are on it, but if you are doing a solid fence where this stub road is, can you fence across that with -- Brown: Yes, you can. ~~ Zaremba: You make it fenced in a way it can -- that portion can be removed later? ~~ Brown: Yes, you can. Zaremba: Okay. Otherwise, there is a gap there and there is no point in having a fence. Brown: That part we could probably leave with the other, but there is no -- it just `{ depends on what the developer wants to do. You can leave the -- the hot fence, the wire fence, on his property in that location, but I have seen them do both. Fence it off. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. Rohm: Thank you, Kent. ~, a; Brown: Strictly what it ends up from my standpoint is that if you like the hammerhead -- in the discussions I've had with the highway district, they said that if it -- you felt that strongly that it was a better one, that they would allow us to build it. It's not that they ,} wouldn't allow us to build it, so -- but it has to come from the city. Thank you. ;. Rohm: Thank you. =t Moe: Mr. Chairman? - }:;a; _~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. :~ , ~.~r~~ _i,i Moe: Another question of staff in regards, again, to this hammerhead. Can you give ~; me reason for not wanting the hammerhead per se? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, as it was discussed by the applicant, the hammerhead design is something we usually see on a smaller in-fill site where it's -- for ~~`'~ ~ site constraint reasons they are able to use the hammerhead and meet the turnaround - requirements and get the lots that they need. The fire department in general prefers -- :> ~', and this is from Joe Silva, a discussion I had with him on the phone -- prefers to see `~'~~~~ when it's possible the full cul-de-sac as a preference for the fire department. ACHD, as ,~ ~~ .}~ .~; ,° ~.~ - ~~. ~ s: f k ~~, x:~ Sd t~ r ~ X3.4. i~ 4'•~.~ ~ ~ ~. ? ; . '. ~_ w; .,..... ~.SM.0. ~ :~X •. ~ . ~, :w.. I ~ I :~' ,""~ f~f ~ ~~"~~'•-,' sir: ..b \ 1 j', ki ~ -. . -- . ~` -a . , .r.. r: ~ ..p ~ .:.' '.'F ,, ~;: .. . ~ ~, ~ ~ . .. , ...,s. ~~ . ~ :rr _ .. ._ .... I :. , y. ... } y.' :tx~ F ira .. _„ ~t~ ;$' r s :, a., ~~r ~' ,; { i A Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 79 of 86 Kent also said, prefers the full cul-de-sac. And staff -- basically, our preference was going with what's preferred by fire department and what's preferred by ACRD. When it comes to the specific design issues and things like that, staffs recommendation is kind of -- as I say, going along with what's been proposed by the other agencies involved =i think beyond -- and Caleb has a comment. ~;:' Hood: I feel like I need to chime in on almost everything tonight and I apologize for that, -'` + but the reason -- and, again, I'm not trying to put words in the fire department's mouth -- but, in general, it's going to be easier to just drive around a cul-de-sac than to do a three point turn and get out. So, it is more convenient. There is a convenience factor. Now, it doesn't make it convenient for the lots that are adjacent to it, but someone just driving '" around the cul-de-sac to turn around, rather than doing a three point turn in a ` ~` hammerhead, is more convenient. In a fire truck -- even in a large vehicle, some of these, you know, 19, 20 foot long trucks are going to have to make that same maneuver where they would, otherwise, just be able to follow the radius of the cul-de-sac. So, that's why I think they prefer the cul-de-sac to the hammerheads. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? 4 Newton-Huckabay: I was just asking if we had public testimony. Rohm: We haven't yet, but at this time would someone -- anyone from the audience like to come forward? .. t. Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I live at 2025 East Chateau. I'm one of the owners. The biggest -- or the biggest conversation, obviously, is the hammerhead. What I'm trying to do there is -- you know, from a -- from a marketing standpoint, tried to make c,;4 those lots -- they are not as deep as a majority of the lots are, so what I have done is T tried to make those wider, so that the builders could actually still build their house and ,.; still have a shop maybe along side, instead of in the back. And, you know, I understand what staff and everybody is saying, but if I understand it also, it is an acceptable turnaround, it's just everybody else would prefer the traditional. So, I just would appreciate it if you would at least consider it. Rohm: Thank you. That's reasonable to request. Wood: Any questions that you might have? Yeah. I'm trying to hit the market different than potentially everything else you have talked about tonight. You know, I'm looking at it there is 48 people that would like to have a large enough lot that they could have a :; :, shop in the back and still build a big house and I've done this elsewhere in Boise and it ``~~~~ was received quite well, so -- .; ,:`,~ Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. I don't know '~ about the rest of you, but I kind of like the hammerhead. It's -- even though they're right ,z that the fire engine would have to do a three point turn to get out, but it makes access to '`''~r'~` each of those lots quite direct and be able to get in and -- I don't know if they have a ~~~1 ;:T.I . •-.Ig.~ ~++~,V ,, 9~' , ~rK ~Y t Y> : r`~+,~s t~~ ~ak r~x t .: ;~: a~ ~"~ ~ ~. ,rk ~. , . 3 a ~ ' `'.S ~ .C'~i sf ~ ' ~ 'V ~ j:..~ '' A•~. m(. a, ., ~,~: .a{. ~ t &, f : ct 4 {.1 3 Z A ~:., j • ,s. ,~ i ~. '~ ii ~~~ a r,' a'~,','. .. ~• tl '~>. S, :• ~FY ~ ~ ~. .. S' ?7~ q*.'. ~V ,. ... .:..Y>'~Ct Cl. ~t ~I1^~•!.~`Q~a' 1 (~< ~~~ i i' i .. f+. ~,~v t .' < .. .. ~, r , Y g.1 . ' ~ ~ '" ' Y 'n~~'. :~ L ,•r;:ii"L• ' s "y. ;v:R;E;:,x?.;~. ~=x ° ,:, ' ~ ~ fY it .'~' ~"~ F ~,; yi ,'.~V .q s r.~; t ~ .~: ,~f . '~ 1-V .~ :t%,.y, `,fit i j« ~ 2 4 . 1, . . - ; ,. V. ~ o •. ~gs, y 1.~ , x~ :*;~ ' ; 7 1 ~ '~ 4~lw:•'~Si')~ :fi2'hi•;]~w~T;yL,"~r1~'.krJ.-` n .' ~~ ': x .;n .te , .. . ~. I 1 .. ', ~ V '~~ : ~ ~ ~ Y t J i k :i ~ ~.?s ' ' . i 'F ,' i' ~ ~ i 1 t{ ',~ :'~,;f~ S. ~aa~1,'"y.%"1 'L; ,r { ~Y,.::~im' " ,~~ F ~ s air ~" ~ ~' y 1 . i ~€' t '" + r r ~~" ` ~'~~ , t C ~ ~ r , ~ * $ rf- `. . ~• i "I ''~ ` - 1, ~ I ~ 1 '. I. ' Y' ..'°~' + _ , .~x'r•_1 ~ ~ 1 a i ~ - 1 is ., , . ~., .~_ ~ . . ~° ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ r September 21, 2006 -F Page 80 of 86 ~~ little shop in the back where they are working on cars, they can get in and out and just is F;-~ -- it looks like it would be easier ingress and egress having the hammerhead there, than it would using a cul-de-sac. That's at least from my perspective. Borup: Mr. Chairman? I agree that the lot designs are a better design with the hammerhead. The number of lots stay the same. I don't -- but I also don't know that all 48 lots are going to be putting shop buildings on. Rohm: Oh, I agree with that. Borup: So -- I mean those that don't want a shop building -- you know, there is a few ~;~_' lots for them. But, likewise, I think the fire department's concern is not getting to the project, I have never seen them in a big hurry to leave. So, I don't know as another minute to back out is going to make any difference on the fire service. Rohm: I agree with that, too. Commissioner Moe, do you have comment? Moe: For the record probably not, but I guess my whole point is I would hope that this subdivision doesn't see a whole bunch of fire trucks. Rohm: There you go. We have to close the Public Hearing. Would you recommend that we vote? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 06 dash -- oh, excuse me. AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Actually, I gave the wrong numbers. I'm going to do that again. It's a motion to close the public hearings on AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046 has been made. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? There we go. -r. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I prefer the cul-de-sac. The overall look and consistency and future consistency of other developments. If we generally only use hammerheads for ends of projects, I'd like to remain consistent with that and support staffs recommendation on that. Was that the only -- oh, what about the -- so we didn't change any comments. So, we only changed -- there is no change. Moe: Well, the only issue is the hammerhead. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I agree with staff. So, if I make the recommendation I'd make no changes in the staff report. 2 t'.1 :t J +_ Viz. t `~ E ~ *`' st + 3 " ~5 r k ~ :s 7 ' ~} 4 '~, y a i, , {~3 i ;~ ~ ` ~~* .{ ,~, ~' ~ ~,' ~ i 5 ~ ; a~ ~. ~ `~~ ±? ti ~y, ., ~ iT(~ F ~ M'nA~ ) ~ ~~ 1* Lro /~4fi S^ 3 ~° ;::a z, ,. „:,. f ~ ;;- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 81 of 86 Moe: Then, that would be what you want to do, yes. Newton-Huckabay: If I'm going to, in fact, vote for my motion this time. Moe: If you're making the motion, if that's what you want to do, that's what you would do, yes. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Moe: But, trust me, I will not tell you what to do. Newton-Huckabay: That's probably wise. Moe: Trust me, I know that. Nor would I want to. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-044 and PP 06- 046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21st, 2006, with no modifications. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046, to include staff report with no changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Aye. So, there is four in favor. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Newton-Huckabay: And we will look forward to seeing Mr. Brown again. Brown: Thank you. Item 14: Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton Oliver Keller - 1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road: Rohm: Okay. The last item on our agenda here is -- I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 06-002, related to Ustick Comprehensive Plan amendment and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This is another Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The procedures regarding amendments to maps have already been discussed at this hearing, so I'm not going to . .; ` ; ~ ~~ y ~ ;~ ,s ;~.~, ,~ 7~ ~.. x ~~ y; :~~ is ._~r, F~'~F R~~ }~. ~,;~ Cr .. ,•y~;v J. rr _, .~ r .: c •3 ~ ,~. ~ ,~w ~ ~ Y A F f i ..~` ..,t .. ~...~ ,~ ~ _ _r:3 }x kt a Psk .a ~{ F=} "~` 'r ~.,; ,. Is:...,.r,., ,_,. ... . ,.. ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~r- ~~: September 21, 2006 ~~ ~- Page 82 of 86 x:, h go into those again, regarding the time limits and the changes. This Comprehensive ' J1, ` i e!` Plan amendment application proposes to amend the future land use map. The ~ ~ ~` applicant is proposing to change an existing medium density residential designation to a ~:.~; mixed use community designation for two parcels, which total approximately 12.37 ~` ": acres of land located at 1515 West Ustick and 3195 North Linder. The properties are zoned -- currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County and are not currently within '' Meridian's city limits. There are no other annexation, rezone, or plat applications ~s associated with the request. The applicant does state in the application letter that if ~} approved, the property owners intend to develop a mix of commercial and residential w~, uses on these sites in the future. Approval of the subject application would allow the ~;` ~ applicant to apply for various different zoning designations not currently allowed in the a.f. -. `` Comprehensive Plan. Under medium density residential, it really is pretty specific to residential uses, but a change to mixed use community really would allow for various ~' ~ potential zoning designations, such as community commercial, neighborhood ~`' commercial, as well as limited office, medium, and medium high density residential and ,: ~ the traditional neighborhood districts. Sample usage could include a clothing store, a x'~..~ garden center, hardware store, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities and department ~`' `~ stores and all of those uses are drawn direct) from the Com rehensive Plan. The 3_ - amendment would not change the future land use map designation for any other parcels ~` = - or any other features of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant would still be ~` required to apply for annexation and zoning through the city to move forward with any development. If this Comprehensive Plan amendment application is approved, the `' applicant intends, as I said earlier, to develop a mix of commercial and higher density ~ , = residential uses on these parcels. The applicant has submitted -- and I can just move ~ ~ through these pretty quickly. A conceptual -- a conceptual plan for the development of 1515 West Ustick, which was that square parcel that we looked at right here, which ~,:~ shows approximately one-third of the site being dedicated to multi-family residential and '° ~ the other two-thirds as a mix of office and retail uses. The applicant has not included a 7 ' detailed concept plan for the smaller site located at 3195 North Linder, but proposes to locate a small low intensity office or retail use on this site. As I say, this is extremely "~ conceptual, but just showing the possibility of locating some structures on this -- on this corner piece. And one thing about this concept plan that they are showing is all of the ;, ~ right of way takes that will occur as this intersection expands and so they are taking all ` that into account. It really takes quite a bit of that property, almost cuts it in half, leaving _ ~ them with a little bit over an acre. But as staff looked at this and even did some minor -- ~~ basically schematic drawings, it looks like they would still be able to fit a parking lot and a couple of buildings on there, even after all of the ACHD takes. Let's see. One thing _> did want to point out on this concept plan, they did -- the applicant labeled this down fi~ here as a future park, which, really, is a mislabeling. On the Comprehensive Plan this ~~ ~ ` area is designated as public-quasi public, but that doesn't always equal a park, it could ~. ~~ ~~ be any number of uses and public-quasi public parcels are, basically, dealt with, as ~~ % read it in the Comprehensive Plan, on a case-by-case basis, that designation is -- can `,'" change is what -- basically what that means. Any number of things could go in there, whether it be commercial, residential, but it receives public-quasi public, because ~` maybe a church owned it at the time or there was a plan there for something, but talked to parks and they are not planning on putting a park in there at this time. I think ~:; ~, ~-~ ~`t 7 +, ~r N: i =: ~ 4; 4~T.; 14. Fjj `5.~: ~- Ci.ii. ~ t ;~'~4 rj f•e --Y1r 7 `~~ma K' ~_ ~ . : ~ ' r~ ` I '~ ~ ` ~ . ~`~ ~ ~ ;''~I y~' V ~ (( ~ • ' k ~f.T. ~ ` i " I C 1 `) ;' I v .P p Y . 1 t` i r 1 ~ y ~ ~ ,. +. r . +~ e 1-'R y ~ ~~ ~ ~ d i f j ~. ~ , ~ ~ ~' 5 Ir _ ~` ~.. F ~ Y4 e i ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ '' ' " •:.. ~ . gyp.:,, i .k :." ~ ~ ~, •,,, ~ ""~. ~,,+., ~: ~: ~ ~i - k ., y 'y f $ {'"~,: .r.n ~~ i~'~: .l 1 {~ l 5, ~ ~ ' 'F~ , :y y`~~'Y .. . 4, R V[:; M1F fix' ~~:i f? r .` .. :i7 ~..: ..,. ?t: ~ .. .: ~ .Y; ;.~' ;ir..;, ~,'"~^~ ~ I'. I. E ~~. a : 1 '~ ~,. .5„a':Y."ka. - :i`i?~': ~,~` N e 3 "~• 8 ':~_ , s a ~t ... ~~i X`.x ~ ., ~~~ ~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning _ September 21, 2006 Page 83 of 86 we will just cut to the chase here with this application. Staff thought a lot about this and :-'~Y; struggled a little bit -- struggled a little bit making a recommendation on this proposal to ~_ amend the future land use map for these parcels. The major reason for that struggle is ~~ the existing neighborhood center designation that we currently have at the half mile. Staff struggled -- the neighborhood center concept is described at length in the Comprehensive Plan and really tries to focus the mixed use kind of node at the half mile point, rather than at the intersection and after looking at that and thinking quite a bit ;:, about it, staff determined that it wasn't necessarily prohibited in the Comprehensive ` ~ Plan to have that exist and, as you can see, the two parcels to the north had already received a designation of mixed use community, which happened -- let me give a little t'-~', bit of background there. This happened in the previous -- this previous decision was made during the North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan amendment that was approved on March 14th, 2006, by City Council and during that process these two parcels were actually discussed as also changing to mixed use community, but the actual boundary line for that amendment was Ustick Road and so by law they weren't y able to include any changes below the study area. And because of that and because of previous actions, it seemed logical that -- that we would also allow these two parcels _ here to develop in a mixed use type of way, especially considering the impact that the widening of that intersection would have on any potential residential uses on -- on that site. Staff has reviewed all these arguments and in the staff report described kind of at _ length what's going on there and in the end staff decided to recommend approval of this -- of this map amendment, with the understanding that -- that when the applicant comes in with a true development plan and with the annexation and zoning and everything that goes with that, that they, indeed, come up with something that is different than the 4 neighborhood concept, that isn't just a simple, you know, commercial center, something, ` you know -- I think we could say innovative for the city, something that would really ~ ~ provide a different feel for the intersection, with a mix of uses and high density residential and, obviously, some commercial and that's kind of staffs recommendation, but it's clear that at this point we don't have the ability to tie them to any specific development plan, because that only can be done through the annexation process and ;, } the preliminary plat process. So, by allowing them -- I just want to make it very clear that by allowing this designation to go in there, we are, basically, opening up all types of zoning designations that could go in on that site and at this point we wouldn't be able to ~,-;~ tie them to any specific development plan, because that's just not part of the process with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. I think with that said, I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. And that was a good presentation. Appreciated that. Any :~~5 questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. You have got one minute. ,-,' =~~~ Penland: Good morning. My name is Chris Penland. I'm with Thornton Oliver Keller ;~' and I reside at 4595 North Stampede Way and I have additional material for you, too. ~A ~ All right. First I'd like to thank staff for their time and patience during this process. Their input was very valuable and appreciated. I'm here in support of changing the southeast and southwest corners to mixed use community from medium density residential. As YyRi ;III ~ - .~..- F ,,~~ff k. ' ~4hf ~~~f ~ *~- } t~ ty_u ~ ~ A .. ~~. 3~i~ . ' 1 }. ~:~ ~ ~;! ~~ w 1 p~ M'_Y h ~~ ~ a ~ r w,. k°i :? =. nCt1U _~~ e s ,:. ~~y ' ~ R ~i72 M1 .?'., ~ `>+F ' s~ ~ ~ ;: ~ ~'• ~ ~~ yy~ S j .. 7ti~ .~ ' t ~ . >:. •..» y r~ Y' ' i% (S 'v a : ^ ~ ^~ t ~ ~ y .. i . ..A~ C r~ x ~ ~ ^ ... , •1~ ~~ `• . . . . : , ..,., i i ! ' 1 .. A ,. 4 • 3 {, u 7e. ~ Lyt. { X ~ ~ Z :~ , , ~ ~.. F.F. 's i i ~, t ~ s ' '' ::'v i ~. d ' ' , „ . ~~ I n~ ,gyp I ~f ~ x k ,i ~ ~ . i III I • ~, •,:s. , ~ ~~ .r - g .s:"'S^ t ..~ x i ~ n i :.:~ {~:, :i ~ s ~ E ci$~ '. 1 r ~ ~ u.z. ~: a@$@ a ,.;t.~.: ~ ~ , ,. N ~,:~ ~.....P .~'~~: max. ~~~. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 ,, Page 84 of 86 a ,' ~.'y: <, ~F_ F <: ,Y<. ~__. y(~r. `: d v~ staff mentioned, this process was undertaken during the north Meridian review and was agreed to somewhat in concept, however, legally it could not be changed at that point in time. One of the primary concerns that staff voiced was the proximity to the neighborhood commercial to the east and, hopefully, that could mitigate any concerns over that. This intersection -- it's really different in many respects from the neighborhood commercial node. Just to cite a few examples, there are four directions of travel present and 47 percent more traffic and exposure at the intersection. This will also be a signalized five lane intersection and one of the primary intersections in north Meridian. This property is also situated along a primary east-west traffic arterial, which connects Boise to Caldwell, as well as a north-south traffic arterial that includes a Boise river crossing. Both of those factors allow for good movement and traffic flow through the north Meridian area. Individually, each of these characteristics differentiate the two sites and the convenience oriented nature of the intersection, as opposed to the destination nature of the mid block commercial. We have also conducted numerous studies in the past while of north Meridian's growth and population and the resulting demand. Just give me one second. We have the -- in front of you in the packet and also demonstrated over there is a detailed analysis, which basically demonstrates that Meridian has an above average per square foot retail center, which translate into a lack of retail supply. It is an extensive lack of retail supply, supported also by vacancy rates in and around Meridian. Right now vacancy rates are hovering about two percent, which marketwide and also historically is extremely low. What this results in is a lack of opportunity for business to locate and also higher economics for rents as there is a shortage of availability and shortage is illustrated graphically over there. And also let me go to the site plan one more time. We discussed these a little while ago. We have preliminary plats and new housing indicated in blue, which is really difficult to see from the light. However, you can see that there is a good concentration of housing growing in and around this intersection. What we look to do in time is exactly what staff points to was an innovative development, one that's not going to be your cookie cutter vanilla strip center that really isn't of note whatsoever. I think a project you can look to as somewhat of an example are the multi-tenant buildings going up in front of the Majestic Marketplace. Currently there is one building that's a three color scheme with awning, gables, much higher finishes than normal. And although that's probably not the esthetics that would be for here, it's a good example of a departure from the norm. I also need to note that with the southwest corner ACHD is currently thinking they will take the entire parcel. That is the plan as of last Friday when I spoke with them. The property owners would like to continue with the change to mixed use community, because should ACHD elect not to take it, they will be left with about 1.4 acres, which really won't be suitable for a residential use. Currently their house will be about ten feet from the door, if memory serves me properly, on the expanded intersection. And also, as staff pointed out previously, this is a very preliminary phase and as we move forward with the annexation and change in zones, we can address the issues and development concerns at that point in time. And, then, also, I apologize for the misnomer on the public area, if that's the case. In the pre-application meeting it was designated public- quasi public and I met with the property owner and they said they had been in discussions and were looking to probably donate that, so my apologies. And if there is any questions I would be more than happy to answer those. ~'i4`._'. 'f.} 1 ~ ~ =~ r ~r _~ Y4 ~ '~1 ~ ~~ ~h b T' ~ ~~ ?$ ~. r ~' - _ ~At ti~ ~~,~ r ~ , ~ i .~ c '~ $ 1'r r r y t i a ~~. m- 1 ~i~ c~ Y T 4 ~~~. e '~77 !a~y~3 '"1 Y. qy~.+t Y ~ f ~~~.,~'t + {{~ .. } ~ ~T14 "t, ~Y ,1 ~~... ~.~~~, ~. '~ r: ~', ~. it ;?~~aa 'F ,,~ ~~ -~_ f1 ` ~+ ~, . fir ~ .. •. ~~ S. X a ,~ z~' "~ - - ^±~ .~~~ :. ij, i ~y ;y l ..~,~!, .,' _~I ^i v:1 ~~, y ~~~ v,E.. Q ~~ ^~. 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • September 21, 2006 Page 85 of 86 Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Not at this time. Penland: Thank you. Rohm: We have three individuals that have signed up to testify. And I think I know where they are. Gary Palmer, would you like to come forward or were you just more interested in just lending your support? And Margaret Palmer. Okay. That's it. Moe: And I would just make note that Mr. Palmer in his presentation your letter is included in this as well. Well, it's in here. Rohm: Any discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a comment. To me this makes a great deal of sense to do this. I do remember a short discussion during the North Meridian Comprehensive Plan and that discussion didn't continue, because this was outside of the legal boundary of that, but it makes sense. As the applicant pointed it out, this is going to be a very important intersection at some time. Currently Ustick is the longest east-west road in the Treasure Valley. When Linder has an overpass over the interstate it will be the longest north-south road in the Treasure Valley, making this intersection heavily traveled. I agree that residential is not -- as if it's not already heavily traveled. Linder, of course, has the distinction of having both a railroad crossing and a river crossing and that focuses a lot of traffic on it, but ACRD is planning to make this a large intersection and my opinion is that it would not be appropriate for residential or certainly not single family, but it should be exactly what the applicant is asking for. Rohm: Good. I think we are all in agreement. Any additional comments? Moe: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I actually live in this area and I -- my sincerest hope is that one of those four corners somebody comes in with a gas station and a convenience store, because there are none in north Meridian. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-002. Moe: Second. T ~j~3 ~:\ ( ~~~ i H ~ ~~ f~ K ~ ~" °. r g r. ,`~ ' ;ix iw r `;`r ra. *ii rt ~ E d~ ) :( ~~ ~ ~;. t ~ x ~~ 3 .. ~ x K; ?;;i ~`"~a , ~ Y ~ ~.~ ~.' x~:c _~9 ~;~ w~ ~ :~. ~:~~° t =s1 r;; ~ .~~~a ,,' `L ct -,a :.~; ~._ ,5 Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 ~' ;fir Page 86 of 86 ~_ ~<; ~- ~ Rohm: It s been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-02. All k 1 b ` , .:~ <~ those in favor sa a e. O y y pposed same sign. Motion carved. "{ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ,} Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? '~~` ;~. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~.~~~ ~- Zaremba: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 06- .; 002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21, 2006, with no ~-. ;,.`. ~:: changes. Moe: Second. ~~ ,' ~~~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval to City Council of ~~? CPA 06-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. =T ' `'~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES: '" ' - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ~~~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~:F, f ~::~ # Zaremba: I move to adjourn. ~ k ~ =F ` Moe: Second. A , >,y; Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. ~~ .,-~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. '; . s,~~ ~~~.,~~ Rohm: Good night, folks. ~; ~~:~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:11 A.M. .;, ~~~,t_, (TAPE ON FILE OF,TH~IROCEEDINGS.) ~~` APPROV R. A - -~--a ~ ~4 ~~= ~~~ ~~~ MICHAEL E. ROHM -CHAIR N DATA' ~'fs,,~ ATTESTED• O 'a ~'~ ~~ ~ ~- o WILLIAM G. BERG JR., C~fY LE _ ~°~ ~< - = , ~ ~~ . ~ '~,, ~ T 1~T • \~~ :.Y i:'-ik',p~d - '~' ~y~..: ~.'. - \ ~~~. " ,.- t '_ - .' T ~ ~ September 18, 2006 - MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 17, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission _~ Meeting -;~r~ :±, r.x~ <., . Y~~~ ~,;~-~ -F~ i` _.~, ~~ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: i~~~/ U l"~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ ~, ~~> ~} CITY FIRE DEPT: `~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~~ ~ ~v CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian ti._ ~; ~ ;: ?i ~ ,_~:~ ~~ '. l ~ -~:~ w -r a ,~' r7ra -:.'ti ~y, a '1Gt a": t ., Y t S . is n' ~,~ E+.~ ~f . I' ~saC~pc~ ~ ~n {~1~ ~4t ~~"~ ;y ~ :i a+r e ~~ ~ ~..-,4 ~ »,t ~~~~ 44 0 ~ . `y i 'Ik a 1 ~_.' ~4 L ~- ~ L?M1t :~ x '"~ ~ :ir `. , ~. ~ j ~ `', f ~~ 4E •1 R: 4` :~ ~r ,. -..4 r '-~C ~ r -Y~ + r Z $~q .~j r ,+ .. J~ -~ ~ ~ u ~ , rr' .~. ~` ~.4 ~~: =~k -`.;~ ~~Y~: ~ ~' ~~3 4~~-~^S~ -` . ~;~. "~ ., £.,, `- ' y,. ;; ~t; ~. ~~~,,, n;,.,, ;~. _'= ,.:,,~, ~~i~€ ~: St ~ ~-7r; ;., _ ~;~ '. ~: ~%`~ f st;~:,: ~~c September 18, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approval of Modifications to Planning Department Application Forms AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo from Planning Department CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ,;~~ ,,~~~ I/i® CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: vG ~ ~~~~ CITY WATER DEPT: /~_ CITY SEWER DEPT: / CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. ~ ~ =, ~` ~' ~~ %,;. ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~~~ f ~~ 1 ~ FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATI ON FORMS DATE: 9/7/2006 (ON COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 21, 2006) City of 1Vleridia8 ,G City Clerk Office CC: CITY CLERK ~~ ~ ..k. al ~~ .,. ~, •-+'` ,~- , _ ~s- . TY'I ~ r `'~' ~ ~.a- i4r ~`'' ~~;~ .~ ":', i ~~ - ~;jk - ~% ;, , y1: ,ra pay ~? ~~ L?",~ The Planning Department is requesting approval from the Planning Commission for revisions to the development application forms per UDC 11-5A-3B2, as follows: • All of the applications that require public meetings/hearings were changed to require the applicant to submit a disk with electronic versions of the plans for presentation purposes instead of e-mailing them to our office. • Added that all electronic AutoCad engineering files submitted on disk for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, & Short Plat applications comply with the CADD Specifications for Project Drawings. • The Administrative Review application form was modified to include a checkbox for "Private Street" review. • The Commission & Council Review application was modified to include checkboxes for "Alternative Compliance," "Design Review," and "Private Street" review for those that have concurrent applications that require Commission & Council review. • Added "Any supporting documents or plans" to the Alternative Compliance checklist. • Added additional legal description requirements to the Annexation/rezone application per Idaho State Tax Commission Property Tax Administrative Rules. • Added "Address verification letter from Public Works" to the Certificate of Zoning Compliance checklist. • Added "Elevations" to the Annexation/rezone and Preliminary Plat checklist. • Added "Administrative Review application form" to the Design Review checklist. • Added "Commitment of Property Posting form" to the Development Agreement Modification checklist. • Created a new "Public School Facility" checklist and added a note pertaining to it on the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Conditional Use Permit checklist per Idaho Statute X67-6519. c ;ems t :!4r 7~ ~~'Y.~3py: r ~ ~~R ~YrC'. ~ '- 5 4'~~ _ ~ ;~ `s , M . , t- ;: ~,;~ ~ ~ _ ~_ ~~ s -~ N {~y~~k~S ~,( .t +~ f Y ...~ A "- F ~ +~'T ~~ ~ `Y. `` 1 F sr ~~ ~~ aJ #,~x _ ~ ..+7:11 { ~, i L4 i ~` c _ _ . 3 • Added the requirement for relinquishment of easement letters from applicable parties affected by the vacation request, rearranged items on the checklist, deleted the "Additional Requirements for Administrative Review Application" heading and Administrative Review application form requirement, on the Vacation checklist. • Added a note on the Alternative Compliance, Design Review, and Private Street checklists that informs the applicant that they do not have to complete an Administrative Review application form if also submitting a concurrent application that requires a public hearing. • Changed the legal description requirements slightly on the Annexation/rezone, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and Conditional Use Modification checklists. • Added a revision date to all application forms and checklists. 2 ?~.,, ,~'.. ;r~•~ Y,;:,.,. ~~~,., ;_ - ~# e o ;; ;`.'' September 18, 2006 Ml 06-004 ~~; ?~° MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 tom. z': '" y APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006: Mofidication to the DA between City ;'; of Meridian 8~ Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision & a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision - 2475 S. Meridian Road ~~~~ AGENCY COMMENTS ''~ ~~ CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes _~ - CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report / Lefler from Anna Canning .'~.s~ CITY ATTORNEY °' CITY POLICE DEPT: `_ CITY FIRE DEPT: ;:.~. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: r , ,~ ~~~` CITY SEWER DEPT: ~~: . ;.. ~~ „r~' <: CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~ .x MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: =a~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~; ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~N ~~' ~' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: x .:a,~~' ~ . _ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ':~; ,,Y* SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~ IDAHO POWER: <~`~ s r INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: < c~. ~''' ~~ OTHER: See Attached Letters from ITD/Letter b David Zaremba/Email from Trac Tatom Y Y { ~~, ~` Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: N" Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. > ~ . ;; ~;~: r ~ ~,' ; < ,~ .~ i r e r -._ ~~~_ ;~ - _'; i Y ~~ v,"._ . _ . .: .. .. ':,~i rzA F~ ,1~ ® • k ,: { September 18, 2006 PP 06-040 ' f MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 ...tip '" APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene 8~ Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. Jr ,.NZ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006- Preliminary Plat approval of 55 ' ''' _s residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd ,' Creek Subdivision - 2475 S. Meridian Road =~~ .~; AGENCY COMMENTS ` `?, CITY CLERK: See MI Packet CITY ENGINEER: r 1`' . ~' 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: ~;.;4 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 CNy of Meridian. !,~~~' ',f' ~~~ {~>,~ ~ I .N ~' _-~, ,~"~~ r~ ' 1 o~ s i ~ A~~~~ s " i ~ kv §~ `w ~" x : ~ b n : ?I'~. ~; , . r~ .~~ s ;'_ r ~ ~' . -.~-,. < w ~ s y1iR :d ~..: {~ t 1 ~ 9 1 1 ~. w ~ I ~ .! ~ ~ ~ .~ ~Y x K ! r °' ~~ ^6~11 ~~T" ~t~ 'A 5 D1~S"~` hy' ~ 1 ^4 j , { x t[.:o h:H=~• `a >{i~ I: ~ .l ~' ~ :} ~{ 4 ~ ( •~~ ~- .: : 'i ~ R a.:. y~. i;5 ~'a ~ ,~, p F ! y u~• I~ I~ 4 ' Jf ~ x~ '~a, a'`..''" ] y'M ~. t. St {.•'P,yr.. r ~ 1 ~ ~E ~f~:'<`a},: ,:'~. ~ ~~ ~ . 'S ~ . r.`.' ~ 3t ' ~ I ~ i~•. ~k; h 't ~`.;hs- ' ": ; :•' L;f'ST.'. k:~~y,t, , : 4 i ~~ :vf, i i I I - I I....~,. 1 ', _ "( `''s~ ,,.~.yi.~~^,?'. tA.>dr .~t;.*,•._ 4, , ..'~i ,rrg , .. a .. - ~ p r,r ; ` S~ Tao- '. .. _ A 1 ' jI ~ .. ~ 2 ! J ~ ~ ~,'jsyt. ~y~ •~, h +:"~' 'r }~3E! } x., ~~•, ~ ~A l.' ;~:sr'"` ,;.v; ak : Y ~~;~ ~ j:;: .1 ~ !' '° err ~; ..r:..:. ' }` ~n `~ .;; ' ~ ~ ,t:: ' ..' ~ Y i; r~ ..II ~ .; :, I i " "= iy "'~i ~; ,' i#t ' ~ t~ , pp ~ ~ i . {;.` , s ;a . ~ti.; . "'1F. 1 ~~ : I~ I ~ ~3~ J ~ ~~ _.u EG,... ~ r e .t:. ~~ ~~t r. ; + . .~ : l ;: . : `t~ .; . { ~ 'A-~w } , . 1 { I .Y 1 ~ .. I : 1. .. .. r w v~r , n.r >e., §S~^• .a. , rid ~f'"! 1 I-:- °r'~2-'':'^:y','" 5'a'. ..riL`'' t ~"I p I:,. ~ 'IF' I ~r ~:~~ ~ I uEz ~~ ~' .oa 1, ~ :!ti{"'°~':'`t~"` '~~".: "i.y.~.r :i.}'~, ~,.; ~ I ' ~. ;. ti` ,~: kT,~ ! 1 II '. ~~.. ~ A .J r'~ '.p;, :,'s ~, .~'k . , ~~ ' ,. I 1 1 <'r _' k: ,~:: ~=,:; ~~ ~,; ~~ ~.:. ~;' ~' .: -`, "~i2L ;.rte, .. ,.:1, ,:F_ `';1 ~rt ~- ~., • September 18,2006 AZ 06-039 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Tom Park ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation & Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision - 1780 E. McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ctiy of Meridian. i >`' ~ ri r f~~ Y'' , fi g t,a ;j _ ~~~ r~; ~ A ~2 ~:~~~ ~ ~~~ ~t ~ x ~, !. ~~~ ; +~. ~ ~~ }Y ~,. ~`. .cam. ° - - ~~ ~ r ,, r 4a: ~ , +jr~i$ g4 3 ~~~2a art ~ .~~ ~~~ ~ ~~' 1t~ A~ ~ ~~ ] "fi .;;E k -~..yt y ~, 4~~~s , ~ ,,~ ~ - ~ ~" ~ ~' r< ~~ ~ ',~~ ~~ { /~it ~~ 3 .24'j JI Y !. ~ ~ ~~.` See Attached Letter for Withdrawal by Applicant y_' h fi, ~' s; :-~~: ~;;~,. ~1 ~~ ,- ~. s;: ~.~:~ ~,: ~-~ n`°~ . ,~: ^ ~~~~ ~:`:.:~% ., -~• ~~ ,~ :~; ~~ ~ .4 ~.:::4~. ~: -~~,. w ~s ,.. .._ ;__ ~. ~s.;;-~ 7~;,.,; ~ ~ September 18, 2006 PP 06-037 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Tom Park ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 21 residential lots and 2 common lots on 4.68 acres in a proposed R-8 zone - 1780 E. McMillan 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: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials Aresented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r ~ p~pp~~'. gYf .: ,1 ~:: September 18, 2006 CUP 06-028 ~, -~`~~f MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 ' APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. B 'Y~J REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit fora 280 square foot Coffee Shop `;'~'~~, with aDrive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C-G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru- -{ 1330 E. Fairview Avenue ' ;~~ `` AGENCY COMMENTS `~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Sep Attached Staff Report _; ` : ~~~ CITY ATTORNEY ., l ~.~=~~,L CITY POLICE DEPT: `:n,. CITY FIRE DEPT: . ~ "~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~:i ~-~ ~ CITY WATER DEPT: ~~,: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: ;~ a : '` ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments `e CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ., NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ' SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ` ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. -~ ~ , .-~• ~; "_ r, , . ~' ~" . ,ld trtr~ N „rr t~ ~ r ~. F 4 ' ~~ r ,7 ~° -r« ~,~/ Yk~ li'{ ~ ^' S . ~y A~`Y ;~i,. T`1^~ { f F ` qG S ~ -tl 1 1 1) L . ., ,~~ ~ Ufa \ ~ t~{ iL s E, 1,. °: ~ _ - s._, ~'' `' + z'- ~. ~ c~ a F a~ _ ~ t ~_r 7 ~~:; °,. sr~ ~ tr t °~; :,try '.:ki~y ~' .~~ , :;'~; ~,~,,~~ `"~: _;q ~,~ pir :; 3cy~ //~~~1 ~3 ':? .: _ ~; ,._ ~#'; ~~t~~~ ~_ F ~ -Y >, ,; , ,. .`3:~it ~w `: ~„ ry :'~~_ ~:;` :; ~~ ,: ~~ t` ,'c 2 ,~;-~" ,. ~: ~."L ~~ iy L..s;'a~ t :,mss M':rt^ ..: pet q~, • o September 18, 2006 CPA 06-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Bailey Engineers ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST CPA to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land uses win the City of Meridian south to Columbia Rd, west to Meridian Rd & east to Eagle Rd & to modify some of the existing land use designations on the Map along Amity Rd between Meridian Rd & Eagle Rd for Southeast CPA -between Meridian Rd & Eagle Rd & befween Columbia Rd to 1 /4 mile n/a Amity Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Stcff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See Attached Comments 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: 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. ,':. ~~ _ !':~ 1~~ ~. ~~t~ -., ~. ~T,~~; _ .-; ~~,~, ;~ '`; ~_ ,~ - wz ~iJ { ;}, ~, ?,~, ~FP t '' idi _i -~~ °:~= ..r ~, t ~: r~ ,, >~i ~; rX-• e o September 18, 2006 AZ 06-042 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEk-TING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision - 2180 E. Amity 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: See Attached Comments F_ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INtERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cify of Meridian. n ~~~ :'r~. ~{Sw~7 _: { fiy:i--.. iPr.... 4+~~ c;;;~; ~ ~~ .,,..., ~,;i ~i `. ~: ~N:`a r ~.. 5 ~s:; ;r; ,:;~, ;:, ,;~~: rt` ~~~' ', '<,: z .' _ J~~ ~- r: ~,4 f~ r; i.. ~;~' ~.~. 4J~ ~~;~_ ~ti- ~,, ~~~ t<:;~ ~;~ ~~ ~~~ aF ~;~ ",i~a; • o September 18, 2006 PP 06-044 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision - 2180 E. Amity Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: GIN PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: `~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. ;~ ~; h e o September 18, 2006 PP 06-046 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Dan Wood ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in the proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision - 2135 E. Amity Rd. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See ~-Z PCCk@t CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY- POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,< ~~;, ~~; ;:~.' ,r fs, :;; ~~ ~;J -, k:~. }`~ _ $4- ~. ,~~ } a ~~. ic~rt_-:- September 18, 2006 CPA 06-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006 APPLICANT Thornton Oliver Keller ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1515 W. Ustick Road 8~ 3195 N. Linder 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: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cffy of Meridian.