The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 10-19• Il )AHO • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 19, 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 best of the ability of the presenter. " 1 • Roll -call Attendance: _X Keith Borup _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X David Moe _X David Zaremba _X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 7, 2006 5. Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial / other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 7, 2006 6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-009 Request for a Rezone of .57 acres from an I- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vicki Garton — 435 W. Broadway Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council to an R-4 zone Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 2006 All materials presented at public meetings shall become roe Page 1 of 3 Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documentsand/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 0 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Continue Public Hearing to November 2, 2006 for Conditions of Approval 8. Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Continue Public Hearing to November 2, 2006 for Conditions of Approval 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with drive- thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision): Approve 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 21, 2006 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 21, 2006 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C -G zone (8.74 acres) and I -L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I -L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC — 1200 W. Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 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. A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06- 029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with drive-thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision): Approve Meeting Adjourned at 12:02 P.M. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 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. szi �I+k!yw CITY OF �YlG�IG�YI IDAHO q TR1A11U1 V Y g 1993 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 19, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Q, Keith Boru p — — Wendy Newton-Huckabay –-- David Moek, David Zaremba ' Michael Rohm - chairman i F y — 2. Adoption of the Agenda: WF r 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 . £ acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) F (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett i – south sA�a of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: / 5. Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Re Yest for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial / other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8 R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett – south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: F77 .1 +r t1 LA_ -P_ PLOD L4 e 1 r1oc 6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-009 Request f6r Rezone a of .57 acres from an I- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vicki Garton – 435 W. _t Avenue: venue: 0-v t7i 11.1 e -net top rr Cs 4, 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by 3 ' ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, � f please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 3. { Aug : �S M +'�f.?+.. "' .. `ice✓-� i'� :N' d ,{ ri',M1'�+ 4"i ._`�N a "``ti`� £` x'P k,i',, 4 t •� i { t v�e ® 0 Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: C'0„j--1,r)W i2�r1 bjc am,,/ _�ll- -C��, -�d� L�nc�� .s 0,t- 8. Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Ceti--rnue 1141bl c He rin� '�t` 11 -) -0 -PvI- Land i h rens of /!/©pro v,,�l 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with drive- thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision): /4pp _o1:,f 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Cc ti4i f, Ce f°tti.b i-o`c 14e 0.r' o en --/Z7lvl -d2% -pfa 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: 0 C, it *,.11 L -V. PLtij u c %e 0-1-1' (-IJ is - I 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C -G zone (8.74 acres) and I -L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: d A/,,�,/r �� ;`fid eo,u16;1 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I -L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: 6 ' yn eCi vl �j s ©f faL-�- - C App i^ b Ve— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 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. M Coy DatelTme 10-20-2006 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Total Pages Scanned: 2 No. I Job Remote Station 001 096 3810160 002 096 ICRMP 003 096 8989551 004 096 8848723 005 096 8886854 006 1096 18985501 007 1096 18467366 Broadcast Report 10:31:26 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11" C� �,� MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING > YLe; GiJ REGULAR MEETING iOJf1O AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "AXxwvh the CRY ofMaddihn no longarrequhvs sworn tesBmony, a# presantatians before the Mayor and City CowW are expected to be tr ful and honest to best of the ablitty of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe _David Zaremba —)C— Michael Rohm - chalmtan 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 08.031 Request far Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R r t I (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.66 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (28.02 acres) far South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south t ,.ry r x 1k ; z„.y 2' e of overland Road betvreen Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: 11 "p4bue 5. aq Prat inary Public Meeting: Pp 08.03 for Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential tots, 11 commercial l other lots and 16 common / open space lots an 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett -�sppouth side of overland Road between gLinder Road and Ten Mile Road: 8. Fsubila Ha g: QLLWa r Rezone RZ W009 Request of.67 acres from an I- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vi dd Garton - 436 W. Broadway Avenue: RC -&V Fri me.Ad A9op r'CV0 --k, G� (!O W6 -Iro 4,n R- cf Zone J 7. Public Hearing: AZ b ,-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Me anPUMhO Wd zwft Co�WW"TOn MeeUns a8 - OftW 1a 2006 Pep 1 ort Aff y eDWW the &ort ' anyone d wmmn a wr dm Weare cork( the C4 Cleric's Me of 8864433 at hmW 48 hours pMr to the puhfc meeting. Total Pages Confirmed : 38 Start Time Duration Pages Litre Mode Job TypJFA esults 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:08:50 0/2 1 G3 HS 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:02:51 2/2 1 G3 HSP14400 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:44 2/2 1 EC HSP21600 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:01:07 2/2 1 EC HSP14400 09:58:43 a.m. 90-20-2006 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:01:08 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC IHS CP28800 r t I _ r -, 0 t ,.ry r x 1k ; z„.y 2' ,r1 ' c . t y{ ' L n r s'Y VS $F �F Bim, k_� a �" Y •. iY ... f ,9", x i MIN �N.r Broadcast Report 10:31:35 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. 008 Job 096 Remote Station 8950390 Start Time 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 Duration 00:00:36 Pages 2/2 Line 1 Mode EC Job Type HS Results CP28800 009 096 208 888 2682 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 010 096 208 387 6393 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:01:08 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 011 096 2877909 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:01:08 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 012 096 2088885052 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:34 212 1 EC HS CP31200 013 096 8881983 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:35 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 014 096 12083776449 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:01:08 212 1 EC HS CP14400 015 096 4679562 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 016 096 2088886701 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:34 2t2 1 EC HS CP31200 017 096 8884022 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:02:17 212 1 G3 HS CP9600 018 019 096 096 3886924 8841159 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:37 00:00:34 212 2/2 1 1 EC EC HS HS CP26400 CP31200 020 096 2088840744 09:58:43 a.m. 10-20-2006 00:00:45 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user t; HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct s % `3 y k T k� 1{ F { s i ,. . 1 Q3'•1 sF '.r.F ».4' b� i. 04 c _P 4 --H Q d/' CITY OAll F �w IDAHO � c r ��R � TRensuae V nv%Y MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 19, 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: 5. Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial / other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: 6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-009 Request for a Rezone of .57 acres from an I- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vicki Garton — 435 W. Broadway Avenue: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. JI'w� t AF,N, 'k' lift e. t, "S 4 d '.�., .' a .i ,,. 4'f� FBJ -,.w .i }� �.,¢�� y x��C i�'i ��.,`�,` r, .� #, ;n , p• ,t. c _ � * .t. . i ;sx,a 3 ^..:. _`t k, cftR '�fi a`; ,° tt,.•fi ;''r .i. k v Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden E . Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, f. Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: 8. Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision v f, 7 by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. fi Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the w construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with drive- �{ k. p thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, x.` Dorado Subdivision): x �J r 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 46 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: x 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 1x � South Locust Grove Road: v3 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C -G zone (8.74 acres) and I -L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. S Franklin Road: 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 "f �NI,vk industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I -L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: 14. Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: v Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 19, 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, f. please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. s f. 7 fi �{ k. p �J 46 1x � v3 S �NI,vk s f. s Date/Time 10-16-2006 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Total Paces Scannad • 9 Broadcast Report W 04:28:45 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11" ?ierAse '�s-�-For'hAbU Ak-Hk MERiD1AN PLANNING AND ZONING �..�Vitf317�1c1yZ REGULAR MEETING inw�o AGENDA city Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 7:oo p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swam testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Councd are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the abNfty of the presenter." I. Rolf -cat) Attendants: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zarembe Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda; 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zaning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett – south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: 5. Public Hearing: PP 00.031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots Including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial / other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Rldge Subdivision by James L. Jewatt – south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: 6. Public Hearing: RZ Q6.009 Request for a Rezone of .57 acres from an I- L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by lilc)d Garton – 435 W. Broadway Avenue: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06.043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by MeYkQan PlermkV orfd Zrmins Commkolm MeeftAgenda— October 19.2008 Peee 1 oft All M9401als presented at pAk moWV 9W become property of fare City of Meridimf, Anyone dea ft aco m u dedon for disabl ties related to doaarrerft emNor hawk%i, please Contact Nis City Clark's OMW at M4433 at least 48 haws prior to the pblb ffmb g. Tnf..f 13. — rw.-a-.wwJ . O0 No. 001 Job 085t Remote Station 0160 Start Time 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 Duration 00:00:00 Pages 0/2 Line 1 Mode G3 Job Type HS Results FA 002 0859551 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 0858723 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:01:00 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 0856854 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 005 085 8985501 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:01:00 2/2 11 EC HS CP14400 006 085 8467366 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:36 2/2 11 EC HS CP31200 007 085 8950390 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:33 212 11 1 EC IHS CP -31200 r°'kS S. s r � :a'Ac �{. yy t MOMk v � � r t'IM �±v. •F . �.i�, 'F � � � �� F � #fit r.,4r +. � ��t -', e. ,tl+i, .i 7- x 3 'z, M ■x W', L Broadcast Report w Date/Time 10-16-2006 04:28:54 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time I Duration I Pages Line Mode I Job Type Results 008 085 208 888 2682 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:30 1212 1 EC HS CP33600 009 085 8840745 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:31 212 1 EC HS CP31200 010 085 208 387 6393 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:01:00 212 1 EC HS CP14400 011 085 2877909 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:01:01 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 012 085 2088885052 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:30 212 9 EC HS CP31200 013 085 8881983 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:31 212 1 EC HS CP28800 014 085 2083776449 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:01:00 212 1 EC HS CP14400 015 085 4679562 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP26400 016 085 2088886701 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP31200 017 085 8884022 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:02:07 212 1 G3 HS CP9600 018 085 3886924 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:36 2!2 1 EC HS CP24000 019 085 8841159 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 020 085 2088840744 03:57:36 p.m. 10-16-2006 00:00:39 212 1 EC HS CP24000 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct r J .,� .. i x ,� 4 $p v� x ', t 41, :e, cc `: $ F � 7 �R4'�' `'• ^•, ., � .!�a 1 �. F "� �Y,g��e`t��1 w`'t, �EEi 'k � t a � x� hf :_ 3; 1 r ... 4 � ',- g ..p 4 2 { S E 1t`� k' tea } 1l r Meridian Planning and Zonina Meeting October 19, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 19, 2006, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba, and David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Matt Ellsworth, 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. It looks like we have a pretty full house tonight. Welcome all of you. At this time I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this Thursday, October 19, 2006, and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Rohm: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we are going to have one change tonight. Items No. 10 and 11, public hearings for Eastwood Subdivision, are both to be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for December 21 st, 2006. So, anybody that's here tonight to listen to or give testimony for that application, it is not going to be heard tonight. We received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance and we will not be hearing item, so that one will be stricken from the agenda. The third item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have no Consent Agenda. So, with that being said could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. w ' 2: f a� r7», F Meridian Planning and Zonina Meeting October 19, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 19, 2006, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba, and David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Matt Ellsworth, 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. It looks like we have a pretty full house tonight. Welcome all of you. At this time I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this Thursday, October 19, 2006, and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Rohm: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we are going to have one change tonight. Items No. 10 and 11, public hearings for Eastwood Subdivision, are both to be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning for December 21 st, 2006. So, anybody that's here tonight to listen to or give testimony for that application, it is not going to be heard tonight. We received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance and we will not be hearing item, so that one will be stricken from the agenda. The third item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have no Consent Agenda. So, with that being said could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. f C ti 4, y E i 5+rvu z 3 ,�V F t 3 a t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiso October 19, 2006 Page 2 of 84 • Rohm: Okay. Before we get started tonight there is a couple of things that have changed for us as Commissioners at our last meeting -- and we are very new at this. We have got these laptop computers now that all of our information is fed to us from -- off of the ethernet and so until last meeting I didn't know what an ethernet was and many of us are kind of in that same boat. So, we are working with it now and we are trying to learn as we go and we have got some backup paperwork, but for the applications and documents online and we are working to get better at this as we go and all of this is an effort to save paper, because each of us receive about a ream of paper for each and every meeting and it gets a little bit expensive, so we are trying to move in a direction of being more cost effective. Okay. With that being said, the second thing that I'd like to talk to you about is the format of the meeting itself and what we do is we will open up a hearing and the first thing we will do is we will ask staff to give their summations of the project. Staff makes their presentation based upon ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and from that they kind of give us directions as to which way they think the project should go based upon adherents to -- do you want me to get that other speaker? Okay. The staff -- continuing. The staff, then, concludes with their comments and any questions that we might have of staff we will ask at that time. Once the staff has completed their assessment of the project, the applicant will have 15 minutes to sell the Commission on the project based upon their perception of the project. Once those two presentations have been made, it is open to the public. Generally speaking -- and it looks like it may be the case tonight -- if there is a single spokesman for a larger body, like a homeowners association, we will give that single person a ten minute window of opportunity to speak about the project, but anybody that has signed up for it has an opportunity to speak for their three minutes. All we ask is that if, in fact, somebody prior to you has made your point, it doesn't cant' any additional weight to make the same point again. So, you can just stand up and say I have been spoken for and am in support of this or that comment made by previous testimony. Once all of that has been done, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to rebut any comments made and additional testimony. Once that's done, then, we will either make a motion to recommend approval or denial or there may even be a continuance based upon lack of enough information to come to a final decision. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial / other lots and 16 common / open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett — south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso October 19, 2006 Page 3 of 84 Rohm: So, with that being said, unless there is other comments that other Commissioners might want to add, I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, both related to the South Ridge Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. South Ridge Subdivision, actually, is a continued Public Hearing item. It was continued previously so we could get comments from the Ada County Highway District. We did not have them prior to the last hearing and that's, essentially, the staff report that you have before you tonight is the same one that you had at the last Public Hearing. No changes have been made at this time to the staff report. However, some changes have been made to the concept plan by the applicant and I will touch on that some more, but I did want to refresh your memory, at least, that this has been on the agenda, but no public testimony has been received so far. So, this is the first time that we are actually holding the hearing on this item. South Ridge is located on the south side of Overland Road and it takes up the entire mile between Linder and Ten Mile. The site does include 290.87 acres and there are five proposed zoning designations. There are some outparcels in here. I said it goes the entire mile. It does. There are some outparcels in here. This is one. There is another one here. There is an outparcel here. And this is also not included in the application. But pretty much it is the half mile south of Overland and the full mile between Linder and Ten Mile. One hundred sixteen of the 290.87 acres are proposed for R-8 zoning, 70 acres are proposed for R-4 zoning, 51 acres are proposed for TN -R, 35 acres are proposed for TN -C, and 26 are proposed for R-2. All of this property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. Here is the aerial view of the property. To the north we have some single family homes on large parcels, agricultural parcels, also in the county. To the east are the recently approved Bear Creek West Subdivision. That received an R-8 zoning. There are also some residences right on the southeast comer of Overland and Linder there. To the south are some single family homes in Val Vista, Aerial Estates, and Aspen Cove Subdivision. Those are zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. To the west are single family homes zoned R-1 in Ada County. Most those are on larger parcels, as you can tell from this aerial view. Here is a picture of the master concept plan that was originally submitted with this application. It is a little bit difficult to make out there. I guess some -- just to kind of walk you through this application tonight, it has been changed, but there -- but what hasn't changed significantly -- this is mid mile point between Linder and Ten Mile, there have not been substantial changes throughout the past three or four months that we have had this application in process. This is substantially the same today as it was when the application was deemed complete in July. What has changed is this side of the plat and concept plan, the roadway configuration, based on a planning charrette that I know at least one Commissioner attended. I'm not sure how many of you had a chance to make it over to Jabil and be a part of that, but there is a plan that we are hoping to take before this board, as well as City Council for their approval, in the spring of 2007. The applicant did attend portions of that charrette, was involved with that, and did make some changes that are generally consistent with the outcome of that charrette, but this application is kind of in between the current Comprehensive Plan map and the charrette outcome and what we hope to be the future land use map as adopted this next spring. So, that's kind of the pickle that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 4 of 84 we are in now -- or the applicant's really in now, caught in between our current adopted Comprehensive Plan future land use designation and the soon to be adopted, hopefully, land use designations and roadway configurations in this area. So, that's kind of some of the background information. Let me -- have to zip through here a little bit. This one does a good job of showing the preliminary plat. So, this is the original preliminary plat and there are -- I'll call them spine roads. Most of these are collector roadways that the applicant was proposing to construct with the first phase. Now, this first detailed phase of the development generally occurred in this comer -- and I'll go into more detail about what those uses include here in just a second, but just to kind of give you the larger picture first, this is the first phase. Everything that's darker here would be the first phase, as well as the roadways that would be constructed so there would be access to the properties in the interim. This does -- serves a couple of different functions. The main thing being if there is -- the market calls for -- maybe this is a -- I can't remember what the zoning was that was proposed here, but maybe this calls for a low density residential here and this is high, well, you don't have to necessarily phase it contiguous to the next phase and work your way from east to west, you could actually jump around and phase this one and, then, that one, jump over here and kind of build it out as the market -- that's one of the reasons for having those spine roads. Another good reason is you can get all the facilities -- a major portion of facilities constructed with that first phase and you have utilities that basically serve this project as part of the first phase. So, I'll let the applicant, if he so chooses, to touch on that some more, but that's kind of the master concept plan. Now, with that there are what I call in the staff report either mega lots or mega blocks, but they are, essentially, one large lot that is going to be re - platted, again, as the market demands and as the applicant so chooses to phase those projects. So, there are -- I believe it was eight mega blocks that would be re -subdivided in the future. These lots -- there are lots that would actually be final platted and, then, submitted again for final plat -- preliminary and final plat that show detail of how those lots would be developed. Let me see if I have a better -- this kind of shows the overall concept for that master plan. Now, again, these mega lots or mega blocks will be reviewed in detail when each one of them come back in for their preliminary plat in the future. This really just shows a general concept of how it could be developed. Now, we do -- and the staff report does talk about tying them to, essentially, this concept, but there is some flexibility, and it has to be pretty minor. There can't be substantial changes. We would expect the final concept plan to resemble what's approved before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, again, with some flexibility built in. I will take this opportunity now to kind of go through some of the uses that are proposed, primarily focusing again on the east side of the development, because that's, really, where staff is pretty confident in our recommendation for approval of this project. It has stayed static and we have comments from ACHD regarding this side of the project and the conditions of approval, although yet not drafted in the staff report, are inferred through some of the analysis and I think the applicant has made some of those changes in some of the revisions that you will see with the other concept plan. That one actually does a better job, so I'm going to focus on -- this is the concept plan with Overland, but try not to look at that too much yet. That's the punch line. So, up in this comer we do have a public library that's proposed and an elementary school. There are some roadways -- and, again, I apologize, it is a large project, 290 plus acres. There Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 5 of 84 are -- the roadway system also ties in here to both Linder and Ten Mile around the public library and some commercial uses that are -- I think there were nine or eleven commercial lots up near Overland -- feeds into these alley -load lots. A roundabout. There are some more alley -loaded products in this block and feeds down to the collector and, then, there is some -- some R-4 lots with some R-2 lots kind of around the Ridenbaugh Canal -- in the general vicinity of the Ridenbaugh. There are also some multi -family buildings and zoning. This is, actually, the TN -C, which is a traditional neighbor center designation and this is -- or commercial designation and your traditional neighborhood residential designation along Overland Road. Those are a mixed use designation. They are shown on the concept plan. Again, some multi -family in that general vicinity, with the commercial stuff there. I will jump across now to the other side of the road. This is primarily a single family detached development, but for the -- basically at the intersection and the elementary school that's shown in this general location on the plan. The outcome of the charrette -- and I do have Matt Ellsworth from the comprehensive planning staff in the planning department is here this evening to -- I only had a chance to attend the charrette for maybe an hour on Thursday I believe it was, so I don't have the full picture of how this evolved fully. I know when I was there folks were still kicking around the idea of relocating Overland Road and it was fairly new in their minds there and this is, like I said, I think Thursday. So, we are a third, fourth day into this thing and this is a pretty major change to not only the South Ridge -- I mean huge implications for South Ridge, but also this entire area. And I'm not sure if we got it into this presentation -- we did not. The actual land use designations and roadway configurations that came out of that charrette. But this plan does generally show Overland Road doing what we thought it would, although it did -- the hand drawn plan had Overland coming in this way up, up this draw, and kind of gentler curve into Overland Road. Now, a couple of issues -- and I'm sure that the applicant will talk about this some more. There is an outparcel that that would have gone right through. So, that makes it problematic just working with another party to try to get continuous roadway through the -- through the site. So, he has dropped that down into this location. Staff is generally supportive of this proposal. However, we received this revised plan on Friday at 2:30. 1 have not had time to -- we did get it over to ACHD. We did get a memo back from ACHD recognizing that there is a revised plan. However, they can't provide detailed comments in time for this hearing, essentially, is what it says and they need some more information before they can provide detailed analysis and give the city and the applicant a thumbs up on this alignment for Overland Road. In concept, they are supportive. They recognize, too, that there is a huge topographical relief here and that having Overland Road as an arterial intersects Ten Mile there as Ten Mile falls down and the same with Overland, it's not going to -- it just can't happen. It won't efficiently work. So, some alternatives have to be explored. Matt may want to touch on that a little bit more. I know they have a bigger study going on down in south Meridian, too, to look -- an arterial study, collector study, to look at alignments of some of the other arterials in this area. But, again, back to the charrette. So, this generally follows the designation of Overland Road as the outcome from the planning charrette, but we just don't have enough information for me personally to feel comfortable giving you a recommendation for approval, because we don't have detailed comments from ACHD, there is still some questions as to the implications for the opposite side of Ten Mile, a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss0 October 19, 2006 Page 6 of 84 road that was shown here before and maybe these property owners were in attendance at that charrette, assumed that this roadway would be coming in this location -- well, it's moved several feet now to the south -- how does that affect the redevelopment of these properties there. We just haven't had a chance to fully grasp the implications of this change in location of Overland Road. So, what staff this afternoon finally came to the conclusion was we appreciate the applicant attending the charrette and even coming up with a new concept plan that shows this roadway alignment, I think it's a step in the right direction and I'm not trying to penalize them for showing that good faith and coming forward with this concept plan, but there still are some unanswered questions there. So, staff is recommending tonight to the Commission that this half of the development be approved -- essentially, I'll need you to continue it, so I can draft detailed conditions of approval, but we are recommending that this half be approved with the conditions stated in the upcoming staff report, I guess the -- we will let the rest of the Public Hearing take place and you can decide what date is appropriate for that if you so choose. I'm not prepared to go there right now anyways, based on the Public Hearing, though, maybe that may bring some clarity to a good date that we all -- oh, I guess speaking of dates, ACHD has stated to me that if they do receive some of the information mentioned in their memo dated October 18th, a revised traffic study, topography and street cross-section information for Overland Road, site distance and safety analysis and information regarding how the properties on Overland Road that are not a part of this development would have access, if you get that stuff in a timely manner -- and I'm not sure what that is, they said they could possibly have this on their November 15th plan -- their commission hearing agenda. I do not know a time frame of when that has to be. Maybe the applicant can say he's working on this stuff and he's going to have it to them by such and such date and -- but that's just to kind of give you that background that best case scenario November 15 would be ACHD commission action, hopefully, at least on an agenda. So, I wanted to also point that out. The applicant -- I did speak with them just briefly in the hall here, they are not supportive of my recommendation to only do half, they would like to see the whole thing move forward as one. I understand that, just cannot support that at this time. If this were six, seven months later, I think if we had the future land use map we may not be having this discussion, hopefully, but that's kind of where staff is at at this point. There are letters that were rolling into my office here this afternoon and the clerk's. I'll just briefly try to get those on record from the ones that we did receive. All of them will be included as part of the record for this, but we did receive one dated yesterday from Richard Bagley - -- Richard and Susan Bagley, the Majestic View Estates Homeowners and Water Users Association, dated October 11 th, stamped October 13th. There are several names that are also signed on that -- I'll call petition. There is another petition from the Aspen Cove and other neighboring subdivision's homeowners, dated Tuesday, received today, with, again, several signatures from -- I'm going to guess adjacent property owners and I did get an e-mail this afternoon from a Jackie Goegoechea -- I apologize for that, but I did get an e-mail as well that will also be included as part of the record. So, I did want you to know there are those that they did, for the most part, start rolling in this week. I think there was one from the previous hearing that I already had, but it's not handy right now, but rest assured it is part of the record as well. So, I feel like I have been talking forever. It is a big project. I did kind of gloss over a lot of the details that we would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 7 of 84 • usually go into with other projects, so if you have any questions I am available. I hope you all had a chance to look at the staff report and really look at the plans, but I will end staffs report and stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of Caleb before we -- are you hearing me? Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Were you going to ask Matt to speak to the charrette or -- or possibly later? Hood: If that's what the Commission would like, a little more background on that. We do have some stuff on a thumb drive. I have not actually pulled that up, so it may take 30 seconds or so to actually get the displays up on the screen, but Matt is here and if you'd like he can give a synopsis of what happened there. Rohm: I'd like to hear that. Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, if it's okay with you I suppose I'll jump in as to the alignment of Overland Road here and I can field specific questions as they come up. The decision to shift the road south came primarily down to two different factors. Caleb touched briefly on each of those during his report. The first was to avoid any conflict with the incoming interchange there. The existing alignment is roughly a quarter mile south of the interchange, which even -- with the existing interchange over on Meridian Road it tends to cause backups during peak hour and so that was the initial reason why we started looking at it. Caleb also mentioned that as you continue west of Ten Mile there are typographical challenges galore. You would need to cross the canal five different times to get a connection over to Black Cat. The slopes are fairly intense. So, that was really the reasoning behind dropping it further south and the reason for the location that was decided on came down to several factors once again. On the one hand -- grab a pointer here. The curve of the road we get -- get more and more intense as the connection into Ten Mile continues to drop south. So, as the road does need to function as an arterial, it made sense to keep it roughly in the vicinity that is to allow it to bypass the canal as it comes down to the east of Ten Mile and, again, not create too intense of a curve for traffic to move the desirable speed for that kind of a road. As you work further west here you get into the gravel pit, depending on where the connection comes through, and the gravel pit was identified as a potential park or open space opportunity, so we didn't want to see a major arterial running directly through the center of that. That was another reason for the chosen location of Overland as it crosses Ten Mile. We also looked at existing parcelization and impacts to homeowners. The chosen alignment did everything they could to minimize the impacts to homeowners. It runs a logical course along lot line -- along lot lines and, again, as it works its way further to the west there to connect back into the existing Overland to the west over here, it would sort of be the same situation in reverse of what we were looking at to the east, the further south it goes, the more intense that curve is going to be as it works its way back up to make that connection. So, that was really the logic behind the replacement of Overland and the chosen location for it. And specifically -- I'm not sure if you have any questions. It was a big enough project -- I guess I'd leave it open for any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 8 of 84 questions that you have at that point as to land uses or specifics about the road alignment. Rohm: I guess my first question would be is that location -- is that pretty cast in concrete or is it subject to movement 100, 200 feet north -south or how comfortable are you with this new alignment? Ellsworth: I would say it is subject to change based on a number of things, but first and foremost it would be ACHD's approval. So, until they have time to look it over and get into the nuts and bolts of the transportation system and, you know, the numbers, the angles, and so forth, it's more of a technical question on their end that would need to be answered, so I'd feel a lot more comfortable hearing from them before I said with certainty whether that's the right alignment. I think based on property owner input to the west and the discussions that were had during chanette, that this alignment made sense, but at that point we sort of tum it over to them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we move on? Okay. All right. With that -- thank you. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is James Jewett and my address 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. Before I start I guess I will need to ask for a point of clarification on what the Commission would like to do. I agree with everything staff says until they say cut my property in half for right now. So, if the Commission would like more information, then, we probably should go get that additional information for them. Like the ACHD says, they can possibly meet on this on the 15th. Obviously, I'd like to go forward now. We have already been quite delayed getting to this point waiting for ACHD on the original application and I was asked by the city to make these changes to more minor the charrette and that's why I'm trying to do this, I'm trying to accommodate the city and I believe it's a good idea and I believe it's in the best interest of the public as a whole long term for Overland Road to be located away from that -- below the hill and too close to the interstate. So, I guess I would need first direction from the Commission, do they -- are they in a position where they can move forward or would they need that ACHD determination before they move forward, because having my project approved in half isn't going to be acceptable for me at this time. Rohm: Boy, that's a tough question, because we haven't -- first of all, we haven't heard your presentation, nor have we heard testimony from the public. But just based upon the presentation of staff, there are huge implications from the changes in Overland Road in that whole area and I can't speak to the balance of the Commission, but that's something that we are going to want to make sure we get right and I don't think that any decision that we can -- let's put it this way. For myself I can't make a conclusion without knowing as much as possible and if that includes additional information from Ada County, then, so be it. But I'm -- that's kind of where I fall at this point in time, but I can't speak for the balance of the Commission. Dave, would you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso October 19, 2006 Page 9 of 84 Moe: Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, I don't think I have enough information entirely on the western side of this property to make any decision tonight. I'm anticipating that even in public testimony there is going to probably be some questions I have on the east side as well. So, I can guarantee you I would not see the thing going forward in my mind tonight for sure. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: My concern is that this is the first time I have seen it with the changes from -- potential changes from the charrette. I suspect it's the first time a lot of people have seen it with the potential changes from the charrette and I think it does have the possible impact of changing people's opinions that they may have already expressed, written or when expressed tonight, and I do think it is because we are talking about the interchange, Overland, this area, that I do think it's important that we have all parties who are going to have a voice to have a voice and -- but I don't, myself, do not want to move half the project forward either. So, I would prefer to delay the -- and I'm sorry to say that, but delay the entire project for resolution of all these issues. These aren't small issues, as you're probably dealing with every day, and so I would like to see them resolved and have everybody get a chance to digest them. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I agree with everything said. Tonight's not the time to make a final decision. The only question, comment I may have, is on how much time we would need to look at the western half, the second half. I had the impression from Caleb that he may say, you know, eight months to a year from now, but I don't know if I understood that correctly or not. I would hope that we could do something much sooner than that as far approval of the rest of it, but I -- but, yeah, we do need a lot more information. But you have done a good job of complying with -- with charrette layouts and the overall project. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: My comment at this point before your presentation or the rest of the public testimony, would be that I very much appreciate your participation in the charrette. I very much agree with the realignment of Overland, whether it's exactly this or a hundred feet one way or the other. I have thought a long time that it needs to connect to the other piece of Overland beyond Black Cat and doing it in its current location would be very difficult. It needs to curve like this because of the terrain. My feeling is that Caleb was trying not to penalize you for being so cooperative with the city by offering that we work on half of it that is ready to go, but like the other Commissioners and as you have expressed yourself, I probably would like to discuss the whole project in its final form and, unfortunately, it does feel like that penalizes you for being cooperative. I would like -- if it is eventually to be approved, for it to be something like we are looking at as a result of the charrette. So, my feeling would be we are probably going to listen to you, listen to the public, and continue it for -- the whole thing. Continue the whole thing for H 3 n , 1 � t � v. s j RFs, a t. f 4� S t � v. t � v. s j RFs, d � F f 4� Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 10 of 84 ACHD and details on it, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be more than a month or two. Jewett: And I appreciate all your comments. I don't think they different a whole lot from mine. And I know a lot of folks have come out tonight and I know they have a lot of questions, they have a lot of concerns, and they are looking for answers and I think I can give a lot of answers, but if we are not prepared to move forward based on getting additional information, I guess we need to work that out here before we go forward, because through additional information things might change further, which will require more testimony, so -- and I don't certainly want to send somebody home after they came out, but I think we do need to have the complete picture. Now, the other problem I have is, you know, we have some Public Works agreements that I have made with Meridian Public Works that need to be facilitated and that's bringing sewer over to Ten Mile through the west half of this project. That's going to be greatly impacted by any delay, even a two week delay would greatly impact that Public Works project that's currently under design and ready to get started. And we do have a current application in front of you that does not have these changes on it that meets the Comp Plan and I don't know if something could be developed to let us go forward on that testimony on that application, with -- I'm assuming there will be a development agreement on this project, that maybe that in the development agreement we can workout that when the charrette is approved, if it's approved with ACHD's endorsement, that I would agree to change the western boundary to match the charrette. I'm not asking for any preliminary plat, other than the mega lots on the western side. I think that that avenue would allow us to go forward. Unfortunately, we would be looking at just the first application and not this one. This one was done again per request from the planning director that I meet the planning charrette and -- and I asked specifically if I did that that I would not be delayed and I got the implication that I would not be delayed if I went down that path. Now, we are seeing significant delays on the entire project, not even half, and I do appreciate staffs comments and your comments not wanting to delay me. Truly I do appreciate that. But I think we do have to answer all of the questions and I'm prepared to answer all the questions in regards to the first application. It does meet the Comp Plan, it does have a recommendation of approval in the staff report. In fact, that's the staff report you have. And I truly don't want to be penalized for trying to be cooperative, but I think I can be cooperative in the future and still move forward tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I don't know if this would be of any assistance to the Commission, but two nights ago the City Council had another project north of the freeway in similar circumstances. The Baraya Subdivision, you probably recall, and that had originally been denied by the Council. It was reconsidered and remanded back to this Commission for its January meeting and the main reason -- in fact, the only reason the Council agreed to that was because of the charrette. They had participated and they had designed similar to what Mr. Jewett's saying, but the Council was very clear that they were not approving the project and they didn't want to approve any projects in this area until the Ten Mile charrette study was fully discussed by the Council, scheduled for Public Hearing, the public had opportunity for input and they made it clear to the applicant in that particular case that although they were remanding it back to this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commise October 19, 2006 Page 11 of 84 • Commission for a January hearing date, that they didn't expect it to come back for approval or they wouldn't even consider approval until this South Ten Mile area plan has been completed. So, I understand where Mr. Jewett's coming from, I just -- for whatever that's worth, the Council has wrestled with this already a couple of times with Baraya and made a decision not to bring that forward yet. I don't know that that would be the circumstance with this one, but it certainly would be a similar situation for the Council and they may or may not bring it further much quicker anyway. Rohm: I think, really, where this all washes out is even if you had not participated in the charrette, that's not a cast -in -concrete location and associated lots and blocks surrounding it aren't conclusive until -- until it is and I don't feel comfortable moving the project forward until we are -- we know for sure where that Overland tie to Ten Mile is going to -- where it's going to be and the specifics of it and I think that Caleb offered up a good solution in his testimony that if we take a look at the east half, even though that doesn't give your project full development, at least that gives you something to work on until we do have a -- a response from Ada County. And I can't tell you how to proceed tonight. If you want to make your presentation based upon basically the assessment of the project from the Commission that we are all uncomfortable with the west half, then, by all means we can proceed tonight with that, but I don't know that you're going to get a lot of support on the west half. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have got a question for Mr. Hood. Your statement on approving the eastern half and only at this time, what would be the procedure on that? Are you anticipating not even annexing the other half or annexing the whole property and approving the proposed road alignments, which you said would be developed with the eastern part of it or what did you have -- what were you thinking on that recommendation? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, the recommendation would be that we just annex half of the property and not annex the west half. The thinking behind that was there is also -- and we haven't talked about this. We didn't really talk about land use designations that come out of the charrette either, but -- and I'm not quite sure how much to play this up. I hear the applicant talking about, well, he wants us to analyze his original plan. I'm not quite sure which one I should talk about at this point, but I will talk about the revised plan, because it's got some land use zoning designations that aren't consistent with the plan. There is TN -C shown here. Well, there is no commercial shown anywhere in this area on the charrette map. Same with this area. Some changes in zoning have happened up here. Now, it's true that it will -- just as the future land use states, it's just a guide, it will also be a guide, but, really, all of my questions are on this side of the plat regarding roadway alignment, regarding zoning, land use, all the questions are west half. So, that's why the recommendation would be -- and what I imagine is if the Commission wants to go forward on that recommendation, the applicant doesn't have to submit revised legal descriptions for the zoning that only goes to mid mile. I mean if they don't comply with that condition, the development agreement doesn't get signed, it doesn't get annexed, and, you know, the project doesn't go forward as half. I mean it's ultimately up to him to agree to only developing half of it at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio October 19, 2006 Page 12 of 84 this time. But the conditions would be to submit revised legal descriptions with -- like this R-8 zone, we have one legal description today that does that number or something like that, you know, so it would have to be amended to be cut off on that property line and this would be your new R-8 legal description. Things like that would have to be part of the conditions of approval if we so choose to do it that way. And it was just -- while I have the mike, I hope that answered the question, but we were trying to -- at least in my mind not delay the applicant because phase one was up in that comer and we thought you can get going, be constructing, hopefully by the time we get over there far, then, we will have the roadway alignment figured out and we can come back in and annex the rest -- the remainder half. Again, that's up to him to go whatever direction he wants to. What was envisioned -- and I don't think when we started this -- I'm glad that the applicant was there and participated. I don't think anyone envisioned Overland doing this and when we said we hope to not delay your project, we didn't envision Overland coming down to a half mile, essentially. So, some things maybe were said, which -- through the charrette process, just the changes were made that were so large that we just can't grasp all the changes that have happened and they are still relatively new. I mean it's three weeks -- we are three weeks out of the charrette and haven't gotten all the information. So, that's what the recommendation would be, annex one half and wait for the other half. Borup: The Comp Plan still shows the neighborhood center there, doesn't it? Hood: It does. Right at the half mile. And that's -- I guess just to follow that up, too, the east half of this project is consistent with the Comp Plan today, as well as the charrette plan. That's another reason we -- I can confidently recommend approval of this project, is because everything there is consistent with what we have adopted today and what we anticipated for future changes to the map sometime next spring. Borup: Okay. And, Mr. Cole, Mr. Jewett had mentioned bringing sewer line in from Ten Mile. Is that -- and, Mr. Jewett, your -- the Ten Mile trunk would sewer the eastern half of your property or -- Jewett: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, this property has one trunk running to it. The Black Cat Trunk runs to the north side of this property. Then, it has two separate -- two separate spurs, two separate legs of that trunk that runs down. Public Works has a significant interest in the sewer to the east going to Linder Road. The ultimate destination of the Black Cat Trunk at this time is through Mr. Jewett's property, down through Bear Creek West, and, eventually, will tie into the diversion manhole at Glacier Springs, which will leave some problems in our system. Mr. Jewett on the west of this is talking about a separate trunk that will run down approximately this location here that a future lift station in the south would discharge to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissio 40 October 19, 2006 Page 13 of 84 It's an important leg of our system, but not of our main concern right now. It's of lesser importance to us than the trunk heading east to the diversion manhole. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: I would like to comment on that. Rohm: Go ahead. Jewett: And I hope the City Attorney can confirm that I signed an agreement with the city to extend that sewer line to Ten Mile to accommodate a lift station that's supposed to be completed by April 1. So, I'm a little confused by Public Works' comment that it's not of that much importance, when I had actually signed an agreement with the city to have this Public Works project done. So, I'm a little bit confused by that. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the city -- City Council has agreed to provide sewer service to a non-farm subdivision down around Amity Road by the name of Bitter Creek. They have agreed -- they have agreed to provide sewer and water service to that -- that sewer is going to a lift station that would discharge to mains planted in this subdivision. Borup: But the comments on April 1 st, I assume, then, the city would offer an extension or -- Cole: I'm unaware of the time line of having the lift station completed by April 1st. I haven't been -- I'm not the project manager of that -- of that lift station. Borup: Definitely the normal procedure on something like -- 3 Y�1 Cole: Correct. Borup: -- to just extend it. Rohm: I before we move forward that, really, in my mind they are two separate issues. ry The development of the sewer system within the city, albeit that there is a collaborative , . , process of which you participated in, ultimately our decisions from a planning and zoning are not affected by where a trunk line is. We have to make our decisions based k ` upon what's best for the community from just that perspective, not the location of the sewer, and so -- and I dont want -- I'm not trying to undermine your concerns over agreements made, but from a -- from a planning and zoning I probably wouldn't put that j.. in my equation as far as rendering any kind of a decision from that perspective. Mr. Nary did you -- would you have some additional comments on that? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, I don't. I mean I think you have hit it on the head. I think this Commission's responsibility is to look at the project and how it interacts with the rest of the community and what's in the best interest of the city. E$ ar Ito S p } F R £ s r ¢ 4 S + + j 1 W1`4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissie October 19, 2006 Page 14 of 84 40 I guess I don't see a particular issue with Mr. Jewett and being able provide that particular service or how it gets there. I think if there is a need for an extension that's something -- we can discuss that, but I don't think that's an issue for the Commission to make a decision on. Rohm: That's kind of what I'm thinking. Before we go any further I'd like to ask the city attorney another question. Given the fact that it appears as if we are probably not going to come to fruition tonight on this application, would it be your opinion that we go ahead and take all testimony full well knowing that more than likely everything is going to change or do you have some comments on that? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess what I would recommend -- I mean part of the staffs issue and some of the discussion has been around this particular design and that some of the information is new, there is some concerns about the roadway. It may be somewhat fruitless -- I recognize a lot of folks have taken the time out of their evening to come here, but it may be fruitless to take testimony on a proposal that hasn't been fully -- fully reviewed by the staff and hasn't been fully reviewed I think by a number of the people in this room. What you may want to do is if you're going to set this over, whether it's for two weeks or four weeks or two months or whatever that is, you may want to direct the applicant have another neighborhood meeting, so that if there are questions or concerns -- there may -- and they may not be able to be answered, but if there are questions or concerns that many of those things might be able to be ironed out in a neighborhood meeting context, that would be more fruitful, then when the people come back they have more I guess focused ideas on what the issues are and some of the other ones may be resolved. Now, again, I don't know how the last neighborhood meeting for this project went and whether that's a reasonable expectation that that may get resolved that way, but that's certainly an option this Commission could have. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. And with that being said I'd ask you what your preference would be, because we can take your testimony and testimony from the balance of the people here, but the bottom line is it's going to change anyway, so I'm not sure from my perspective that an extended hearing is in order, but that's kind of -- that's your call. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, I appreciate the comments. You know, if -- if you want to -- if the idea to limit it to the east side and you just desire the Commission -- to me to testify on the east side only and for -- you would only make a recommendation on the east side so directed, that's what I will do. And I will limit it to that and, then, the Commission can do what they wish with the west side. It's not my desire. This is a project that we have worked long and hard on and that we are quite proud of and we think it should be treated as a whole. But having said that, there is so many outside issues that I have to deal with -- as some of you may be aware of, you know, the library is going forward on their bond for this site to build their building in two weeks. So, that's associated in the east side of this project. So, again, if staff and the Commission would like me to limit the testimony to the east side, then, that's what I will do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso O October 19, 2006 Page 15 of 84 Rohm: And I think that's probably in good order. The other thing that I'd like to say, too, though is because the application will change based upon the west half being omitted from the conclusions written by staff, it will be continued from tonight's hearing anyway and we won't be able to conclude this hearing tonight, it will be continued even if we take testimony on the east half. Jewett: Understood for the technical reason, but would you be to a point to recommend -- make a recommendation on those Findings? Rohm: No. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I just -- the direction I think you're going, I want my preference known here. I don't want to really, myself, go forward with a -- limit it to one side of the project and also be forcing the issue. I don't want to make a decision in a vacuum, knowing that there is information forthcoming. My preference is not to have a hearing now and have a hearing again, if we have that option. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to make that clear before you got any farther down your road of committing for the Commission. Rohm: And in some ways I support your comments there. Mr. Nary, can we just request that we continue it at this point, rather than take any testimony, or what are our options at this point? Nary: Mr. Chairman, certainly you can -- you can continue this matter if you want. What I would suggest you do is at least outline for the applicant's sake as to what specific types of information you want to bring back and if your desire is to have a neighborhood meeting, then, to make that clear that that's going to be required by this Commission, if -- again, what specific information -- I mean Mr. Hood could probably provide some staff assistance as to what particular issues they are going to focus on in that, so that everyone knows what's -- what issues are going to be asked to come back with at your next hearing. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe staff is saying they don't want to hear the west half until the charrette's approved. I think that's what I'm hearing. They are not looking for anything on the east half, if I understand what staff is saying, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Jewett, that's the problem. So many of us don't really know exactly what the direction is, so I think rounding up, itemizing those bullet points, and setting a hearing for a date -- a date certain or in the future. I, myself that is my preference, because I think we will end up going through this again. ,u k �R ,y0x i k L F 4 1x. T4ti '! J` t.}6 2 u YY t�.?yr vcvi MP 4i f Al F am 0 i ` f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi ., October 19, 2006 � Page 16 of 84 * Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess the point I would like to make on that is we are going through it right now. We continued it to now, because we were waiting on information and we, actually, ended up with more questions than answers. So, therefore, I don't think we should go forward along with any of it tonight, until we are able to find out what , r we are going to do on the west side and, then, go from there. Rohm: Did you want to keep the project all together, then? Moe: Yes, I do. E Newton-Huckabay: As do I. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Just one comment. The application as originally submitted -- the only -- the 4 platting is taking place on the east side. Everything on the west side are those mega lots with just roadways. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that's huge. I mean you're vesting them with } zoning and -- Borup: Right. „ Hood: -- street layout and that, essentially, is the development. Even though they are z one mega block, you're approving R-8 zoning, they can go in and put in 8,000 square foot lots from here over to Ten Mile forever and there is really nothing -- that's what the zoning would allow, if you approve the whole thing. And that may or may not be consistent with the charrette outcome. And that's why staff didn't recommend denial. " mean with Baraya we would say wait six months and come back with us. We don't think that's fair to the applicant and we said here is a compromise, half of this works. 1 Borup: And that was the point I was trying to make, that the half -- and nothing's changing to any degree on that eastern half. Even when we see everything, nothing's going to be different in that area. We are going to be looking at the same street layout, same -- same platting and everything. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to weigh in on your position on east half, west half, as a whole? How do you view this project? Zaremba: There are a couple of struggles that I have here. It is so much to the benefit of Meridian to have applicants come in with large projects, such as this. There are so many benefits that Meridian could beat out of the developer on a bigger project than on a smaller project, that I don't want to do anything that discourages either Mr. Jewett or other developers from bringing large projects. We are suggesting that we break this project up into two parts. I like the idea of having big projects. Again, I say the difficulty a , I have is on the one hand I appreciate the willingness to cooperate in the realignment of } X9 i ff q 7 f� ti VA' r S r � x t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso October 19, 2006 Page 17 of 84 Overland and I feel there is some suffering going on from the delay that that causes. I would like to see the whole project. I probably would suggest continuance. I could just as easily focus only on the east half. That's no help at all. Borup: But well said. Rohm: Thank you. Actually, I -- from that I think that the primary issue from a staff perspective is the zoning that is being proposed by the developer, based upon unplatted large parcels, and -- and I think that the audience as a whole is a little bit nervous about us granting permission to rezone without having any feel for what that configuration is going to be, other than from the large parcel perspective and I think Caleb offered a solution that both meets the majority of the people here's concerns and gives the applicant an opportunity to move forward with the east half. And so it would be my opinion that even though there are always benefits to large projects as a whole, I still think that this particular one we are probably better to split it into east and west. And so -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you making a decision? Rohm: No. No. No. Everybody is voicing their opinion here and that's just mine. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I thought you were making a second time. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, we still need to -- Mr. Jewett, would you like to proceed with your testimony or would you like to have us continue it until a date certain? Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I agree with every comment that every Commissioner's made here. That's how confused and on the fence I am on this. I want to move forward on the east side. I do believe it should be heard as a complete project, because there is merits to the complete project. So, I will do what this Commission wants me to do and I hear two different comments coming out of the Commission. I would gladly go forward on the east side, so long as everybody recognizes it's the east side. I would gladly go forward on the whole thing. I would gladly agree to a -- you know, a tabling, as long as it was a timely tabling, just maybe just beyond the ACHD hearing on the matter. But I don't know if that clears up all the matters in its entirety, because the charrette has more issues than just the realignment of Overland Road. So, I would like to move forward. I'm prepared to move forward. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we go any further, Caleb, would you like to give him a laundry list of things that he would need to address before we hear this project again? Hood: Depending on what the project is defined as. If the project is defined as the east half -- they are detailed in the staff report. I mean there is some analysis and they aren't in condition form, but our concerns really aren't that major. I mean there is some minor tweaks to like alley visibility -- I think one of those has even already been made. There are not a lot significant changes to that side of the project and I think staff could come Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisso October 19, 2006 Page 18 of 84 back with recommended conditions and findings for approval on that half in a fairly quick time frame. Without going through the staff report page by page and listing those out -- really, they are quite minor. There is some talk about a -- the multi -use pathway along the Ridenbaugh and some things like that, but bigger picture things -- I mean there is definitely bigger items than the issues that are listed in the staff report with this one. So, if you want -- again, if you want a recommendation on the project as a whole, that's going to take some more time, because I would need ACHD comments for one. The other, again -- it sounds kind of repetitive. We are going around in -- I, too, agree with everyone's point of view. It's not easy. But, you know, the Council hasn't adopted the charrette. It's not adopted yet. But pressing forward with a plan that may be outdated in six months doesn't make sense either. So, I'm really -- it's at your -- I have made my -- my staff report and Jim I'm sure has went through it and I think we can come -- we can agree on those conditions anyways. I mean there is -- really, there is no substantial change to that side of the plat. There are some development agreement provisions for some of the TN -C and TN -R that's along Overland Road. You know, it talks about a connection between the two and some things like that, but I haven't heard any negative feedback at least from his end of the land group on not being able to comply with some of those conditions. So, with that I don't have anything else to add. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: One, I know you have said this, Mr. Hood. When is the ACHD planning to meet on the revised discussion? Hood: And maybe the applicant can clarify a little bit, too. I talked Lori Den Hartog today and she said if they had all of this stuff by a certain day -- and I don't know when it is and this is where I'm going to need Jim's help -- they could potentially get them on the 15th of November, if that's a Wednesday, the 15th of November ACHD commission. Now, it's a night meeting, so that neighbors can attend, too, if that's the case. I don't know when that drop dead line is, so Jim may be able to help you out with that. Jewett: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the -- ACHD sent me a list of five items they wanted to be able to make a complete review of the application that's up on the screen there. I got my traffic engineer in the room tonight and three of those items have to come from him and he is committed to get them to ACHD by Tuesday, which was what their requirement was to meet that 15th. Of course, that is not promised or cast in stone, but they are saying if we get it to them by Tuesday that they will endeavor to have it heard on November 15th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- thank you for that. I would add a comment that ACHD was also a pretty heavy participant in the charrette. For those of you that don't know what a charrette is -- I don't know what it means either, but the result is that it's a four or five day long intense meeting on a specific subject where you hear from, essentially, all stake holders and anybody that has an opinion and hopefully you come out at the end S� F--i" �a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissiio October 19, 2006 Page 19 of 84 U] of four or five days with an area plan that otherwise might take months and months and months. So, where the name charrette came from I don't know, but it's -- it's a very intense planning process that condenses what might take six months or so into four or five days, gets everybody involved that could want to be involved, and that's what happened. Anyhow, ACHD was a big participant in that and I believe they are on board with the realignment of Overland specifically, but I don't believe that they will need to have a very long discussion about what Mr. Jewett is going to present to them, but I would suggest that we right now continue this to our first meeting in December, which would be like the week after that and it's, what, a month and a half from now? Rohm: Okay. With that being said -- Moe: Excuse me. But staff isn't going to be ready at that time or would they? Zaremba: Well, it would give them two weeks after the ACHD meeting. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: On the 15th. Rohm: Okay. What I'd like to, Commissioner Zaremba, is somebody to make a motion of continuance with specifying whether it's a continuance for the east half, the whole, or make that specific in your motion to continue and, then, we will vote on it based on that and, then, everybody will know exactly what we will be hearing at the date of continuance. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I got one question on the definition of the east half. Are we talking the whole entire east part of the property or those areas that are shown with preliminary plats? Rohm: I believe it's everything -- Borup: In the original -- I'm talking about the original preliminary plat from the original application. Because those are just -- right there. Yes. Is that what we are talking about, the east half, the platted area and the mega lots or just the platted ones? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission, when I say east half, I am talking taking the half mile section line, because that is today -- there is a parcel break -- we aren't creating any legal split or anything in the county by taking parts of this parcel and parts of that parcel and annexing something. Mr. Jewett owns or his LLC or whatever owns 80 acres due west. It makes a nice clean break right on the mid mile section. So, when I say that half, I'm literally talking half mile on that property line, nothing else over there. Now, just a point of clarification. Everything here is part of the preliminary plat. Everything is being platted, included the road shown, all the lots. They are mega lots. They don't really look like lots, but everything is part of the preliminary plat here. v t f. tr a.S . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss9 October 19, 2006 Page 20 of 84 Borup: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, to the r regularly scheduled meeting of December 7th, 2006, and we need to get instructions to the applicant of -- to have another neighborhood meeting? 3 t »ti Rohm: If that's in your motion. E : Newton-Huckabay: To hold another neighborhood meeting, receive comments from ACHD, and what was the other -- was that -- x: Zaremba: Basically, we are looking for the new configurations. 3 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Yes. That includes a new configuration. Zaremba: I would second that. fif. g Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. .;. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Just as a point of clarification. So, the entire project, not just -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. The entire project. Rohm: Thank you. ---------------- Newton-Huckabay: All 290.87 acres. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 06-031 and PP x 06-031 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 7th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. v Hood: Mr. Chair? Point of clarification. Because part of your motion was to have comments from ACHD. By chance, if we aren't on, what's the protocol there. I mean we will have an agenda. I would hate for these folks that have maybe come twice already to come a third time to be continued for a fourth time. What are we going to do _ if we don't have those comments from ACHD two weeks before and I'm not able to 1 a t P,v , a t S t P a s E IT i ? e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 21 of 84 incorporate those or we don't have them at all into a revised staff report. How would you like me to proceed in that instance, should we cross that bridge? I hope we don't. Newton-Huckabay: My opinion is that the balance of this Commission wants to see the comments from ACHD and most likely the public does, as well as the applicant. So, I would -- unfortunately, in the process of doing it right that may require all of us to have to show up again -- or possibly again. So, unfortunately, that may be the case, but -- Borup: If ACHD does not hear it on the 15th, when would be their next date? Do we know? Hood: Mr. Chair, I know they usually don't meet the 22nd, because they are eating bird, so they don't meet that next Wednesday. I don't know if they have one -- is there a last -- so, it would be the 29th -- it may be December before their next meeting and they wanted to have it on a night meeting, is my understanding, so neighbors could attend. They only have one night meeting a month. I'm not sure when that is in December, I don't have their schedule memorized, but usually it's towards the latter part of the month, usually the last Wednesday of the month. So, now we are talking Christmastime. It could get ugly if they don't make the 15th I guess is what I'm trying to say. Borup: A lot of incentive to make the 15th. Rohm: We don't have any control over that, so the thing that I would I like to say to each of you that came in to listen to this tonight is thank you for your time and I want you to know that we try very hard to take your -- even though you didn't testify, I believe most of the people here were anxious to see us get more information before we made any decision and thank you all for coming in. Hood: I may add, too, for those of you in the audience, I'm going to get a ton of phone calls, but to save you a trip, go ahead and call our department, call the clerk's office that Thursday, see if we have ACHD comments, see if the hearing's going to be held. We can save you a trip down here, potentially, if it's not on the agenda. So, give us a call and we can -- we can touch base and I can even answer maybe a couple questions while the other hearing is going on, but can't get out of hand, because we do have a hearing to -- the question was can we put it on the website. We may be able to. It's going to be on the agenda, so I can't say that it's going to be continued or not, because that's up to this body. What we could potentially put on the website is we have received the ACHD's comments on this project and staff has received them, something to that effect. We can try to do that. Zaremba: I think the applicant has said he will do everything he can to be ready for their 15th meeting. So, I would anticipate it's going to move forward. Rohm: I believe so, too. Thank you all for coming in. F� y'. P �VW y i' t i i4' tlJA 1 Jrt ,'"Av J14,3`L'.�,Lk y` yv 3 yb MW t, x 3J _ { r , ✓ n, �yr'rL t l,a. Y a I+ F� MW r, y Meridian Planning & Zoning COMMIS October 19, 2006 Page 22 of 84 k £ Jewett: And thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. MK Rohm: You bet. Just due to the nature -- we are going to take a 15 minute break here and continue it at 8:35. r (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 06-009 Request for a Rezone of acres from an I- .57 L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton by Vicki Garton — 435 W. Broadway Avenue: r Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to continue our regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by -- okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 06-009, request for a rezone of .57 acres from an I -L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton and begin with the staff report. i k{ Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application t 3 before you is a rezone for the property located at 435 West Broadway Avenue. The applicant has requested this property be rezoned from the I -L, light industrial, to the R-8, r medium density residential zoning district. The subject property is generally located on the south side of West Broadway Avenue, west of West 4th Street, adjacent to the railroad tracks. The vicinity map on the overhead here highlights the property here in blue. The site is a residential property that contains an existing single family home and associated out building. To the east and west of the property are single family homes • �_ zoned I -L. To the north are single family homes zoned R-15. The property abuts the railroad tracks on the south. South of the railroad tracks is industrial property zoned I -L. ' ^ This property and other neighboring properties to the east and west were originally developed as residential properties, but were rezoned at some point supposedly for t industrial redevelopment that never occurred. The applicant would like to rezone the property so that the existing residence can be considered a conforming use in the zone for financing purposes, as most financial institutions will not finance a nonconforming use or property, because if the structure is significantly damaged it cannot be rebuilt. The only issue highlighted in the staff report for the Commission is that the applicant needs to submit a legal description and associated documents stamped and signed b 9P 9 Y a professional land surveyor that meet the city's and State Tax Commission's Y n ; requirements prior to Council approval of the rezone ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of their requested rezone from I -L to R-8 as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. �P =t^ Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, actually, I do have one. I agree with the reason for changing ' the zoning, but it was my understanding when the Old Town zone was established that ;. ^ we would not go out and force people to change their zoning, but if and when they asked for any change, the change would be to Old Town, and I -- and that would still t` 10 t a . h'sr i r x w AA 44 v }t Ir .. w} / t n 9 i it ua Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 23 of 84 allow the use that they are wanting to make it, but would still be a correct use in the Old Town zoning. I'm wondering why we are not making this Old Town. Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, that -- this particular piece of property is not within the Old Town -- Zaremba: Oh, it's outside of it? Watters: -- designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: That's the right answer, then. Thank you very much. Watters: It's designated as medium density residential. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Watters: Any additional questions? Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please, and state your name and address for the record. Garton: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Vicki Garton. My address is 1900 East Blue Tick Street in Meridian and I have applied for a rezone of the existing property for the purpose of financing. As you know it's currently zoned as I -L and our primary purpose is to purchase this and we are unable to obtain financing for a residential loan without a rezone. George and Viola Nelson are the current owners of the property and as I understand they have been trying to sell the property for quite some time. They are in failing health and need to sell the property, but they, like I said, have been unsuccessful in doing that. We have requested that it be taken back to medium density or R-8. I don't know the particular -- necessarily if R-8 is a big issue, but we have -- to me have spent quite a bit of time and to me a lot of money to rezone that so we can purchase it and I'm not an experienced real estate investor, but it's my understanding that by zoning it to R-8 it would increase the value at some point along the way in the future. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's my understanding, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: There is quite a number of people signed up and so I guess if you don't have anything else we will just go through the list and -- Garton: I do just want to make it clear that, you know, we plan to use the existing structure as a residence. My daughter is going to be living there. She's going to college at BSU. We have put about 10,000 dollars into the existing residence to remodel that so we can keep that residence, because we do like -- ,3 :;1 p� i� iA �¢„fit q�3: •'.ii ._ fz £ f r *; s <_ c. t r :a4 H II'd'I I Ili � P 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 23 of 84 allow the use that they are wanting to make it, but would still be a correct use in the Old Town zoning. I'm wondering why we are not making this Old Town. Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, that -- this particular piece of property is not within the Old Town -- Zaremba: Oh, it's outside of it? Watters: -- designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: That's the right answer, then. Thank you very much. Watters: It's designated as medium density residential. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Watters: Any additional questions? Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please, and state your name and address for the record. Garton: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Vicki Garton. My address is 1900 East Blue Tick Street in Meridian and I have applied for a rezone of the existing property for the purpose of financing. As you know it's currently zoned as I -L and our primary purpose is to purchase this and we are unable to obtain financing for a residential loan without a rezone. George and Viola Nelson are the current owners of the property and as I understand they have been trying to sell the property for quite some time. They are in failing health and need to sell the property, but they, like I said, have been unsuccessful in doing that. We have requested that it be taken back to medium density or R-8. I don't know the particular -- necessarily if R-8 is a big issue, but we have -- to me have spent quite a bit of time and to me a lot of money to rezone that so we can purchase it and I'm not an experienced real estate investor, but it's my understanding that by zoning it to R-8 it would increase the value at some point along the way in the future. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's my understanding, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: There is quite a number of people signed up and so I guess if you don't have anything else we will just go through the list and -- Garton: I do just want to make it clear that, you know, we plan to use the existing structure as a residence. My daughter is going to be living there. She's going to college at BSU. We have put about 10,000 dollars into the existing residence to remodel that so we can keep that residence, because we do like -- ,3 :;1 p� i� iA �¢„fit q�3: •'.ii ._ fz £ f MM” :a4 H Meridian Planning & Zoning Commie 40 October 19, 2006 Page 24 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I guess we will just start at the top and -- Shelly Fisher. Fisher: My name is Shelly Fisher. I reside at 22900 Conrad Court in Middleton and I am actually here just representing the owners of the property, Viola and George. They are elderly and aren't able to speak for themselves at this and so I have been -- I'm just a family friend and have been helping them try to sell the place for the last several months and we ran into, actually, three contracts that ended up in a problem, because of the zoning. They weren't able to get financing for a residential home and so that's why the Gartons, when they decided to purchase the home, they wanted to go and get the rezoning, so they can qualify for it. What actual zoning is determined is up to you folks, but the one thing that I would request is that if there is conflict over the R-8 that we come to some sort of solution this evening. Viola and George have purchased another home and moved just around the comer to a small home that's no stairs and has handicapped accessible facilities and they are unable to continue with both properties and need to get this other one closed and as soon as we get the rezoning, then, they can go ahead and close. So, it's critical that we make a decision as quickly as possible, so that they are not put in the situation with having both homes and unable to close on the other one. Rohm: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on the question about which zone it was, I'm satisfied it shouldn't OT, but it seems to me that the dimensions of the lot probably would require that it has to be R-8. I'm not sure that's open for discussion, is it? Watters: Excuse me. The dimensions of the lot would be -- Zaremba: Would have to be an R-8. If -- Watters: It's a rather large lot. Zaremba: It's too small for an R-4, isn't it? Watters: It's a point -- I want to say 57. Yeah. .57 acre lot. It's quite large. Zaremba: Okay. Wrong again. Sorry about that. Rohm: Okay. The next name -- Wilson. Okay. Mr. Nelson will not be testifying and we will just go to the next person. Connie -- Connie says she's not going to testify. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe there is a long list. You might just ask if anybody wants to testify. A N "14 i Y k'ri,, i, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 25 of 84 Rohm: That works for me. We will just take them in order as you come up. So, who ever would like to testify just come up and say your name and address for the record. Watson: I'm Mary Ann Watson. I live at 424 West Broadway. I live on -- directly north of the property that is here. We did have a neighborhood meeting concerning the rezoning of this property. All neighbors were in agreement that there would not be a problem with rezoning the property to a residential as long as there were no immediate plans to demolish the residence or put up multiple dwellings. At the public -- at our neighborhood meeting the future owners stated they'd utilize the residence as their home and operate a home business out of this residence. When we got the notice it was zoned to R-4, which is the classification of the medium density. Upon doing some research on your planning and zoning website it states that, of course, in order to have a home occupation business it must be either an R-4 or an R-8. One of the reasons that they needed the property rezoned was so they could get the residential financing for it. They basically -- under either one of these R-4 or R-8, the home occupation cannot disturb neighboring residences with noise. They have -- we are concerned that they could have gone to an R-4 classification for that property. I did look and I did not see any size restrictions that would negate it from going to the R-4. Most of our property that is surrounding this is all single family dwellings. We don't want any -- at this present time don't want any four or eight-plexes going in on the property. We have noticed with the future owners there has been remodeling done. We are assuming that it will -- if they are going to have the home business in there, there would still be room for a renter as well. We are just concerned that we want this to stay as a single family dwelling, a nice neighborhood, not have a lot of traffic. Right now we are dealing with Head Start on the comer of 4th and Broadway, which has parents and guardians picking up children, causing massive congestion. If there is a home occupation business down there, that's fine. If they want to live there, that's fine. We believe, though, it probably should go to an R-4 versus an R-8. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Before we take additional testimony I have a question for staff. On the R-8 with this being a .57 acre lot, would they -- if they were to receive the R-8 designation, would they, then, be able to re -plat it to multiple lots? Watters: Chairman Rohm, I believe that they would be able to and would meet the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone should they redevelop the property into more than one lot. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. All right. Would anybody else like to come forward and testify? Thompson: Sir, my name is James Thompson. I live at 401 West Broadway, two lots -- three lots east of the effective property. I think the neighbors are -- or at least my concern is -- is what -- like Mary Ann just said, I have no problem with it becoming an R- 4, we just do not want to set a precedence -- or let me rephrase that. I kind of have a little bit of a hard feeling towards setting a precedence if all of a sudden it's zoned for i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis • October 19, 2006 Page 26 of 84 something larger than just single family dwellings. I would -- I'd personally -- I would be very willing to compromise if you guys -- if you found it in your -- in fitting what you would go with to be an R-4. I mean that's -- that would be kind of a compromise in what they are requesting versus what -- keeping the neighborhood established as single family dwellings. And that's basically all I really have. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Thompson? Mr. Chairman? Rohm: We have a question for you, sir. Borup: I was just interested in your feelings on if it stayed industrial use. It sounds like you may almost prefer it staying like it is, rather than going to a residential zone. Thompson: The biggest problem I have with that is -- is like your planner just said, I live on that side of the street. If something -- I more than likely, at some point in time, will be talking to you folks about requesting an R-2, and R-3, R-4, or something like that, low to medium density for my own property, because I live there. If something catastrophic happens to me, your -- Borup: Have you looked into the permitted uses in an industrial zone like it is right now? Thompson: As far as -- Borup: I mean they can put in a car wash, storage facilities, you know, just a lot of different uses without even having a Public Hearing because it's a permitted use. Thompson: Well -- yes, and -- Borup: Once it goes to residential, then, those would not be an option and have to be a strictly residential use. Thompson: And that I understand that, but on the single lot such as that it -- the main concern is -- is if they acquire more lots or if somebody were to say, gee, that precedence has been set as an R-8 there and somebody comes in and buys the three- quarters acre beside it or the half acre at the other side of it or whatever, all of a sudden we end up with 20, 25, 30 units that we have just -- you have just blown up our single family residence -- neighborhood there. Borup: I understand. Thank you. Thompson: The Trex Electrical and places like that, commercial utilizations on that side of the street at present, they are very -- very minimal impact on what transpires within the neighborhood, so to be honest -- Borup: It sounds like they are a good neighbor. } �f t s } ;ai.. h �'f ^9 x } M Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis • October 19, 2006 Page 26 of 84 something larger than just single family dwellings. I would -- I'd personally -- I would be very willing to compromise if you guys -- if you found it in your -- in fitting what you would go with to be an R-4. I mean that's -- that would be kind of a compromise in what they are requesting versus what -- keeping the neighborhood established as single family dwellings. And that's basically all I really have. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Thompson? Mr. Chairman? Rohm: We have a question for you, sir. Borup: I was just interested in your feelings on if it stayed industrial use. It sounds like you may almost prefer it staying like it is, rather than going to a residential zone. Thompson: The biggest problem I have with that is -- is like your planner just said, I live on that side of the street. If something -- I more than likely, at some point in time, will be talking to you folks about requesting an R-2, and R-3, R-4, or something like that, low to medium density for my own property, because I live there. If something catastrophic happens to me, your -- Borup: Have you looked into the permitted uses in an industrial zone like it is right now? Thompson: As far as -- Borup: I mean they can put in a car wash, storage facilities, you know, just a lot of different uses without even having a Public Hearing because it's a permitted use. Thompson: Well -- yes, and -- Borup: Once it goes to residential, then, those would not be an option and have to be a strictly residential use. Thompson: And that I understand that, but on the single lot such as that it -- the main concern is -- is if they acquire more lots or if somebody were to say, gee, that precedence has been set as an R-8 there and somebody comes in and buys the three- quarters acre beside it or the half acre at the other side of it or whatever, all of a sudden we end up with 20, 25, 30 units that we have just -- you have just blown up our single family residence -- neighborhood there. Borup: I understand. Thank you. Thompson: The Trex Electrical and places like that, commercial utilizations on that side of the street at present, they are very -- very minimal impact on what transpires within the neighborhood, so to be honest -- Borup: It sounds like they are a good neighbor. } t } ;ai.. h �'f ^9 x } M t W 4 { #F Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 27 of 84 Thompson: They are a good neighbor. Very good neighbors. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Next. Downum: Good evening. My name is Craig Downum. My wife and I live at 417 West Broadway, which is just two houses east. Next door to Jim. Basically agree with Jim. I think that whole side would be better served if it goes back to residential and some of the information I have seen, that's the intent of the future. Ironic that businesses have finally came in there, now the city thinks it needs to be residential again. I think it needs to be the R-4, as Jim said, because it is such a neutral area when these lots become available, if we set precedence for the R-8 or the higher density, it will be developed -- a developer will not take that size of a lot and just put a house on it, they will utilize it to a large gain and put four-plexes or apartments on it to whatever degree. So, that's -- you know, that's our position on it. Rohm: Thank you. Before we continue, I think staff has some comments. Hood: I was just going to make one comment. Regardless of zoning, any future subdivision would require another Public Hearing. So, even if you did -- regardless of what zoning designation, if you decide to approve a zoning designation, a preliminary plat would require this Commission and the City Council to act on that regardless of what zone. So, I just wanted to make that clear to every one that if someone were to subdivide this property it does have to come back to the city and go through this exact same process, so -- Vera: I think this is Old Town, because I'm charged a different rate for my water and that was explained to me difference in my water -- Rohm: Could you state your name and address. Vera: Shirley Vera. 522 West Broadway. Rohm: Thank you. Vera: So, I think this is Old Town. It was explained to me that that's why my water was different than everybody else's. It was a cheaper rate, so -- but I agree with everyone else, the four -- R-4. Rohm: Thank you very much. Zaremba: And, actually, part of the reason that I originally asked that question is that in the staff report, paragraph 6-D, it says the city recently approved a rezone from I -L to OT for the property located at 608 West 3rd. That must be somewhere in this vicinity. 3 t} $,M dg af: Y k'. r 3 $,M dg Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 28 of 84 Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, if you look here just east of the site, there is a couple Old Town properties right there. I'm not sure if -- if she lives there or -- that's the Head Start? Okay. But the boundary for Old Town is -- let me -- Zaremba: Is right there. Hood: The boundary for Old Town is -- I can't remember which parcel it is, but it breaks -- I think it's right there. So, this is, essentially -- if you look, this is 5th; right? 4th. 4th. So, it's everything west of 4th is residential, everything east is Old Town. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in this application? Watson: My name is Paul Watson. I live at 424 West Broadway Avenue. None of us want to affect George and Vi from selling their house. We all care a lot for them. But as far as us living there, I would rather see it go R-4 than R-8. Period. That's all I have to say. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Colley: Hi. My name is Shane Colley, I live at 423 West Broadway. I'm here on behalf of Sid Brewer, the owner of the property, and he would like to see it go R-4 as well, rather than R-8. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application? Would the applicant like to come back forward, please. Garton: I would just like to let the Commissioners know that I don't have a problem going with R-4. We just want to buy the property. That's the bottom line. So, we are prepared to do that upon -- as soon as it's rezoned. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Ma'am, I do have a question for you. It was noted earlier that there is a home business planned for this as well. When you first talked you didn't mention that, so I was curious what that is. Gorton: I just do day trading on the computer. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. I guess my question of staff is if the application before us is for an R-8 and it's the consensus that an R-4 will be more desirous and the applicant has no objection, can we act on that? Watters: Yes, Commissioners Rohm, we can. E 1 t � � „S W 1 r3u n1f ,3 Y' d�si> S+�St.9.r3 y$ s4 k S fi l i a: = F ,v. ^,� a+�s ^ v,. t z r i t .t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisse October 19, 2006 Page 29 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: At the risk of being wrong again, I would clarify that we could down zone -- I mean it's been noticed as an R-8 and my understanding is we would be able to make it an R-4, we would not be able to make it an R-15 without re -noticing. Right? Watters: Yes. Zaremba: Hey. Rohm: One in a row for Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Excuse me, I think I better go home now. Rohm: Okay. All right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-009. All Y..Y those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. s MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. � Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with the following changes to the staff report: That the zoning be designated as R-4, rather than R-8. I don't know, Sonya, what bullet point you want me to make that, � 5 : though. Or if I need to. Rohm: I think that's sufficient. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Everybody knows. Watters: Yeah. I think that's sufficient, Commissioner. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-009, to include all comments in the staff report, with one modification f, r inii' } 1 ° r �P , ��rs- �' a, vi d8, Sa a T *0U2,Y't,�i fix s ✓ . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 30 of 84 to an R-4 zoning. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-043 and PP 06- 045, both items related to the Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are for an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and variance request for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision. The property is 20.65 acres in size and is currently zoned rural residential, R -R, in Ada County. The applicant has requested this property be rezoned to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district. The subject property is generally located northeast of the North Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard intersection and is an existing lot in Spurwing Subdivision. If you look on the overhead here, this is the vicinity map of the area. The red arrow points to the subject property here. Look at the next. This is the aerial view of the property. It's surrounded with golf course and the existing Spurwing Subdivision here to the north. Residential one acre lots. The property further east of the proposed subdivision down in this area is the proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and C -C. Further west of the subject site are one acre residential lots and Westwing Estates Subdivision and agricultural land, zoned R -R. South of the golf course is Chinden Boulevard, which is bordered on the south by the proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8, and rural residential properties zoned RUT. The plat consists of 73 single family residential building lots, consisting of 46 attached units and 27 detached units, and six common lots on 20.51 acres. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.56 dwelling units per acre, which generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of medium density residential. The average lot size in the proposed development is 9,067 square feet, with the lots bordering the existing one acre residential lots to the north being 4,595 to 6,042 square feet or approximately 1/10th of an acre, with minimal overall house sizes of 1,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing 18 percent open space, with landscaped common areas, pond, and connecting stream channels. A Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 31 of 84 variance is being requested to exceed the maximum block space length allowed in a residential district. However, the Commission is not required to make a recommendation to Council on this application. Here is a copy of the plat here and, then, the landscape plan showing the common areas. Access to the site is currently provided by North Spurwing Way via West Ballotta Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the site for emergency vehicles only. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited, except for the emergency access point approved with this subdivision. Note that ITD has not yet approved the emergency access to Chinden and the police department is requesting the applicant provide an additional access to the site. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are as follows: First, this site is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivision, but also includes a portion of Lots 2 and 4 of the same subdivision. A property boundary adjustment application that matches the configuration of the property as shown on the proposed plat is currently in process at Ada County and will be required to be completed prior to annexation ordinance approval by City Council. Second, this property is currently not serviceable for sewer. It is master planned to flow to the North Black Cat lift station through planned mains in the annexed, but undeveloped property to the west. If the applicant wishes to commence development prior to the master planned mains being available, they may proceed providing they meet the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. Water service will be provided by United Water. Third, a goal of the Comp Plan is to require new urban density subdivisions, which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural densities -- rural residential densities. The applicant has complied with the landscape screening portion by proposing a common area with ponds and meandering streams and a stone wall fence as a buffer to the existing residences. However, the UDC requires qualified open space to be accessible to all residents of the development, which the design of this site does not allow. Although 18 percent open space is proposed, the usable amount of open space does not meet the minimum five percent requirement. The police department is not supportive of the design of the open space area on the north boundary, as it does not offer natural surveillance opportunities for the public areas and creates a potential safety hazard. Further, the proposed approximate 10th acre lots along the north boundary do not provide enough of a transition from the existing one acre lots. Larger, more comparable lot sizes and lower densities should be provided to buffer the interface between urban and rural residential densities in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Fourth and further on the subject of transitional lot sizes, the Comp Plan specifically states that residential uses north of Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes ranging from a half to one acre, insuring compatibility with Spurwing Country Club to the east. Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the nonresidential and rim property is encouraged. Fifth. The police department is requesting that an additional access be provided to the site for increased emergency access. Staff believes that this will be a difficult condition to meet considering the site is surrounded by golf course and there are no stub streets provided to the property from the existing Spurwing Subdivision to the north. Last, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss9 October 19, 2006 Page 32 of 84 landscape plan does not state what height the proposed stone wall fence will be along the north boundary. The applicant should address this in their response. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the subject applications for the reasons previously stated and those stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant on this application. The applicant is Spurwing Limited Partnership. It's the same applicant that was the original developer of the Spurwing development that's been out there for a few years. To kind of give the Commission just a little bit of a background of how this came to be, this particular area out here was beyond an area of city impact, it was zoned rural residential. The only development options available under Ada County jurisdiction was ten acre minimums or they could do a non-farm development. That allowed them to cluster one acre lots. The minimum was one acre. They could have one home per five acres if they allocated 75 percent of the property as set aside for open space or agricultural uses and, then, that was deed restricted for a period of up to like 15 years. And that's how that golf course came about. Mr. Hewett had this master planned and he came to me and the site plan was already worked out and it -- it was integrated into this as part of a component of the golf course. Obviously, when an area of city of impact was extended outward, urban service planning areas were extended to the property, then, at that time development at a more urban density along the fairways would be viable and that's where we are now. Obviously, with the extension of the north Meridian plan jumping north across Chinden it's within that urban service planning area, it's within your area of impact as designated. I don't think Ada County has adopted that area impact as of yet, but, nonetheless, this area is planned up to the Phyllis Canal to be part of the City of Meridian. So, it was the desire of the applicant to submit a request for annexation and preliminary plat for this particular development. We did two neighborhood meetings on this particular project. My first neighborhood meeting I anticipated quite a fury when, you know, one thinks, well, they are one acre lots and we are proposing more urban density with some attached patio homes adjoining them. I was absolutely surprised that the overwhelming majority of the residents were very pleased and excited to see some mixed use. They said, yes, that's exactly what we need out here. There are a lot of people who want the smaller lots, but yet want the golf course atmosphere and the open space. One resident even said I may sell my house and purchase one of those patio homes. Mr. Hewett -- it is his intent -- he will be building these, so they will not be a hodge-podge. As far as the anticipated value of the patio homes and the detached structures, they think that the low end will be 350 and they will go all the way up to about 800,000. So, what you're looking at is approximately 20 and a half acres. It is a platted lot, was platted when they did the original Spurwing. We are proposing 73 single family dwellings, of which 46 are attached. The 46 attached units are located along this corridor here. One of the things that I thought was quite nice is Mr. Hewett wanted a nice buffer here and your Comprehensive Plan, if you read Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit October 19, 2006 Page 33 of 84 the section that Sonya quoted, requires new urban densities abutting low density residential provide landscape screening or transitional densities, with larger, more comparable lot sizes. That or is stuck in there. So, it obviously, allows for an alternative of landscaping as an appropriate buffer. This particular area, this cul-de-sac is open here and I kind of -- this will give you a little better idea. The cul-de-sac is open at the end. Mr. Hewett wants to incorporate some water amenities. The wall proposed would be a masonry wall approximately six feet high. It would be located all along the north boundary. The input I received from the residence, they were happy. A lot of them said great. Very similar to what you see on the perimeter of Lochsa Falls off of Linder Road. Very decorative. It looks like a -- like a masonry wall, but, really, it's a stamped concrete. They go in, they hand paint it to give it a more authentic masonry look. This area here is approximately 30 feet wide. The area widens out in through here. This is about 50, 55 feet. In evaluating the locations of the homes along the West Bollatta Court, most of the homes are around 80 feet setback from their rear property line. Some are up to 120. The two closest dwellings to us -- there is one located here and here. They are about 50 feet from the property line, maybe one is a smidge less. So, obviously, you can see that that buffered area expands. I know Sonya indicated that there is a question concerning the safety of this common area. Well, the block -- the masonry wall will be along the north. The patio homes are open to that area. There won't be any site obscuring fences along the north boundary of the patio homes. The whole idea of this concept was to provide water amenities, open spaces, to give the patio homes a good feel and yet create a buffering here for the existing one acre estate lots. We -- one of the thoughts that Mr. Hewett brought to my attention is most of the people that will be occupying these will be -- mostly this will be a second home, coming in from other areas, wanting to live out in this north Meridian area along the golf course, spending their summer here and, then, exiting to warmer weather. The other thing that they did consider when they came up with this original concept was the fact that along this fairway they wanted to minimize the number of homes to basically minimize the conflict of the golf balls. If the patio homes were aligned all along the south boundary, then, you would have, obviously, more conflict potential for more property damage. So, that was another reason for putting the attached units on the interior here. As far as our Comprehensive Plan designation, it's designated medium density residential. Obviously, the three to eight dwelling units per acre. Our proposed density is 3.56 dwelling units per acre. So, we are on that lower end. The other thing is your ordinance requires only, you know, the five percent open space, excluding mandatory buffers. We are proposing 18 percent. That's 3.69 acres out of 20 and a half. We think that this project is a good idea. When you look at other golf course communities throughout the northwest or other states, you find a very good mix and diversity of the home types and lot types, basically satisfying different lifestyles and different, you know, people's desires. Some people want a 5,000 square foot house, others do not. They want maybe 2,000 square feet, 2,500, and they want all the amenities that a 5,000 would offer. So, you know, that's what we are here this evening to propose. As far as the zoning out here, Irvine, right across Chinden, is proposed as -- was approved as R-8. As Sonya indicated, Knight Sky to the east of this particular project proposed R-4, R-15, and commercial. So, I don't think that we are going way out asking for the R-8. We went with the R-8 so we could meet the dimensional standards, provide this type of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 34 of 84 diversity. We think this project has a lot of benefit to the city. If the city didn't intend to, you know, start annexing north of Chinden, obviously, they wouldn't have wanted to extend that urban service planning area and that area of city impact. Services. I think the staff indicates in your staff report that it's the Black Cat Trunk. Well, so is Irvine and so is Silverleaf and the elementary school that was proposed. So is Bainbridge and Volterra. The Black Cat Trunk is designed, a large portion of it. They are working on that second lift station design. The development community is working with the city, Public Works Department, to facilitate getting that -- that Black Cat built and that second lift station, if at all possible, as soon as we can. Mr. Hewett is very aware that until sewer is available that, obviously, the project will be sitting on hold. I have reviewed the conditions of approval. I think that we can work with them. I think we are in agreement with those. I feel that this project has definite merit. It's not very often that I get such a warm reception from estate type lots. It was refreshing. And I was very surprised when the staff recommended denial, I'll put it that way. One other thing. Last week -- I'll conclude. The fire department, if we have in excess of 50 lots, does require a second means of access, whether that be a secondary full vehicular access or an emergency vehicle access. Obviously, our access in this area has already been set with the Spurwing development. We have got the Spurwing Way here, which is a collector roadway coming up to the clubhouse. This West Ballotta Court comes down here, it serves approximately 17 single family dwellings. So, this is a 36 back to back with curb, gutter and sidewalk. There is a short section of sidewalk that is missing. Obviously, capacity exists on Ballotta, connecting with a public street, bringing it here, creating a loop around and, then, we have an emergency vehicle access only out to Chinden that is in alignment or -- well, it's on the east side of Ten Mile from this east of the center line. Now, staff indicated that Idaho Department of Transportation e-mailed them stating we do not have a permit for that emergency vehicle access. The reason is it's premature at this time. They require, prior to giving us a right of way permit, an actual design. They need construction drawings, they don't just give us a permit. In the past in all my dealings with ITD, they have always been cooperative when it was an emergency vehicle access. We also have a condition with Ada County Highway District that we have to have fire department approval and their approval on that gate, because they don't want that to be utilized as a de facto access. It is for emergency vehicle access only in the event that this has some type of blockage. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Any questions? Jenna Ingle. Ingle: Good evening. My name is Jenna Ingle and I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court, which is the property that backs up to this proposed project, and I was surprised to hear the young woman who just spoke say that she had a real positive reception from the residents at Spurwing. The majority of the residents on Ballotta Court are not in favor of this project being approved as is. As she stated, we are -- most of us in Spurwing are on one acre lots and I think the transition to high density dwellings from our one acre parcels is inappropriate and one of the other things is that we have a horrendous problem at Chinden and Linder with traffic and so to propose 73 units in there is going to add to the problem, which is only going to get worse, and we know that Chinden, at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commim October 19, 2006 Page 35 of 84 is least, is not scheduled to be widened or -- yeah, isn't going to be widened for maybe ten years and so one of the things that comes up for me is that my son is a fireman and he's the driver and he cannot get his vehicle through our community to get to his response time, which is four minutes. It's now six and a half. If emergency services, EMT, fire, and police, can't get to us -- any of us, you included, essentially, we are dead in the water. We are just left there. And there was an incident on the comer of Linder and Chinden where a nurse had to give CPR to someone who was involved in an accident there, because the emergency services couldn't get to them. So, those are some of the concerns and I think it would be much more appropriate if the Commissioners would look at the situation and we are not saying that we don't want the project, but I think the number of dwellings that Mr. Hewett is proposing is way beyond what it should be. So, I don't know what the designations R-8 and R-4 and R-2 are, but I think -- I think some of the inner circle of dwellings that are proposed for there should be cut back to another number, lesser number. And I do appreciate the work that staff did. You made things very clear to us as to what you're in favor of and I would ask the Commissioners to acknowledge and agree with what the staff has proposed. Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask her a question. Rohm: Would you -- ma'am would -- he's got a question for you. Ingle: I'm song. Zaremba: And this is just -- it's kind of for my own information and I hesitate to ask a question about CC&Rs, because the city is not involved in enforcing CC&Rs, that's internal to your subdivision to enforce them, but it's my understanding that the people that currently live in Spurwing have paid a pretty good premium for their lots and that involves some relationship with the golf course as well. Are you aware of anything in your CC&Rs that would prevent a denser project like this within your subdivision? This is still part of that same subdivision, I believe; right? Ingle: I really can't answer that question. I don't know. Zaremba: Okay. Ingle: But someone that I spoke to recently said that there is a concern about the transition from what is a rural community in a great sense to this -- what looks like a set aside development and one of the reasons that most of us moved there to begin with was to have some space around us and I mean the development, of course, is coming in and everything that's coming in around us is high density. So, that's the concern of the Ballotta Court residents and some of the other folks that live in Spurwing, too. Most of the people that live out on the rim won't be as affected by that. But being that there is no access onto Chinden, there are times even now when we are, essentially, prisoners in there, we can't get out of Spurwing onto Chinden. And so with no other access and �4 e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis o October 19, 2006 Page 36 of 84 they don't have that fire access, I mean we are just kind of stuck there in our spot. But I don't -- I don't know how to answer your question about the CC&Rs. I'm not well versed about that. Zaremba: Okay. It really was just a curiosity, since we can't do anything about them anyway, but -- Ingle: Okay. Zaremba: Just wondered. Thank you. Ingle: Are there any other questions? Rohm: Thank you. Ingle: Thank you. Rohm: Chris Ingle. C. Ingle: My name is Chris Ingle. I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court. I was at the first meeting that we had, the neighborhood meeting, and at that time this plan was shown to us there was not a lot of negative input, because it was said that this was a computer layout and it may or may not stand. So, there wasn't any reason to argue about it. My major concern -- I think that the lots along the golf course are fine. The ones that back up against Ballotta Court are -- are too much of a difference between the sizes of Ballotta Court and these houses or these parcels of land. The green belt is a fine idea. The problem is that most of the houses on that side of Ballotta Court are two story, so a six foot fence is not going to do much, other than deter people crossing back and forth and I don't know how to deal with that. But my -- my concern would be -- or my proposal would be that without stating it because there are larger lots there, that the lots along the back of Ballotta Court be enlarged, that the impact between the two is going to be substantial. And it is a private golf course, so it feels like it should have some space. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Kevin Gould. Julie Gould. Anybody else that would like to testify? Come forward, please. Excuse me. Goulds were against, but they have gone home. Morts: My name is Rick Morts and I live at 3028 West Ballotta. It's on the north side of Ballotta Court. First off, I want to say that I have been very pleased with the Spurwing development that Mr. Hewett has -- you know, what we have seen so far to date. So, I put some trust into -- a little bit into his vision here, because I have been happy with what we have seen to date. He is a resident in the community and, however, he is on the north rim and not quite as affected by these lots. I do -- am concerned to the fact that this is, really, the first plan I have seen. I am not aware that I have been invited to any of the neighborhood meetings. Maybe I was and I missed it, but in hindsight at least I was aware of one of them in post -- I found out afterwards and in hindsight I N 3 rut x ward`, �.?' �+A ', ,y, � �.i�.^_* �� e��;" -s � 'g � : z�� •,rya., t? �' a � t : ,.Y t xf'v^ G r a, A3 a k ra' , t 3� Meridian Planning & Zoning Commif • October 19, 2006 Page 37 of 84 found out it was only the people on the south side of Ballotta that were invited. Maybe that was the case, maybe not, but we did not see an invite, so this, really, is our first opportunity to take a look at this plan. I think there was an earlier question about the CC&Rs. I don't know if it's just in this actually hard written CC&Rs or part of the architectural committee, but there was a minimum house lot size of 2,800 square feet for the subdivision. I don't know if that's still the case or not for these, but I assume these will be much smaller than 2,800 square feet patio homes. I think my biggest concern is still probably just overall -- I like the plan, I like the idea of patio homes. When we moved in and we built there, we knew that there was going to be patio homes and just did not have a plan of -- you know, the density of them and I think this is, you know, my only thing I want to voice is probably -- I agree with the previous speaker, the size of the lots on the -- against the -- that backs up against the golf course there seems more appropriate to me as far as fitting in with the subdivision also. That's -- and I -- I'm not familiar with where all the waterways and/or -- are supposed to be placed. I don't know if it was on the diagram there, the plan for waterways and so forth, but -- and maybe I can ask has that been planned in there where the waterways are? Rohm: Sir, you need to speak into the microphone. Morts: Oh. Where the waterways are planned in that subdivision, if it can be pointed out to me. Any questions? I think my biggest -- just a little voicing of the same concerns previously about the density. I think the nature of the patio homes is fine, the idea of putting in that street there, but I think the density concerns me a little. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Go ahead. Borup: Yeah. A question I had. You said you were made aware that there would be patio homes being developed there. How was that conveyed to you? Was that on your deed or was it mentioned by the real estate agent or -- I mean how were you told about that? How were you made aware of that? Morts: I think the community has been aware that that was a future plan. Just been more through the community. I don't think there was anything in writing. Borup: So, that sounds like that was the developer's intention from the beginning you mean? Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would that like to testify? Pretty much everyone in the audience. Becky, would you like to come back up, please. McKay: Mr. Chairman, as far as the neighborhood meeting, we did notify everyone within 300 feet as required by the city and we held two meetings and they were both held at the clubhouse to make it as convenient as possible. So, we did provide two opportunities. Maybe the gentleman is just beyond the 300 feet or -- I'm not sure what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commie 40 October 19, 2006 Page 38 of 84 the problem is or the assessor's office. We get their date from them. So, if there is a delay in a deed transfer, then, that does cause us a problem. As far as the -- the association, the patio home section would be -- have its own association. There was a mention of a concern that these homes -- the patio homes would be two story. Obviously, would hoover over the top of the six foot masonry fence. These will be all single story. Mr. Hewett's intent is these will be empty nest type dwellings. Usually senior citizens and so forth don't want to be going upstairs. So, his intent has always been single story units. Traffic. Obviously, Spurwing's central collector is not at the half mile. When I did Lochsa Falls it -- Idaho Department of Transportation was insistent that we design our collector at the half mile. If you notice when you drive down Chinden, that signal was -- is installed. I don't believe it's operational and it was installed at the developer's expense of Lochsa Falls. So, in talking with some of the traffic engineers, you know, indicate that when the signal is operational it will create stacking and some gaps for cars to enter. Right now you have got, you know, a lot of traffic going down Chinden at higher speeds and with intermittent signals at the mile. So, you know, they are trying to add some of these half mile signals, which will create what we call platooning of the traffic, therefore, creating gaps. Mrs. Ingle mentioned the fact that there were some people that were not happy at the neighborhood meeting. There were a few people that were not, but the over -- my statement that the overwhelming majority appeared to be pleased and already had prior knowledge that this project at some point in time would be -- would be coming down the pike is absolutely correct and true. When I went to that neighborhood meeting I expected to be probably tarred and feathered, but I -- you know, it went far better than I had ever anticipated. As far as fire -- or back on the traffic, Idaho Department of Transportation has told me that they are designing Chinden five lanes all the way to Caldwell. Now, when it's built your guess is as good as mine, but that's what's in the works. There is even -- I have even seen some documentation talking about that it could even be seven lanes. So, who knows. Hopefully the sooner they build it the better for the entire community. As far as fire protection, your closest operational fire station is over on Ten Mile, just, what is it, south of Ustick. There is also another proposed fire station on Linder at approximately the half mile at Lochsa Falls that as soon as funding is allocated for that that station will be built. So, it is, you know, obviously, within that umbrella. I know you like to have your fire stations within a couple of miles of a particular property in order to give it proper protection. We do meet that. I guess I ask you this evening to, you know, kind of open your mind beyond typically what we are looking at as far as projects are concerned. This is a unique situation. Golf courses are a different animal. I think this is an excellent project. I think it will be a benefit and I ask that you recommend approval to the Council. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Becky, earlier you made comment that you had gone through the staff comments -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 39 of 84 McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: -- and that you -- you could work through those. I noted in the staff comment that they would like to see some of that R-8 go into an R-4 and I guess what I -- I would be curious as to how would you work with that and where would you do that? McKay: I don't believe that -- that was not a condition of approval, was it? Moe: No, it was just -- a McKay: That was part in the text. Moe: It's just in their text. Yes. It shows you I read it all. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, when you referenced that I had reviewed staffs comments and that I thought we could comply with them, those are the conditions of approval. I did read the section back in the text where the staff said that even though we were providing landscaping and masonry wall as buffering, that they felt an R-4 combination would be more appropriate. I guess my response to that is if you look at your new North Meridian Comprehensive Plan, that whole band along Chinden is designated primarily medium density residential, you got some -- also some commercial designations and I think some mixed use. So, it is the anticipation that there will be five to seven lanes there. So, obviously, when the powers to be were looking and analyzing that, they thought that a higher density would be more appropriate. As you move north, then, it goes to low density residential. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: What's the question? You'll have to come back up to the microphone, but typically we don't do it this way, but -- you have to restate your name. C. Ingle: My name is Chris Ingle, 2819 West Ballotta Court. The clarification was we -- everything we heard was that all the patio homes would be single story. So, my concern is not that they are going to look down in our yards, I looking at we are going to look down in theirs. All the houses on Ballotta Court, primarily, are two story, so it's not that they are going to be this tall, we already are. So, pretty much anything he does over there will affect our view shed and the more homes there are the more it's going to do that. So, the properties are bigger and less houses. It will fit in better. Okay? Rohm: Thank you. And, Becky, you're welcome to come back up and respond if you would like to his point of clarification if you would like. McKay: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr. Hewett just wanted me to go on the record that there are a lot of trees that were planted a few years ago that are maturing back along those rear lots also and I just want to reiterate the fact that those homes do sit quite a ways away from us, with the exception of you can see them, just r t 3 t.y �3x`dbP''Jt fw t, G'.,Z'f d . �.> a t � z � 3 1 ' # . .. 1 x , t XtffFY.. }t!` Yi 5 .N.FV d �Y � i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 40 of 84 two right there where the landscaped area becomes the largest. So, there is some natural buffering on their side also. Thank you. Rohm: Becky, we are not done yet. McKay: Okay. Rohm: The staff report indicated that the lots adjacent to the one acre parcels doesn't appear to have the transition that they would like to -- like to see and I believe testimony from others have indicated that they feel similarly. I'd like to hear what -- a comment from you in response to that. I didn't hear anything -- what alternatives or potential or if you -- or in support of the existing configuration. McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think as I mentioned earlier, the landscape buffering and the masonry wall are something that we typically don't see along the perimeter. Usually we are backing lots up directly to the more urban one acre rural lot and that's where, you know, the transitional lot sizes become I think more important from a planning perspective. When we try to create our own natural buffering and, then, obviously, install like a six foot masonry type wall, we are creating almost a double buffer here. I guess I, you know, would leave it to the Commission to make the determination, but, you know, we fight this time and time again and, you know, residential is compatible with residential. These are going to be luxury patio homes. They are attached in pods of two and Mr. Hewett's indicated that they will be single level. In the design of the golf course this is -- this is how the experts who design golf courses -- you know, this is what they recommended, the larger lots along the perimeter and the smaller lots on the interior. I guess I'd defer to the Commission, you know, I guess you have to -- Rohm: Just from my perspective, Becky, it doesn't appear as if that transition width gives the -- enough transition, I guess. It just -- it looks like you got a huge lot to the north, a narrow strip of transition and, then, some very narrow lots. It looks like there is like three lots on the south to the one lot to the north along a couple of those lots with the very narrow strip of transition and it does, to me, appear to be a bit overdeveloped I guess. But that's just as I view it. Thank you. McKay: Sure. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Mrs. McKay, I would ask you a question that probably needs the drawing that you showed before. And while she's getting that, I would like to ask staff a question. The staff report asked for a clarification of the fencing that was going to go along the north side of this property, the south side of the exist properties. My recollection that in it's in the ordinance because it's a police request all the time, that the only options are a six foot non -sight obscuring fence or a four foot sight obscuring fence. Am I right that they can't put a six foot solid wall there on an open space? Watters: Perimeter boundaries are allowed to have a six foot fence. `,,,2` A k :h� Cas W " Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 40 of 84 two right there where the landscaped area becomes the largest. So, there is some natural buffering on their side also. Thank you. Rohm: Becky, we are not done yet. McKay: Okay. Rohm: The staff report indicated that the lots adjacent to the one acre parcels doesn't appear to have the transition that they would like to -- like to see and I believe testimony from others have indicated that they feel similarly. I'd like to hear what -- a comment from you in response to that. I didn't hear anything -- what alternatives or potential or if you -- or in support of the existing configuration. McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think as I mentioned earlier, the landscape buffering and the masonry wall are something that we typically don't see along the perimeter. Usually we are backing lots up directly to the more urban one acre rural lot and that's where, you know, the transitional lot sizes become I think more important from a planning perspective. When we try to create our own natural buffering and, then, obviously, install like a six foot masonry type wall, we are creating almost a double buffer here. I guess I, you know, would leave it to the Commission to make the determination, but, you know, we fight this time and time again and, you know, residential is compatible with residential. These are going to be luxury patio homes. They are attached in pods of two and Mr. Hewett's indicated that they will be single level. In the design of the golf course this is -- this is how the experts who design golf courses -- you know, this is what they recommended, the larger lots along the perimeter and the smaller lots on the interior. I guess I'd defer to the Commission, you know, I guess you have to -- Rohm: Just from my perspective, Becky, it doesn't appear as if that transition width gives the -- enough transition, I guess. It just -- it looks like you got a huge lot to the north, a narrow strip of transition and, then, some very narrow lots. It looks like there is like three lots on the south to the one lot to the north along a couple of those lots with the very narrow strip of transition and it does, to me, appear to be a bit overdeveloped I guess. But that's just as I view it. Thank you. McKay: Sure. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Mrs. McKay, I would ask you a question that probably needs the drawing that you showed before. And while she's getting that, I would like to ask staff a question. The staff report asked for a clarification of the fencing that was going to go along the north side of this property, the south side of the exist properties. My recollection that in it's in the ordinance because it's a police request all the time, that the only options are a six foot non -sight obscuring fence or a four foot sight obscuring fence. Am I right that they can't put a six foot solid wall there on an open space? Watters: Perimeter boundaries are allowed to have a six foot fence. `,,,2` A k :h� kdn'i 4 pk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 41 of 84 Zaremba: Even if it's an open space? Watters: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Well, that is strike three, then. Rohm: Well, you got one good one in. Zaremba: Okay. That subtracts it, then. What I was looking for is a clarification of is the blue indicating water? McKay: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So, within the space between the patio homes and the existing homes, that's a pretty good size pond? McKay: Yes. Yes. And a stream. Zaremba: And a stream. McKay: And, then, also vegetation and trees and so if you would envision the masonry wall would be on the north side, there would be restrictions -- you wouldn't want any fencing on -- Zaremba: Right. McKay: -- the south side of that open space. Zaremba: Now, are people able to walk along what's depicted as green there, is there - - you have some accesses to it I see, but are people -- McKay: That's for the waterways to come through. Zaremba: Uh-huh. McKay: This is more what we call a passive open space, you know, they are kind of on their own green, basically. That's kind of what -- Zaremba: So, that's not really intended to attract people into that area, it's just -- McKay: No, sir. Zaremba: -- it's just a visual amenity. McKay: It's a visual amenity to provide, you know, open space within in -- within this pod here and I have seen this on -- you know, on golf courses in Hawaii, they do, you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 42 of 84 know, large mixed use residential developments around the golf courses and I've seen more diversity in the dwellings than we ever see in the northwest and they are very creative and it all seems to fit and mesh well. Creates quite a beautiful community. Zaremba: What I was thinking of is the police comment that it -- that area doesn't provide for much surveillance, but I was assuming -- and perhaps the police are -- that it was going to be an active use open area. The police still want you to come and talk to them, but they may -- McKay: I would be glad to. Zaremba: That point may make a difference to them, that if it's not intended to be actively used -- McKay: And, Commissioner Zaremba, I think sometimes they anticipate that the rear yards will all be fenced and so you would isolate that area and create a corridor. But where these are all open to it, you're not creating a corridor. It's almost an extension of the lot. Zaremba: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Watters: Chairman Rohm? Excuse me. Staffs issue with the open space at the rear of the lots was that to be -- part of the required open space of five percent, the open space has to be accessible by all residents of the subdivision. This is not, pretty much as Becky stated, the little -- what appear to be pathways are not, they are where the meandering streams come down. Also, I believe police will probably still have an issue with this due to people getting back there, you know, invited or not. It's a good area to hang out and, you know, not be seen. Thank you. Rohm: Yeah, I think that the -- your definition of amenity or the five percent and the applicant's seem to be in conflict and, Becky, I hate to have you keep coming back up here, but, you know, the point of the fact is is if you have got 18 percent of your development that is noted as an amenity on your perspective, but it's unusable from the city's perspective, we have got a -- we have got a major issue here and I'm not sure exactly where to take that and -- Watters: Chairman Rohm, if I could expand on that. Excuse me. According to my calculations, the actual usable open space is actually below the five percent, if you don't include the open space in the middle of the Block 2 or the open space on the north boundary, it, actually, is a little bit below the required amount. Thank you. Borup: So, then, you included the areas on the access road and, then, the areas on the entrance road? y 4 2. "4 r# qc t'4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 43 of 84 Watters: Yes. Borup: But if the other is not usable area, then, then, the police department shouldn't wont' about anybody getting back there. Watters: Commissioner Borup, it's still a concern whether it's usable or not. They are worried about trying to -- McKay: Commissioner Rohm, I guess, you know, it boils down to how -- how we define open space. In most of the projects that we design we do have areas of open space that are more beneficial to one segment of the project than the other as linear open space, pocket parks, playgrounds, and so forth. It may be over in the west side of the project, but does it benefit the people on the east. I think one can look at it from that perspective that, you know, we do have open space, maybe it benefits some lots more than it does others, but, nonetheless, is it still open. That whole end of that cul-de-sac is open to that waterway bringing that waterway through with a stream as it -- an illusion that it crosses under the roadway and goes on. Also, Mr. Hewett wanted me to stress to the Commission that the true open space out here is the golf course. It's surrounded by open space. This is not your average subdivision where we are going to have an overwhelming majority of small children who need play equipment and so forth. This is intended for more empty nest type people, snow birds and you got open space to the west, to the south, to the east, all the way around it and, then, we are creating open space along the north. So, I guess I -- what I'm asking the Commission is just to kind of think outside the box. Typically we are not here on a golf course. Not very often. And you even see, if you look at Cherry Lane golf course, a good mix of different residential type dwelling. A lot of attached patio homes, detached, large lots and that's kind of standard. This is outside the normal subdivision that comes before you. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to comment on the open space. I have some opinions regarding density on the north there, but there is a development in Boise that's larger estate type homes down there at Gary Lane that has that type of -- where the water comes -- basically, it's an extension of your backyard and, then, I believe -- Bound Crossing. Have any of you been out there and see if their open space is developed similarly as well. Some of it. It's wetlands, I believe. Is that kind of the -- that's what I'm envisioning when you're talking about this. Is that the same idea? Yeah. And I think it looks -- I think it looks very nice. I think it would create a transition to the homes to the north and it would certainly -- all of them that I have seen would discourage anyone from going there just to hang out, because you would feel like you were in someone's backyard. So, regarding the design of the open space, I like that piece of it and I just wanted to give some comparison of some things that I have seen around the valley that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commie is October 19, 2006 Page 44 of 84 are developed similarly that I think look and serve their purpose very well and I very much would like to remember the name of the development down there. Rohm: How do you feel about the lot sizes? Newton-Huckabay: Well, on paper I just don't like the way it looks. You know, you have three to one almost. I would -- my thought would have been just flip them, put more of the bigger lots on the south -- or the density on the south and the big lots on the north, but I don't have the educational background to say that designing golf courses should be one way or another, I guess. But I personally -- on paper I think it looks too dense. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: In thinking about the sizes and Mrs. McKay mentioned Cherry Lane Golf Course, which has been improved by new managers and is now called Lake View Golf Course. It's surrounded by the Ashford Greens Subdivision on one part of it and I live in Ashford Greens. Part of the Ashford Greens Subdivision is called James Place and it is patio homes. They fit in very well. You know, I live like half a block away from them and I'm hardly aware that they are there. They are populated by -- well, they only market them to 55 and better, they call them, so it is mostly people approaching senior citizenship who do fit into the community. Their backside is on the other part of the golf course. In thinking about this project, I can see some similarities. If you think about the lots that are backed up to the existing large lots, if I'm understanding this correctly, you almost have to think of them in pairs. If these are going to be common wall patio homes, then, two dwelling units are going to appear to be one unit, one building, and if they are pushed to the lot line and there is open space between one building and the next building on the other side of the property line from the common wall, then, you almost have to think of these in pairs, not as individual lots, because they -- these won't be small lots with a house in the middle of them, they will be pushed -- two of them will be pushed together and appear to be one building from anybody else looking at them and I'll have to admit I came to the meeting siding with staff that I didn't think this was appropriate, but I have been -- I have had my mind opened to think otherwise. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: So, in essence, there will be like 14 buildings, if I'm counting right. Borup: Half of whatever lots there are. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Don't make it simple. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have some thoughts on this application? Borup: Well, I think a project like this is one of the reasons I appreciate that we look at each application on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a set of regulations that we need to follow on everything. I, too, have changed my mind. And I think the reason Meridian Planning & Zoning CommA October 19, 2006 Page 45 of 84 is -- well, actually, this is a first -- first project that I have looked at in a golf course setting and I think that puts some different dynamics on it than what we are used to looking at. I -- after looking at everything, I have got -- I'm in favor of the project as designed. Those are larger lots for patio homes. Most of the patio homes attached are usually 40 foot lots. These are another ten feet wider. You know, that allows for another six, seven hundred square feet in a building than what you can get in a -- what I think we are used to seeing as the attached patio lots and I think the buffer is a good buffer. Usually, when we are talking about transition as has been stated, it's where property lines are joining and it could be housing 15 feet from the other property line. They have got that natural distance, plus the buffer of the other existing also added to that. So, I -- I mean we are looking at something we haven't looked at before and I think for a golf course subdivision this works. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: It works out to be 15 buildings. I have answered that question. Borup: Fifteen backing up against ten. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. You have got 15 buildings versus -- Borup: Ten. Or eight. Or eight, I guess. Newton-Huckabay: Whereas it would be -- if you took out -- if you started taking out lots and making those detached, you're probably going to get somewhere more around 20 buildings. Borup: Yeah. Rohm: So, what you're saying -- Newton-Huckabay: Is anybody -- are you guys agreeing with me? Rohm: Yeah. Yeah. I think your math is probably close. So, you're in favor of the existing proposal based upon that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess when Commissioner Zaremba -- I hadn't really thought about it that way. I guess that's what I said on paper, but he's right, if you put 15 buildings versus if you make them bigger lots and you could end up with 20 homes, you're going to have -- appear to have less density because they are attached to each other. Or in pairs of twos, so two residences is one building. I mean, like you said, from the back it's going to appear to be only one building. You end up with more space between them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. t Al }r rsr t }r rsr Y51 '- }r rsr Y51 Y51 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiso October 19, 2006 Page 46 of 84 Moe: The thunder has been stolen again. Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this, quite frankly, I was pretty excited about the project. I think it really -- it really mixes in well with what's already out there and what not and a little bit of diversity is great. Going through the staff report, though, you know, I did start having some concerns in regards to the size of the lots and whatnot, but, again, just like Commissioner Newton-Huckabay made the comment until Commissioner Zaremba brought up the fact about the -- as far as the buildings per se on the -- the two lots per se, it makes a lot more sense now that he -- it's not going to look as crowded as it could in the fact you open it up and you have -- you might gain a little bit of area on lots, but, then, you're going to end up with more homes in there. So, I'm basically combining -- I think you're -- it's going to be -- it won't look as crowded as you might anticipate. So, quite frankly, I am in favor of the design. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my only concern is the open space and, you know, quite frankly, the individuals that will more than likely be purchasing here probably aren't going to need swing sets and playgrounds and basketball courts and things such as that that you would see in a typical subdivision. So, I guess I can overlook it, but initially I had great concerns over the open space, because even though it -- square footage - wise it's there, it's really not usable open space, it's just -- it's just undeveloped space. So, that was my primary concern and I think I can live with the response from the applicant. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I know staff considered this very carefully. Their conclusion was that we should not recommend approval, therefore, they have not developed or provided conditions of approval. I would suggest that what we need to do is continue this and direct staff to provide conditions of approval, at which time they can again address with the police department the concerns about the open space. Rohm: I think that's in order. Would you like to put that in a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Do we have any -- I'm sorry, do we have any elevations for these patio homes? Hewett: My name is John Hewett. I live at 7212 West Spurwing Way. I'm the developer for Spurwing. We haven't at this time done any elevations of the patio homes per se. All I can tell you is they will be masonry, stucco, tile roofs, you know, attractive looking and they will fit in with the existing structures that are out there. The other thing I would like to point out, too, is all of the people that -- everybody that will be living in this project, they are all -- they will all be members of the club. I mean it's basically one family out there and we have people that are living in all types of homes from -- they will be living in small patio homes, people that are there during the summertime, gone during the winter, to people that live in great big huge houses on the rim. So, they are all part of a community out there and what this does is address the needs of a great Meridian Planning & Zoning CommA O October 19, 2006 Page 47 of 84 many of our members that prefer a place that they can lock the door and head south in the wintertime. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess I would ask staff for their preference. Would you like time to develop conditions of approval or would you like to do some off the top of your head. Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, I would like time to prepare conditions of approval. November 2nd will work for me if that's all right with everyone. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers AZ 06-043 and PP 06-042 to the hearing date of November 2, our regularly scheduled hearing, to allow staff to compose conditions and findings for approval. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Are we going to have a break or -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just like five minutes would be great. Rohm: We are going to take just a real short break, five minutes, and we will be right back. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with drive- thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision): Rohm: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-029 associated with Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B and begin with the staff report. 2 •i �'t `��,;?3? k� M y. ,. ., `° k s.'�#'%'U V 3 f # e w Al 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis is October 19, 2006 Page 48 of 84 Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for a 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-thru window to be located within the Dorado Subdivision. The Dorado Subdivision is generally located at the northwest corner of Overland and -- at the Overland and Eagle Road intersection. The subdivision is currently zoned C -G, general retail and service commercial. Dorado was granted final plat approval in 2005. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed an approximately 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive- thru window. At this time the tenants are unknown. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not be required for a project like this, as retail uses are principally permitted within the C -G district. However, the UDC requires all drive-thru establishments to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval where the facility is located within 300 feet of another drive-thru or a residential district. The proposed establishment is located within 300 feet of another drive-thru within the subdivision, as well as an existing residence. The applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval, certificate of zoning compliance approval, from the planning department for site and landscaping improvement prior to building construction. All such improvements must be installed prior to receipt of occupancy. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposal as revised and submitted. Per the request of the applicant, staff has prepared Findings consistent with our recommendation to be signed at the close of the meeting. If there is no opposition to the proposal and if the Commission is amenable to approving the application this evening. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Unless there are -- is there questions of staff before we -- Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. I'll try to make this pretty simple. I have read through the staff report. We are in agreement with it. I would add tonight that if you do approve it -- and I'm hoping you will -- we'd also request that you approve the Findings of Fact for us. Just very briefly, this was supposed to be heard on October 5th, based on our error it had to be changed to this date. At this point in the year a couple weeks can make the difference between starting a project in the fall or having to simply wait until the spring. So, again, if you approve it tonight, I would greatly appreciate it if you would approve the Findings of Facts also tonight, which would enable us to, hopefully, get this project started in the fall and unless you have any questions, I'm going to sit down. Rohm: My only comment to that, Jonathan, is, generally speaking, it's nice to have an opportunity to review those Findings of Facts before we vote on them and I haven't -- have you had an opportunity to review those? Zaremba: They are provided as Exhibit C and I -- there is some wording that has to go along with them to adopt them, I think, but all of the facts are there. Rohm: I think the comment that I'd like to make to you, if we do move forward with Findings of Facts as well, I would not want this to be the norm. The bottom line is we have a process that we try to stick to and with this particular one being delayed, I can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 49 of 84 see your concerns from a construction perspective, but just out of respect for the process I'd like not to take this as the normal process for moving forward with projects. Seal: Mr. Commissioner and -- or Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, no, I appreciate that greatly. As I say, Amanda was very helpful in this and given the circumstances, you know, I know she cooperated with me and I appreciate it, but, no, I would not make a habit of this and, as I say, I admit it was my error, so I guess I'm asking for forgiveness and understanding. Rohm: Thank you. Seal: You're welcome. Rohm: Okay. Any discussion? Zaremba: I guess I would ask legal counsel -- there is normally a format in which the actual Finding document is provided, but we do have all the substance that would go into it in front of us. Can we approve the Findings tonight? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I mean if you're satisfied there is enough information in front of you to direct staff to prepare the findings based on the information in the report, so that the -- so that the Findings are approved tonight and all you're doing -- going to do at your next meeting is ratify them, so that they can actually be signed in the due course, but if you're satisfied those are adequate, you can certainly approve them. I don't know if they have them in a format that's -- If Ms. Hess has them in a format that she normally would have. So, you can add it to your agenda as Item 15 if you wish to do that and simply approve them at the end of the meeting if you feel there is enough information provided. So, you have either option. Borup: I'm comfortable to do that. The difference here being we have already looked at the overall project and we already have seen the conceptual design layout and they are just -- they are just continuing on with the -- what has already been presented to us. Rohm: Okay. I think it's in order to just close the Public Hearing at this time, then. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: That was my last motion for the evening. .x r E 5 #t }} fi 3 P_' + O 5 h Y Al wv Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 50 of 84 Rohm: Oh. Okay. Commissioner Moe, would you like to take a stab at making a motion and move this project forward? Moe: No. No. Borup: Well, then, do we need to discuss a little bit. We can go with the motion that's here and, then, further state that we'd approve -- no, are we making a motion to approve the Findings as written in the staff report and -- Rohm: I do have a document here if there is someone that would like to review them that is a City of Meridian Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project that's typed up in its entirety. We could -- we could either make an Item 15 and do that at the end and make -- or I believe our city attorney said we could add that to this motion and do it all in one fell swoop, if you'd like to review or just make a motion to that effect. Nary: Mr. Chairman, in case I wasn't clear, if you want to add the Findings as those are prepared, you should add them as an Item 15, so that the clerk can amend the agenda and it will be reflected on the agenda that the actual document, rather than the staff report, is what you approved. Rohm: Got you. Borup: Could it be 9-A? Nary: If you wish. Rohm: That works as well. Nary: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-029 as presented during the hearing of October 19th, 2006, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered by this Planning and Zoning Commission as an item added to our agenda at position 9-A. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisst is October 19, 2006 Page 51 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9A: CUP 06-029 — FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B". Borup: Do we now do 9-A? Who has got that? Zaremba: I guess we can take a minute to pass that along, so we at least have all seen it. Mr. Chairman, if we are ready for Agenda Item 9-A. Rohm: Well, I guess we have to open it first, don't we? Borup: Yeah. I guess. Zaremba: It's normally on a Consent Agenda. I'm not sure it needs to be -- Rohm: Okay. Let's just go with it. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and decision and order in the matter of CUP 06-029. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Findings of facts, Conclusions of Law in respect to CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carnes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds — 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of 12/21/06. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. T k rvw ke >w. *4 2#gam i+^Z g 9 •Y. x, "^✓• ?. �"'� }, .w r 8 4 S Meridian Planning & Zoning O Commis .. October 19, 2008 Page 52 of 84 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. i MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. " Rohm: Okay. Well, let's -- it's getting late. F , � Moe: Are we going to take a break? Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C -G zone (8.74 acres) and I -L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I -L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC —1200 W. Franklin Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-048 and PP 06-040, both items related to Creamline Park Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am pinch hitting tonight for r Justin Lucas. He is in Denver right now at the ULI conference, so I will be presenting his staff report on Creamline Park Subdivision. The project consists of annexation and zoning to C -G and I -L. There are 8.74 acres on the south side of the development that are proposed for the C -G zoning designation and 24.01 acres proposed for the I -L, light industrial zoning classification. All of thisro e p p rty is currently zoned RUT in Ada " County. The site is located on the north side of Franklin Road near the northeast comer of Franklin and Linder Roads, approximately 350 feet east of Linder. Highlighted there ::. in the teal. Adjacent land uses and zoning. North is a retirement community and future F multi -family development, zoned L -O. East is a lumber storage, 84 Lumber, and vacant land down along Franklin Road. And I think they have some -- there is H x some storage of trailers I think out there, too. To the south is Franklin Road. Directly to the south. And, then, Crestwood Estates Subdivision, a residential subdivision, is directly across " Franklin Road from this site. To the west are single family homes and some home occupations. Those are zoned R-1 in Ada County. There is also a day care zoned L -O and some of the properties are vacant or underdeveloped. The one right on the comer is zoned C -C, on the northeast comer of Franklin and Linder, zoned C -C. There is the y: day care -- I guess I better point some of these out. We will probably talk about this a little bit more. There is a day care that was approved maybe three, four years ago, something like that, right by the railroad tracks. A lot of these homes -- folks have i signs u some g p -- I think someone makes like wooden chairs and kind of low impact home occupations, if you will. I have never really seen them be too intensive of uses. They {{ 7�7� P �'t' - ASF "'6 n u - - r :.. A111 Y. r,:x -F G ..,or-` •F^knd'6k 'Cz ,��a ? ,:��" 'sem s !6 E b44 7 'x— IF, } g s la , I h �s F £ IVNt f Y iL Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi* October 19, 2006 Page 53 of 84 may or may not be permitted in the county, as are all county properties today. It's my understanding, even, that if a family owns a -- you know, three, four, or five parcels, even, out there and, you know, father, son, and someone else that owns -- each has their house out there, and, then, as I mentioned, the comer piece is C -C and it's industrial on the other side of this property. The overall project does have six industrial lots, all on the north side of this lateral here that bisects the site east -west and, then, on the south are four commercially zoned lots proposed. The access. One public street, Northwest 13th, is proposed for this project. It's pretty much centered in the middle of the project and cul-de-sacs just across that lateral. Beyond the cul-de-sac the applicant is proposing a 500 foot long drive aisle and cross -access easement to provide access to the -- to the other parcel. You may be able to make out the property lines here and here. So, there are your six. One, two, three, four, five, six. The applicant is also proposing to construct two curb cuts that will offer direct access to Franklin Road for lots 2 and 10 and I think I remember this correctly, somewhere in there, and I think -- maybe the applicant can help me out, but there is a couple of other driveways -- we have ACHD's staff report, too, that, essentially, said if you want a driveway over here it needs to be on this property line and share it and if you want one over here it's on this property line and share it. The constraints that staff has -- or the main issue, I guess, that staff has with this -- it's a hodge-podge kind of right now of development, if you want to call it that -- land uses -- existing land uses. There are some newer developments. 84 Lumber hasn't been open a year yet. Some industrial uses up Taylor and up that -- up 10th there is pretty industrial uses. Same with on the other side of Linder. If you go over here, most of these are industrial uses. In fact, they are zoned I -L, too. Then, you have these homes that are kind of in transition, kind of stuck, not quite sure how they are going to develop. A lot of them are pretty small. Probably the best way, in an ideal situation, you know, you get three, four, five -- all of them to come in and redevelop, but the likelihood of that happening probably isn't very feasible. Ever since I started at the city I think one of the very first pre -apps I had was someone out there that wanted to develop, but they only had one and we said, well, see if you can get a couple of your neighbors to come in with you and they haven't been back. So, there are existing homes, though, and we do need to respect that people do live there. This is getting to some of the applicants letter that they wrote to -- well, it's addressed to Justin, dated today. I will jump into that I think here in just one more second. This issue is mixed use community on the future land use map. All this area, including these smaller parcels and the day care and the C -C parcel on the future land use map. This does generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan. You may or may not recall last year there was a project proposed on the site for a residential development. That wasn't a good project, so they did withdraw that application here in 2005. There are some requirements, of course, for landscaping along Franklin Road. Probably the biggest landscape concern that's brought up in the applicant's letter, they asked to not have to construct a 25 foot wide land use buffer between the I -L zone and these county zoned parcels. The way the UDC is written it says that if you are non I -L, to be any -- it could even be commercial zoning. If you're not industrial, you need to provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. So, that's straight out of the ordinance. There is -- we do alternative compliance, but having no landscape buffer there, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't comply with code. That's one of the concerns. I guess the biggest concern that staff Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 54 of 84 has in the staff report has to do with the -- with the lack of access into this property. Staffs recommendation, just trying to brainstorm, essentially, is how do we get a public access back to this back side. It's a really deep parcel. Stub streets and access back out to Linder, essentially take -- it would take a lot away to stub over here and get it through. Then, if you stub it through, then, you have access to an industrial park from Linder. Does that make sense? I mean if -- if, you know, really these industrial properties want to have limited access, it doesn't really make sense to create a cut - through avenue for the general public to get through here and back over there, in my opinion. So, stubbing there is out of the question based on what the applicant is proposing for uses here. You can't go this way, these are fully developed here. This is -- there is not much frontage on these parcels here, it doesn't help access back to these. So, what staff came up with is there is a -- there is an existing street -- I think this is 13th or 12th, I can't remember now. 12th. It must be 12th. And it aligns over here. Staffs idea was that construct this loop roadway system that would come up -- and I don't know exactly how far, we will let them -- I guess just based on this layout, so it doesn't have too much of an impact, in my mind, again, I'm not -- the applicant works with this more often, but I guess just for simplicity, if the road were to come, do something like this, and, then, come back down either in alignment with where the street's shown now or, really, anywhere over here, as long as ACHD would approve that location -- but that's the idea. Then, you get -- you can have your cross -access easement come off of that here and, essentially, it's the same layout, just with a secondary access. So, if this gets blocked, emergency access vehicles can get back up into the rest of the site. That's really what staff his looking for, is some other way to get across and it's not the general public per se, although they would be able to do the public street, obviously, but it is -- it is not only for emergency services, although it's primarily for emergency services, but also for people using these in the future, the tenants there, large truck drivers having -- you know, being able to loop through this subdivision and not having to tum around. I might point out that the fire department now has requested a cul-de-sac on the end of this, because they will have to use this anyways to get back here, so they wanted to make sure that they -- they have a turnaround in that location. Let's see. The applicant -- I'm going to jump to the applicant's letter now and just address some of their requests to modify the staff report. Essentially, it's all the conditions of approval that they have issues -- they take issue with, except for the approval of the preliminary plat and the landscape plan. So, just to go down the list, I guess, the first one, 1.2.2 on Exhibit B, page one, is our loop road. So, that's what that talks about. I think I have explained that one. 1.2.3 is the applicant shall provide a cross -access easement to the Thornton property. So, let me back up and explain that requirement a little bit. This parcel here has about 350 feet of frontage on Franklin Road and somewhere in the neighborhood of 300, although I haven't scaled it out on Linder Road. So, when this C -C property does develop, they are going to be right on the signalized intersection here. So, ACHD has allowed them, if they so choose, the applicant, to construct a shared right -in, right -out access point on the property line with this parcel. I think that's a great idea. If, in fact, this applicant wants to construct a driveway there. If they don't, I still think it makes sense to provide cross - access to the public street, we don't have a driveway less than 300 feet to a signalized intersection in the future and we have to grant some variance to this parcel, because we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 55 of 84 have to give them access. So, if we could get that through this development somehow - - and I hope -- these are C -G zoned properties, so you're not looking at the mix of, you know, sending commercial users through an industrial development to get into Franklin Road, they are real similar -- C -C and C -G are real similar zoning designations. So, that's that condition. 1.2.4 is the western boundary landscape buffer of 25 feet to buffer the existing homes and the non -industrial uses there. 1.2.5 talks about limiting trash compactors, loading areas, and docks and bays from facing that direction. So, we are saying put them -- face your bays, loading docks, trash compactors to the north -south or to the east, but don't have them facing to the west, because there is people living there. So, that one makes some sense to -- to staff, anyways, to have that restriction placed on this development. I'm going to skip 1.2.6, because that talks about the landscaping. The applicant has addressed their type of fencing in 1.2.7. The UDC does not allow chain link fence with slats as screening material, so any outdoor storage areas will, actually, have to be screened with a solid fence. You can use chain link slats with vinyl slats in other locations, but if it is outdoor storage, it needs to be screened and that -- that does not mean chain link with vinyl slats. So, I think the applicant has clarified their intent -- intentions for screening out here. You may want to talk about that some more, but -- and, then, finally, their last comment was on 1.2.8 talking about tiling ditches and canals and it stated I think in the letter that an NMID, that they were advised that the pipe must be a minimum diameter of 60 inches. You may -- this isn't necessarily something for the Commission, it, actually, just requires that the Council act on it. Their general rule of thumb if anything's greater than 48 inches they don't require you to tile it. However, that's just a guide. Anything could be tiled or left open at the discretion of the Council. So, if you have any preference on whether it should be open or tiled, that's -- you can sure make comment on that. It is not natural waterway, so by ordinance it would need to be tiled, unless the applicant can prove that it's a quote, unquote, large -- large capacity facility I think is how the ordinance reads. I shouldn't have done the quotes. But, anyways, I think I pretty much touched on -- stole Brad's thunder and -- but he can sure touch on his stuff. The only -- the last thing, I guess, that I wanted to say is that just this afternoon I did get another e-mail from Joe Silva and this is in section three -- or Exhibit D, section three, of the staff report. It starts on page four. Is the fire department's comments. He sent me an additional condition and this says: As a condition of approval the fire department requests that the applicant provide fire department approval of any uses north of the creek with any application for a CZC. In our discussions with the fire department at our agency comments meeting, they had concern about the single access point and if users, particularly on the north end of this development, were to be hazmat type or store flammable materials, those types of things and only having the one access point into the site, so they wanted the ability to review these uses and if they are of that variety -- and there is -- it's not probably worded the best it could be. It, basically, makes Joe Silva God if he can approve or deny uses that go in there. But that's the intent is that, you know, they want to make sure that the uses that go in there aren't highly flammable, hazardous material, places, whatever that is -- but that's -- hazmat was thrown out there a lot. So, anyway, there is that condition that they wanted, just to have a sign off saying, yes, this use is okay and we are okay with the one access for that use when they come in. So, with that I will stand for any points of clarification or questions you may have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis , October 19, 2006 Page 56 of 84 Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Miller: Brad Miller representing Creamline Associates, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. I'd like to thank Caleb for his presentation. He's pinch hitting for Justin. Normally, I'm more agreeable on these things, but on this one there is a lot of issues that we have with this. Caleb, could you go back to that aerial photo? Could we first address the surrounding uses, the -- these homes right in here are really transitionary. If you go across the street -- this is an older aerial photo, but right here you have got the bus bam facility, which we sold to the Meridian School District. Right here you have the Sanitary Services and their transfer station. We sold that to them as well. You have got Marcon here that has their concrete barricades and you have got some industrial uses here. All along -- not here, but all along here you have got industrial uses. So, these residences and businesses here are facing industrial uses. It's interesting to note that these lots are over 300 feet deep. So, I think that we will have very little impact on them right here and the 25 -foot landscape buffer, to tell you the truth, I think is just going to be an added expense and not have any material impact on those residents, either pro or con, because if you notice, everything but the day care is located on the front 25 percent or the front third of the lots and so I think there is plenty of buffer there already. We would want to do whatever the landscaping requirement is along the perimeter of the development like this, but we just don't feel like the 25 feet would be necessary in this situation, because it wouldn't add any noticeable benefit to that. The other issue that staff has addressed is they want us to restrict the functioning of these buildings in these areas, they don't want any trash compactors. Well, we own dozens and dozens and dozens of industrial buildings, we don't have any trash compactors in any of them that I know of, but there are loading docks. All of our industrial buildings have loading docks, either grade level doors or dock height doors and I find it -- it would be difficult for us to - - in fact, most of our buildings will have doors on two sides. Some of them have doors on all four sides. We will have ground level doors on the front, dock high doors on the back and usually on the side we will have a door. So, I don't see any situation where we couldn't have -- well, that's an overstatement. I don't -- it would be unlikely that we would put a building there that wouldn't have doors oriented that direction. These are going to be -- a couple of examples of users that we have here are -- we have got a company that does pipe storage, they do plumbing materials, and they would have a lot of pipe out in the yard, they have trucks, they would be off loading trucks there and they would have loading docks as well for the smaller materials to go inside the house -- or inside the building. So, I just feel that to restrict the uses on those lots in that way would -- doesn't really serve any purpose for these people and if we have got a six foot fence along there, I just think it would be negligible and wouldn't necessarily impact them, especially given the fact that in ten years I'll bet there is very few residences there, if any. We have attempted -- we have contacted all those owners and attempted to purchase their parcels. They all want like 15 bucks a foot and given that we paid two bucks or 2.50 a foot for that piece, 15 bucks doesn't make any sense. So, that's the issue of the -- of the compatibility with the -- with the surrounding neighbors. So, I would like to ask that we not have to put in that 25 -foot landscape median, but we would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisss October 19, 2006 Page 57 of 84 want to landscape the perimeter with five foot or ten foot or whatever the minimum requirement is, but not provide the 25 -foot buffer. In regard to the -- to the loop street -- well, let me back up. ACHD has granted us full access here, they have granted us full access here, provided it's shared with this parcel here and provided that it's aligned with this here. They have also granted a right -in, right -out access there. We don't have any problem with providing a cross -access easement at that point -- access point, if we choose to build it. We would like to reserve the right not build that and possibly get access for this lot onto this Northwest 13th. If that is the case, we wouldn't want to be bound to provide an access across that access easement to the Thornton property here. But I mean he would always be able to build one there on his property line. If we do build an access point there, we would be more than willing to provide a cross -access easement. We just don't want to have to be bound by that if we choose to take access over here. Let me see what else we have here. Oh, on the loop road. The need in the market right now -- there is very little industrial property in Meridian. There is a lot of smaller parcels -- I mean you can see over here you have got parcels that are, you know, an acre or less and you can see over here there is plenty here on Taylor Avenue. In fact, we own that building there and you have got 84 Lumber here and the mini storage. There is a need for larger lots. It's -- to tell you the truth, it's not the highest and best use for the property, we won't make as much money by doing this, and if we put a loop road in there you can get smaller lots, but the market really is calling for some larger lots and we have a number of tenants who will immediately move in here as soon as we get subdivided and get the improvements in. Most of those will be relocated from Boise. We have got Specialty Construction, which does construction supplies that wants to be here, they do highway supplies. Keller Supply, which I referred to before, and we have -- in fact, all of these lots we believe would be built out within two years. We don't have any perspective users for the front here, but a loop road would -- if we did a loop road it would not allow us to do the larger lots and it would provide -- I don't know if it would really get us anything or give the city anything. The fire department was concerned about the length here. We preferred to run the cul-de-sac all the way up, but they said that was -- 450 feet was the maximum, so we have proposed a 450 foot cul- de-sac. We would be willing to move this up here, but, then, we have -- these are all actually flag lots here. The fire department has stated that they would like to restrict -- have the opportunity to restrict the uses on all of these lots here. I would suggest that since this meets the city requirement of 450 feet, that we allow them the right to restrict uses on these four lots, but not on these two, because they meet all the -- would meet all the requirements of the 450 -foot long cul-de-sac. Let me see. In regard to the ditch, Nampa -Meridian, we would prefer to tile the ditch. If it were a 48 inch pipe, that wouldn't be a problem, but as Mr. Moe can attest, going from a 40 inch to a 60 inch isn't a multiple, it's more of an exponential type -- I mean the costs just go up dramatically and it would just preclude us from being able to do that. It wouldn't be economically feasible. So, what we would do is we would only cover this portion here to cross the road. When we sold the property to the bus barn here, they were in the same circumstance. If you go over there you will notice that the Eight Mile Lateral as it goes across there has two crossings on it, which we installed for them, and they chose not to the the entire ditch, because of the cost involved. Let me make sure I have got everything covered here. As far as the fire department turnaround, with the -- with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit O October 19, 2006 Page 58 of 84 Commission's approval we would be willing to move this cul-de-sac right up to here. This right here is going to be easements, but if you were standing on the road looking at it you wouldn't notice any difference between this portion and this portion. We will build this to ACHD standards, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, everything would be identical to what we are doing here. The only difference is this would not be dedicated and the only reason that's not dedicated is because the city only allows a 450 -foot deep cul-de-sac. I think I got it all covered. I think that's it. Any questions? There is quite a few issues there and I apologize for that. Rohm: You had mentioned that you didn't want to put that 25 -foot buffer along the west line. I think in the staff report he mentioned that there is an option for alternatives. Did you mention what your alternative might be? Miller: I haven't and we'd be more than willing to work with staff on that. Rohm: Because I tend to agree with your response. There is no sense in just putting a buffer just for a buffer's sake if all you're going to do is widen an effective 150 buffer that already exists. Miller: I agree. I mean we want to be good neighbors and we don't want to offend the neighbors in any way or impact them in a negative way, but it seems to me that the 25 foot landscape buffer really doesn't serve a purpose and I would be more than willing to meet with staff and find out other alternatives. One other issue I might bring up is we would be willing to put a stub road here. We don't have a problem with that at all. I mean ultimately having the second way in and out would probably be beneficial, but the problem is where do you locate it. As soon as you locate here, then, all of a sudden this guy's price goes to 50 bucks a foot instead of 15 bucks a foot, so -- but we would be willing to either dedicate -- or not dedicate but provide an easement there, provide a secondary access that could be dedicated in the future. Rohm: Quite honestly, this doesn't excite me very much. Miller: It doesn't excite very many people. Rohm: Yeah. Miller: Staff either. Rohm: Yeah. I -- Miller: But it's shorter than this one here. If you lengthen that out it would go to there. Rohm: What -- did you consider this at all, a horseshoe there? Miller: No. And I will tell you, if the staff and the city requires that we do a loop road, we won't do the project. What we will do is we would -- and, please, don't take this as a < aar}`� ,eFn >f` 2 1 1 Y 5 9: i gr Y Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis • October 19, 2006 Page 59 of 84 threat, because it's not meant that way. We have some major mini storage guys thal are just begging us to do mini storage there and we don't want to do mini storage, it's not -- I mean it's probably more lucrative, but it's just not what we want to do. But if the city were to say we have to do a loop road, then, we would say, okay, we are going to turn this into one large lot here, develop these two out as industrial lots, and, then, just do mini storage there. So, I don't see any circumstances under which we would be willing to do a loop road. You just lose too much property and, as I said in my letter, for industrial uses -- I mean those users don't want the public driving through there. Although there has to be good access for trucks. So, that's why we make the roads wide and the driveways wide to accommodate trucks, because if you can't accommodate trucks, you don't have an industrial project. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Borup: Do you have anything on this property here? Is this owned by the -- Miller: That's 84 Lumber. Borup: Oh. That's where they are. All right. Miller: And, then, next to that Yankes have built a facility here. So, I mean this really is a lot more built out than is depicted here. Hood: Mr. Chair? If I may ask Brad a question. Do you guys -- you said you offered a stub street back over to those properties on there. Did you knock on any doors to -- you said a couple of them were 20 dollars a foot or whatever. Miller: We have approached all the owners. Now, there are -- let me see. And I might be off by one or two here. This -- there is about an acre and a half right now that's for sale there and we are nosing around that a little bit, but it's over -- in our opinion it's overpriced, in their opinion it's not. Hood: And so I guess just to follow up my question a little bit. What -- because I'm pretty stumped on how they are going to develop? Like you said, they are pretty much sandwiched between industrial, if you're project's approved. Miller: Right. Hood: How do they develop? They are not like what's happened on either side, the large parcels. I mean you have got 30 acres of industrial there and at least a half mile of industrial type uses back the other way. That isn't the situation the way it's parceled out today. So, how do you envision those -- Miller: Well, Caleb, I think what's going to happen there is I -- there is one fellow -- I believe his name is Joe Olsen, who has purchased two of those properties. I think what you're going to see happen is you will have people come in and tie up two or three of Meridian Planning & Zoning Cornmist October 19, 2006 Page 60 of 84 • those, combine them together, and I think you will end up getting buildings like you have got over here across the street, is what you are going to get. So, I don't think you're going to get a nice cohesive development there, I think you're going to see a hodge podge, to tell you the truth. Hood: But industrial type -- Miller: I think it's going to be industrial type uses. That's what I think. But, you know, that's just my opinion. Hood: I won't hold it to you. Miller: Right. But if they are going to -- if they are going to sell their properties for ten to 15 dollars a square foot, you can't afford to do industrial uses on those properties. The rents don't justify it. Unless, potentially, they are user -- or owner occupied, user occupied buildings. But you can't afford to build them and lease them and pay -- I mean you can afford to -- afford to pay maybe up to five bucks, but not much more than that. I apologize for the difficulty of this, but, you know -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you think putting a stub to the west, though, would -- that, to me, would increase the traffic problem basically through there. Miller: Potentially it could. I think you would have cut -through traffic there. I think you're correct. But, you know, we don't want to be disagreeable. I mean we want to try to accommodate the needs of staff and the needs of the city. I don't know if there is really a good solution, because the loop road does not work for us. Newton-Huckabay: Is there any reason why -- and I, honestly, don't know. You say you don't want to tile the canal there, but could you put another -- I mean can you put another bridge across the canal -- Miller: Oh, sure. Newton-Huckabay: -- so you could get -- I mean so you just drive through. Miller: Sure. Yeah. And so we would -- we would plan to put one here, but most likely what you're going to have is you will have -- right now this is fenced here and, then, you will have a perimeter fence here and, then, most likely you will have chain link fences on all these property lines. And most likely we would fence the ditch just to keep people out of there. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so there would be fences around each individual industrial property? Miller: Most likely. And most likely what will happen is say we put a building there, there would be fences along the edge of the building as well, so you would have a .x v w , A-4 }"� 3't 4 ''*may 44 A ^, S 1. k k. "t}R h f i ��. 5 � 2 � i : �. ^t;J l 1✓.iy. �i< ^,f ,Y'�f" }{'` £ M.w T - l y ,.4 . .'S`� 1 Y �k 3't 4 �k Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis O October 19, 2006 Page 61 of 84 parking area in the front and, then, you would have gates on either side or both sides of the building and the trucks would go and circulate around. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Because they will have outdoor storage? Miller: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Miller: Yeah. For the most part. I would say -- I mean a number of our industrial projects are not fenced, but the majority of them of this type where they have got a lot of yard area, yes, they would be fenced. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that wouldn't really serve a lot of purpose in the -- Miller: I don't think it would. Interestingly enough, just as a point of reference, these two crossings -- we did those for the school district. It was 180,000 dollars total for two crossings of that ditch with a 60 inch pipe. It's just outrageous, so — and just to let you in on another little thing, we own this piece here, too. Our thought was to the this whole thing, because we would pick up more ground there, usable ground, because you can park on it, you can drive on it, you can landscape it, but you can't build on it. But when we saw that it was -- it's kind of a cheap way to pick up more usable ground, but with 60 inch it's not, it just is not economically feasible at all. Borup: Not when you get over 36. It gets real spendy. Miller: We have even been willing to go 48, which, you know, we have done before. In fact, we piped the Eight Mile Lateral over on Overland Road and I believe it was 48 inch there, so -- there are my dilemmas, folks. Thanks for your consideration. Borup: Maybe just one comment. I don't think that this necessarily answers the alternative compliance on the buffering, but in an industrial zone you can also do an eight foot fence. The other thing I -- we have not -- Caleb, has there been any -- any phone calls from any of the neighbors? I mean, obviously, none of them are here, so they, apparently, don't seem to have any concern with this, so there is -- Hood: They haven't -- Mr. Borup, they haven't contacted me, but I was not the primary on this application, so I don't know if Justin talked to anyone or not. He didn't tell me that he did. Borup: It seems like he probably would have mentioned -- there would have been some mention of -- if there was some adamant opposition. Newton-Huckabay: The only piece of property along there that isn't in disrepair, in my opinion, is the one next to the railroad tracks. _ r s; h _ r h Y# ii Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi a October 19, 2006 Page 62 of 84 Borup: The day care. Newton-Huckabay: The day care. Miller: That's a newer day care and it is in good shape. Newton-Huckabay: But all the other buildings and homes, if you're to be -- Borup: I think are just waiting for -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, they are just waiting to get 15 dollars a foot. Miller: They are waiting for someone like us to buy them out. Newton-Huckabay: Because that -- whenever I drive down that stretch of road I find it's, one, the landscaping on the west or -- on the west side isn't kept up and, then, you have all those properties that aren't kept up and it's just very rundown looking all the way through there. Miller: It's an ugly stretch. Newton-Huckabay: It really is. And, then, of course, the road is -- I think I would -- if I may say -- is there -- and, again, I don't know -- can you have emergency access -- there is not like emergency access roads next to the railroad tracks, are there? Miller: Well, let me -- let me tell you one thing that is here. On the north of this property there is -- the subdivision granted when they did this -- I think it's called the Hepner Subdivision. It was done in the late '60s. There is a 60 foot easement right there, because the sewer line, believe it or not, runs along there. So, we will flow our sewer back to that line and not out to Franklin. The water will come from Franklin. One of the things when we met with Joe Silva -- we talked about maybe this -- the fire department could have access there. There is a gate here right now. Now, they have their parking lot there, so I don't know how feasible that is. The other thing that we offered to Joe is that we would provide the ability for the trucks to drive completely around the buildings and that's not a problem at all, is for -- I mean they could come back here and drive completely around the buildings and have access to all sides of the building, which seemed to be a concern to him, it seems to -- Moe: Well, you bring up the -- the easement. I'd like to -- when can you find out about that? I'm very concerned about just the -- the single access and the road going back in. Miller: Sure. Moe: But if we can find out what's going on with that easement up there, that, to me, is going to make a difference in my opinion on the project. And while I -- IL I j z y "�x h } b � l 3� Y rs'7 3{ .ee s'! 3�- 4r ., .4g r&:a Al Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 63 of 84 Miller: Right. Moe: -- have got you here, you also made comment that you guys have already thought of other uses for this property, if, in fact, if this isn't going to fly, so -- as far as -- Miller: Right. I mean if you didn't -- if the City Council denies it, we will just go a different route or, actually, if you didn't recommend it, we would shift things around before we got to Council. So, I mean we have always got a Plan B. But I just learned about -- I didn't just learn about the easement, I knew the sewer easement was there, but I just saw the plat today for the first time, it has a 60 -foot easement, but it didn't have any notes on the plat, which said what that easement was for and the notation on the easement just easement. So, I have got First American Title researching that for me to find out exactly what the intent was for that easement. If it's only for utilities, then, you would have to get some sort of granting from the owner there to allow you to use it for emergency access. But, once again, their parking lot is there and, you know, the fire department likes to always go straight, it doesn't like to curve around things, so -- Zaremba: I have a couple of questions. Miller: Oh, no. Zaremba: One of them is kind of innocuous, the other one may not be. Miller: Okay. Zaremba: Is there any thought that you might find two users of the northern two pieces that would want access to the railroad? I mean for an industrial property to be right next to the railroad and not make any use of it sounds unusual to me. Miller: That's an excellent point, because right now 84 Lumber is in the process of putting a spur in here, so they are going to start bringing rail cars in and it's interesting, just as a point of -- and maybe it's not interesting to you guys, but to industrial guys it's interesting -- five, six, seven years ago nobody had any interest in rail. None of the tenants wanted rail. Now, I don't know if it's gas prices or what it is, but we get a lot of calls for rail. So, yes, we have got -- potentially we have got a lumber company -- not a competitor of them, they would be a hardwood lumber company that's interested in taking that whole thing and they potentially would have a rail spur there. The other issue with rail spurs is they are so dam expensive. I mean to get a rail spur there you're probably talking three to four hundred thousand dollars, believe it or not. Borup: So, it makes sense for two of them to go together on it, then, wouldn't it? Miller: Well, I don't know if it would -- I mean it would if it -- if it could be extended out, but some -- considering that both of these people would be in the lumber business, 84 may not be agreeable to that. t d }fit 'rf a Al Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 63 of 84 Miller: Right. Moe: -- have got you here, you also made comment that you guys have already thought of other uses for this property, if, in fact, if this isn't going to fly, so -- as far as -- Miller: Right. I mean if you didn't -- if the City Council denies it, we will just go a different route or, actually, if you didn't recommend it, we would shift things around before we got to Council. So, I mean we have always got a Plan B. But I just learned about -- I didn't just learn about the easement, I knew the sewer easement was there, but I just saw the plat today for the first time, it has a 60 -foot easement, but it didn't have any notes on the plat, which said what that easement was for and the notation on the easement just easement. So, I have got First American Title researching that for me to find out exactly what the intent was for that easement. If it's only for utilities, then, you would have to get some sort of granting from the owner there to allow you to use it for emergency access. But, once again, their parking lot is there and, you know, the fire department likes to always go straight, it doesn't like to curve around things, so -- Zaremba: I have a couple of questions. Miller: Oh, no. Zaremba: One of them is kind of innocuous, the other one may not be. Miller: Okay. Zaremba: Is there any thought that you might find two users of the northern two pieces that would want access to the railroad? I mean for an industrial property to be right next to the railroad and not make any use of it sounds unusual to me. Miller: That's an excellent point, because right now 84 Lumber is in the process of putting a spur in here, so they are going to start bringing rail cars in and it's interesting, just as a point of -- and maybe it's not interesting to you guys, but to industrial guys it's interesting -- five, six, seven years ago nobody had any interest in rail. None of the tenants wanted rail. Now, I don't know if it's gas prices or what it is, but we get a lot of calls for rail. So, yes, we have got -- potentially we have got a lumber company -- not a competitor of them, they would be a hardwood lumber company that's interested in taking that whole thing and they potentially would have a rail spur there. The other issue with rail spurs is they are so dam expensive. I mean to get a rail spur there you're probably talking three to four hundred thousand dollars, believe it or not. Borup: So, it makes sense for two of them to go together on it, then, wouldn't it? Miller: Well, I don't know if it would -- I mean it would if it -- if it could be extended out, but some -- considering that both of these people would be in the lumber business, 84 may not be agreeable to that. d RN xx *?Ks 43 t � F t. , z$ziY' t} i�.Sxr .�- f �i Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissTEff .� ., October 19, 2006 Page 64 of 84 Zaremba: The other question -- my memory sometimes fails me, but in discussion of a M'11 i 450 cul-de-sac and, then, private drive aisles and stuff beyond that, during the Process Improvement Group that was developing the Unified Development Code -- Miller: I don't know if I'm aware of those people. Zaremba: -- my recollection was that you spent a lot of time on that committee and I'm sure the city is appreciative if it. I felt you had an awful lot of good input. But I'm trying to remember the discussion about cul-de-sacs and extending them and I would have thought that at that time you were not in favor of the kind of design that you're K` presenting to us. I know many of the members weren't. As a matter of fact, there were a lot of people who were flat out against cul-de-sacs, but it was brought up that in industrial areas or particularly in small in -fill developments, you almost have to have a t cul-de-sac, even though they don't work well for police or fire or public transportation or anything else. Miller: Right. Zaremba: And I think the 450 -foot actually was settled on from the fire -- from the International Fire Code or something. 4 Miller: It could have been. W Zaremba: It was not a figure that we made up. And, then, at a totally different time there were discussions about private driveways and the lengths of them and if I remember, all of those discussions involved a private driveway or a drive aisle that actually attached to a through street, not a cul-de-sac. I don't remember if it was ever anybody's intention to add those two together and make a deeper street. Ar Miller: I can't disagree with you there. I don't remember specifically the discussions. All I just remember is I was overruled a lot, so -- Zaremba: Well, you had very good input. Miller: Commissioner Zaremba, I can't remember, to tell you the truth, but I mean this definitely is not a standard situation and -- I mean to tell you the truth, it's kind of a novel, unique way of -- I shouldn't use this word, but of circumventing the ordinance, you know. I mean I don't know what other options we have. I mean we could make that northern portion just, you know, into a mini storage as we discussed and that would -- and that would work fine. But that doesn't provide a need in the market right now, even though it would make us more money to do that. But I mean it's definitely I -- mean that's -- it's definitely not ideal, but we would improve it all to ACHD standards. Zaremba: I guess maybe I'll discuss with staff for a moment. On that same subject, sometime since the UDC was actually adopted we have had two residential developments that had a full length cul-de-sac and, then, additional private drive added o . x 4 � > • fi Y ,* 1 a. ,.,� j 4,w Lz Ute ,FAQ 8' $ Cy:;4 "f'§" N � YES,"' i 1+1 £ n X r . k 1 6,2 g, � fit F -•Fe�S ky .' .i T i Dpi, a <..x. r�' � d �}^.� 33'T �{^ fi' ;,'] &L £td }x{+e �.�Y 4 �baY tA 5 rf .,'pxt� Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 65 of 84 U to that. But their limit is since you can only have four residences on a private drive, they only ended up being 500 feet or 550, they didn't add that much to 450. 1 guess my question is -- I don't feel that the people that were putting the UDC together anticipated coupling the two lengths together. Not that it would apply to the current applicant, but might it not be a good idea to prepare an amendment to the UDC that says that you can't combine cul-de-sacs and drive aisles to anything more than 450 feet? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's something we can evaluate, too. I mean especially if this becomes a regular occurrence where we get people -- developers that need to, essentially, get a street -- a cul-de-sac street that's longer than 450 feet and we are looking at variances, because they need it to be 800 feet. You know, once you see that trend, then, something's wrong with your ordinance. So, this is the first commercial one that I can recall. We do get residential ones sometimes, similar to the Spurwing earlier tonight, they didn't have anywhere to stub to, they couldn't get out. It's a similar situation here. They really -- there is nowhere for them to go. They are kind of in there. So, that's why staff feels that the recommendation of this loop to get -- it's not a cul-de-sac -- it's not just a dead end. That's where we are coming from.. But we can sure look into the ordinance in making some industrial exclusion or allowing them to have a longer cul-de-sac in non-residential -- generally, cul-de-sacs aren't encouraged. But, yeah, if you tried to circumvent the ordinance or whatever by -- I think we could write something that says thou shalt not take a driveway for more than one property further than that street. We can sure work on that. I can run it by Anna and we can -- I know we have got a text amendment in the next couple of months. Maybe we will propose something and kick that around with you, so we'll look into it more. Zaremba: One side question -- and I'm trying to think for the fire department, some of this, which I really have no great knowledge of, but in a situation like this where, as you said, you are going to build it to look like a continuing street. On a public street there are requirements to have a fire hydrant so often. Is there any possibility that the fire hydrants could continue up your private street? Miller: That will be a requirement of the fire department. And, most likely, they will require us to put some fire hydrants on site within those lots. I know that 84 -- and, Mike, you can correct me on this -- 84 Lumber has, what, a couple on -- within their site? Four -- three or four within their site. So, I would imagine with these larger sizes that we would be required to put fire hydrants within the site. Zaremba: That makes me more comfortable. Miller: Now, one other thing that I might point out is, yes, the cul-de-sac's long, but as compared to the -- to the Spurwing project -- I mean they had however many homes on there. I mean we are talking, realistically; there is four users -- potentially only three users if we do one -- one user across the back, but there would only be four users who would be outside of that 450 feet. So, you aren't talking, you know, a hundred homes or 50 homes or even ten homes, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commile October 19, 2006 Page 66 of 84 O Borup: And I was thinking about the same thing. If it was a private drive with a dozen lots adjoining it, that would be maybe a different situation. We don't have that here. Miller: And I think the uses in there will not be high impact uses. I mean we will have truck traffic, but I don't see us having a fleet of delivery vans going out from there or anything like that, like a distributor of -- like Sara Lee Bread is one of our tenants. I don't see, you know, all the Grandma Sycamore bread trucks going out from there. I just don't see that kind of use. It's going to be more construction related users that need large yards for storage. Zaremba: Go back a moment to the discussion about loading docks. I got a little confused about your description of it. Are you saying it's not possible to limit the loading docks to what would be the sides of the buildings, north, south, and east, as opposed to not having them on the west? Miller: Anything's possible. But, you know, the thing that I found is loading docks really aren't offensive, because everything happens inside. I mean the forklifts are accessing the trucks inside, I mean so it might be a visual thing seeing a truck backed up to a building, but there is really not any noise associated with that. I mean the noise is the flatbed trucks that are out there being unloaded with the backup alarms from the forklifts, which -- and I promise you there will be forklifts all over this site, but I guess I just don't see the offensive nature of loading docks. A trash compactor -- I mean I could understand it if it were over next to the property line, but I would imagine that all these uses also will be -- just want to make sure I'm not lying here -- I think they will be during normal business hours. I don't think -- I wouldn't want this restriction on us, but I don't think that we will have any 24 hour a day uses there. I mean we don't have -- of all of our tenants I have very few 24 hour a day uses. In fact, I can't think of any. Zaremba: I would not suggest putting that restriction on it. My assumption would be that by the time their business has grown to the point where they might want to be 24 hours, your prediction of what's going to happen along Linder with those converting to industrial would have happened. Miller: That's true. Zaremba: So, I'm in -- if you're not going to start out 24 hours today, it could happen in the future, but by then I don't think it would be impacting residents, so -- Miller: We have -- if you go over by Lewis & Clark Middle School, you have got Pine and Executive that travels through there. We own all the buildings that are east of -- well, we sold off a couple, but most of the buildings that are east of the middle school there and we have got residences up against our north boundary. We haven't had any problem with those residents there. We try to be considerate of them and try to -- in fact, that one we butted the building up against the property line as close as we could and put the loading docks in the front. So, I mean we don't want to do -- I mean the worst situation for me is having neighbors calling me and complain or call the tenant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 67 of 84 and complain and the tenant calls me. So, we want to avoid any conflict with the neighbors there. But I guess I just don't see the loading docks or loading bays or anything is offensive. And I don't necessarily think it should be restricted there. Especially given the 200 feet or so to the houses or 150 feet or whatever -- whatever it is. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may make another comment on -- to help the applicant, I don't know where the Commission's at, but the 25 -foot wide landscape buffer that's required by ordinance along that property line. Alternative compliance is an option for landscaping, so if you wanted to propose fencing and a ten foot buffer -- and I'm not saying that's what we would approve, but, you know, there is some flexibility written in the UDC with an alternative compliance application. Some of the other provisions -- restrictions about loading docks, trash compactors bays, and things being on that side, are based on past testimony from the public. Now, most of those people probably didn't know it was offensive at the time and they are saying I don't want to see these things, they weren't people that already lived there, they were having this use potentially come on and move in next to them. So, whether their comments were based on any -- those uses actually being most offensive to them or not, those are the common ones that we seem to get and that's why they kind of cut and pasted into yours saying these are the ones we get complaints on -- Miller: Right. Hood: -- on a fairly regular basis. That's why we will try to head that off, too, and so no one gets calls and complaints. Miller: Right. Hood: So, just -- that's kind of some background of why that condition made it in the staff report or -- those seem to be the ones that we get the calls on, too. So, yeah. That's it. Miller: We will agree to no trash compactors. Rohm: I kind of like the idea of procuring the emergency access on the north line from Linder into your property. I don't know if that's an occupied improvement, but that certainly helps access to the development as a whole. Along that 60 foot easement and I don't know if the -- what it's going to take to get that to include emergency vehicle access, but that would certainly be something that I would consider as a trade for a buffer. Miller: Sure. Well, the -- and I don't know the answer to that yet. It may already include a provision for emergency access. The problem the fire department is going to have is the parking lot that they put there and they have got curbs and things, so -- but what we would be willing to do is put a gate right there on the property line and they could, you know, cut the lock and go on through. But we wouldn't -- I mean we wouldn't propose -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 68 of 84 there will be a sewer easement here, but we wouldn't propose a dedicated 60 foot right of way there. I mean we would propose that that emergency access be within the yard area of that tenant and we could restrict the tenant so they didn't store anything there as well. Rohm: Okay. Anymore questions of this applicant? I'm not sure where we go from here. You have made some very valid points and I guess what we are faced with is the point's well taken and ordinance. Miller: I hear you. I appreciate your help and consideration. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some comments? Moe: Do I have comments? Well, this is a tough piece of property, quite frankly. I am concerned that the single access in through the center -- I understand the concerns of putting a loop road in, taking away some property, and whatnot, but I'm just -- I'm just real concerned that there isn't enough availability without the loop road on this piece of property. This is the second project we have seen off this property here and, you know, the first one wasn't very good either and I'm a little bit concerned on what we do with this. I'm just -- I guess my point being is I am swayed more towards the staff comment, than I am from the presentation. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I like the idea of having potential of, you know, six different -- or five different employers, rather than one employer with a whole bunch of storage sheds, but I do think that -- I agree access is an issue. I think I'd probably go with the stub to the west as far north or maybe midway between the railroad tracks and Franklin and I think that would be -- for one, you get a longer road in there and, two, you're going to have flow through. I think that's what I would do. Moe: Would you say that one more -- I missed -- Newton-Huckabay: A stub to -- Moe: Okay. To the west property, then. Newton-Huckabay: So, you would have your road come -- you know, your road come up and cul-de-sac up here somewhere -- Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- and so this stub -- Moe: That may go nowhere. '" �. �. e,�p �C x {4 `� �. ,�� a� F t; ek^"^;1 t.,x�?'3r ,4a �fi.� ,� ➢:�, ,t�i� d ai j t,} .r4. rive - x � ,0 W ;v. Meridian Planning & Zoning CommA O October 19, 2006 Page 69 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, they may eventually go nowhere, but odds are at some point they would, aren't they? Well, okay, if it was -- Moe: Depending upon who wants to buy that piece of property. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I have got a question for the applicant to maybe clarify. The property south of the ditch, that's the C -G zone? Miller: Correct. Borup: Okay. And there would be -- and you're looking at access there at 12th? Miller: Yeah. Yes. There would be a full access point at 12th. Borup: And, then, would there be cross -access between those front properties, then? Miller: All these front properties would have access. Yes. So, this parcel here when it's developed would have access there and that would be its only access. We would not ask for additional access here. We would try to get access here, but I don't know if we will be able to, because there is a limited -- Borup: Too close to the intersection. Miller: Yeah. Too close to the intersection. Borup: Okay. Miller: And this would feed onto there. One point that I might make is ACHD -- Justin Lucas appeared at the ACHD tech review meeting and argued the point of the loop road and ACHD didn't feel like a loop road added anything or was necessary, so they felt that one full -- actually, initially, they said they didn't want us to have access here and, then, when they saw the alignment here they said, yes, you can have full access here and full access here and, then, limited here if you wanted it. Borup: Okay. That answers my question. z Miller: Thank you. f Borup: Well, I'm thinking of the survey that the city did a few months back or maybe it IP was a year ago, the lack of industrial land that we have in Meridian and, you know, the areas are along the railroad, so I think it's needed. I think the city needs it. The reason ,r I asked the questions on the cross -access on those front C -G properties is even though it's south of the ditch, that, essentially, is a loop road. I think the only -- I know the fire i.; department's concerned about not being able to -- you know, having access blocked, , , �X f t kC k _# K t Y k - ^+ `Y f i t D bi+ r. z� ,�, #. '°u`Y+"7✓ % t }.., 6 i .C4^r yas��b k g qe''1 yro.J.�' .- K rT AIR; p. t .. ntt tt`' "'.,.t MS t j '�"i F# j t J i Meridian Planning & Zoning commis October 19, 2006 Page 70 of 84 s but this is the only place here that could be blocked. You know, all the way along here you got access from these other properties -- at least from this other property into it. So, I think that is a secondary access there. I do like the idea of having at least an emergency access up there, so I hope something could be done for that aspect. I'm comfortable, just because of the nature of what's here, because we have not heard from any of the neighbors, to -- to be -- to approve that -- the landscape plan as submitted, which shows -- which shows trees all along. The only thing that may be done -- I don't that -- I can't read the access point, if it even shows a fence, but I don't believe the ordinance requires a fence, it just requires the buffer and I think if I was living there I would much rather have an eight foot fence and a five foot buffer than a 25 foot buffer with no fence. And that may -- what I started to say, that may be the other extra considerations, maybe an eight foot fence along there, rather than -- rather than the six. There is a lot of landscaping already being shown on the -- on the plan. And, then, other than -- other than maybe restricting the trash compactors that -- you know, I agree with the applicant on the loading -- loading areas and docks and such on the west side, I don't think it's a big concern. That's all I had. Maybe. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Well, I agree that this -- I like the industrial area. I'm happy with the C -G along Franklin. It would be nice if some of them wanted access to the railroad, so that we could start making more use of that. And I could be comfortable with the suggestion that the fire department can circulate all around the buildings. I think the question I would have on that is if the various tenants are going to fence their properties and probably gate them and lock them, would the fire department be satisfied with -- what do they call them, knock boxes or -- Knox boxes. I mean it doesn't do any good to say you can circulate around a building and, then, have them come up to a locked fence, but if they would be given a way to go through the gates, that would help. And I am satisfied on access to the property to the east, which is owned by the same owner. I'm still a little uncomfortable with access to the property to the west that's actually on the comer of Linder and Franklin. My feeling is that needs to be absolutely assured, that their -- their entrance e their property needs to be a little farther away than their property is wide. So, if you are putting a right -in, right -out driveway along that property line and they could use it, that's fine. If you don't do that, I would want them to be able to access your cul-de-sac the same as the other two properties are, which means some open passage along there. Because in that location Franklin is going to get busier and busier. Linder at some point will be widened to five and when there is an overpass to the interstate it's going to be a busy street. That intersection may end up needing brake tum lanes and acceleration -deceleration lanes and I don't think that property is going to be able to put a driveway within their property and I just -- of all the things that have been asked for, I think it's important to preserve their ability to cross part of your property to access Franklin. I don't know if you care to comment on it. The Public Hearing is still open. Miller: If I could. I believe the minimum for a right -in, right -out is 220; is that right? Two hundred and twenty feet. So, they have got 350 feet there. There is nothing that would Al Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi October 19, 2006 Page 71 of 84 -- there is nothing that would preclude them from coming right up against our property line and doing a driveway there, which would be the same as if we put on there. I wouldn't really want them to go across two of our lots to get to that cul-de-sac. Zaremba: It's not an attractive solution to the -- Miller: Yeah. Especially if they were to put say a Maverick or something there and so you have got all these cars coming back and forth going in for their -- you know, their 900 ounce Cokes and things. So, I mean for me the preferred location would be on the property line, but we just want to reserve the right to not put access there if we don't choose to. But nothing would preclude him from coming right over on his side and putting an access point there, which seems to me it's a cleaner -- a cleaner way to do it, than to have him cross our lots, because most likely those lots on the front are -- you have got a better idea there than I do -- what are they, an acre and a half, something like that. So, they are larger lots and there could be office uses there. I don't know. I just wouldn't want to say that we absolutely provide access across our lots for them. Once they are developed out you can see how it lays out. Maybe it's a different story. But if they had a commercial type use there where they had a lot of ingress and egress, I wouldn't want them traveling across our lots. A similar situation is that Chevron over on Eagle Road that goes through the front of that savings and loan there and, then, John Jackson, when he bought it, ended up putting the driveway at the back behind the savings and loan, because that was just a mess. People walked out of there and it was -- we had people zooming back and forth. So, I mean I would propose that Tim Thomton get his access off of Franklin or off of Linder on his property. In fact, I would be willing to say when he got to the point of doing that, we would be willing to split the property line with the access point, with the driveway and we would be more than happy to do that. We just don't want to be required to, number one, put an access point there if we don't need it and, number two, if we don't put an access point there, provide him access across both of our lots, so -- but we don't want to preclude him -- we don't want to preclude him from developing that property. Although if you look at the way that ditch runs across there, I don't know how he's going to develop it, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Well, I guess my basic summary is I think this is a project that needs to happen and the right place for it and the right zones. There are a lot of issues that aren't comfortable, but it's an odd piece of property as well, so sometimes we make allowances for things that we don't agree with. End of comment. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional comments by any Commissioners or questions of staff? Then, at this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Borup: And that's her last motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm!* October 19, 2006 Page 72 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: And that was my next last motion Rohm: I wonder what the next one will be. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, for heaven's sake. Okay. Landscaping. Rohm: I personally think that the landscaping is not a necessary component of this development and -- Borup: Well, they have already got landscaping plans submitted. Newton-Huckabay: So, as submitted? Rohm: As proposed? Newton-Huckabay: As proposed? Rohm: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you decide to do that, we need to keep the record clean, because the ordinance does require 25, we still need the applicant to actually submit the application and jump through that hoop. I have no problem if you want to give the direction saying five feet is fine, that's fine, but they do need to actually submit an application, because of the UDC. Borup: Right. What does the landscape plan presently show? Our copies are too small to -- I didn't get a full size. I don't think. Oh, I'm song. I guess I did. Hood: It looks like it's about a five -- it's kind of tough to tell. It looks like there is a property line and, then, a fence about two and a half feet in and, then, about another two and a half feet of landscaping. So, it's kind of tough and it varies a little bit. Borup: Yeah. I think it's more than even. Hood: I mean they are just trees. I don't see any shrubs or any ground cover below the trees, so -- it's tough to -- maybe the width of the trees is the landscape buffer, because I don't see anything else underneath them. Borup: Yeah. I can't tell where it ends. It looks like it comes close to ten feet if you go to the outside line, but I don't know if that's lines or a ditch or what that is. y F' z.yx x� 4� A s S t sc a. � j L,! u, ,`:� . -A.._°'?4s �"4'f �,k,. ^i' , 1.., ' ;.: ♦ � •` Y # n � pt�kt 3t�%'•.✓a.�, w,. i 5 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 73 of 84 i Hood: There is top of bank of a ditch there. That's what gets a little bit confusing. If you go down to the very first thing on the north side of the canal, it would be on the very southwest comer. Borup: Oh, there it is. Yeah. Hood: That one is probably the best, where that parking lot goes over, that's kind of the best place to measure it and it measures out five feet is what I'm scaling out to. Borup: Okay. In my mind that's not a visual place where a lot of shrubs and flowers are going to mean anything. The trees -- the trees are always a nice feature to have, especially when they mature. I don't see where -- other than trees, where most of the perimeter landscaping does anything. So, are we looking for suggestions on -- Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is preparing to make a motion. She's doing a lot of writing. Borup: Well, if there is a concern about buffering on that side, an eight foot fence would -- would be an added -- be some added site buffering anyway. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I mentioned it earlier that the UDC doesn't allow chain link with slats to provide that screening material. Now, if that's something that you guys want to do as part of this alternative compliance and allow the applicant to do that, because it truly doesn't, it doesn't screen. I mean you can see right through the chain link with slats. Borup: Well, the UDC doesn't -- doesn't even require a fence, does it? Hood: Well, that's what this alternative compliance is. Borup: Right. Hood: It would not otherwise require a fence, no. Borup: So, you're saying add chain link with the slats as part of alternative compliance? Hood: That's not necessarily what I'm saying. Borup: Oh. Hood: If you do want to do that, that's fine. But if it were just coming to us and we weren't having this discussion with the Commission, staff would not approve chain link with slats and a five foot buffer. You have to tell me what you want to approve pretty specifically or else we may have some discrepancies between the applicant and myself, so -- or Justin in this case, maybe. But as specific as you can be as possible with what 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis 0 October 19, 2006 Page 74 of 84 you would like to see there, I can approve that, because I have got some direction from you. Borup: Well, I don't think it justifies a masonry wall, so what else is there? Rohm: I just think an eight foot chain link fence with a five foot buffer is -- it doesn't even have to be slatted, I mean in my mind. Borup: But that's not a site -- but that's not a site buffer. Rohm: Well, the -- Borup: Just keeps kids from climbing over it. Rohm: There you go. And that's the purpose -- that's the purpose of that fence from -- in my mind anyway. Zaremba: I used to be able to climb a chain link fence pretty fast. It's not an obstacle. I like the idea of having maybe some extra trees along there. And the current -- the current neighboring uses would make me feel like there should be a solid fence or wall, masonry construction wall along that west property line, but I also agree with the applicant's prediction that those are going to transition out of residences at some point, at which time the wall would be excessive. Rohm: That's why I like the chain link fence and let it go. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, is it chain link with slats or chain link with no slats? Rohm: If it makes staff happier, with slats works for me. No preference. It's your motion. Newton-Huckabay: Slats it is. Zaremba: Can we specify that the slats have more than one color, they are not all the same color all the way down? Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: You don't want to alternate the green and a white one? Borup: Probably get a red and a blue in there. Newton-Huckabay: No, we can't. Zaremba: Never mind. h i e ,ssC T,k "`i :y. ea4F ` ��.f % $Lt3✓""ISN�?✓, 4: t.: t- h v 1 S i� s L 3 3 yE V r a F 111011 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi* 40 October 19, 2006 Page 75 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on. Newton-Huckabay: I'm still working on this. Okay. Borup: It looks like the trees are already at 35 feet. Approximately that area. Which is - - that's what the -- that's as close as you would want to do them anyway, isn't it? Hood: The UDC actually would require them to touch at full maturity to provide a full screening buffer. Borup: So, it depends on which species of tree. Hood: Well, they are showing them -- at this plan that is at maturity is what they should be showing on the plan, so -- Borup: Oh. Hood: -- again, for it to be a land use buffer it really is a continuos wall of plant material when they mature. That's the intent. One for 35 is our standard requirement along streets and edges of parking, drive aisles, and things like that. Borup: They scale out how I figure it 37 and a half. So, close. So, that's close to -- Newton-Huckabay: You want more? Borup: I don't. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everybody in the -- Zaremba: I would support the fire department having some input to the northern four lots. I don't think it needs to be all six. Newton-Huckabay: I have got that -- basically, Brad's statement related to this -- they will provide access that they can drive completely around all the proposed buildings. Oh. And they are supposed to -- and Knox -- Zaremba: Well, if they have access with Knox boxes -- if they have access and can drive all the way around, should they still have approval over the -- Newton-Huckabay: And I also have that. Zaremba: But are we -- if we are going to also have that, I would limit it to the northern four lots, as opposed to six. Newton-Huckabay: Four, five, six, and seven? Okay. 511 P amu# �y v 4 ti 0 4 M1 P } Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi* 40 October 19, 2006 Page 75 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on. Newton-Huckabay: I'm still working on this. Okay. Borup: It looks like the trees are already at 35 feet. Approximately that area. Which is - - that's what the -- that's as close as you would want to do them anyway, isn't it? Hood: The UDC actually would require them to touch at full maturity to provide a full screening buffer. Borup: So, it depends on which species of tree. Hood: Well, they are showing them -- at this plan that is at maturity is what they should be showing on the plan, so -- Borup: Oh. Hood: -- again, for it to be a land use buffer it really is a continuos wall of plant material when they mature. That's the intent. One for 35 is our standard requirement along streets and edges of parking, drive aisles, and things like that. Borup: They scale out how I figure it 37 and a half. So, close. So, that's close to -- Newton-Huckabay: You want more? Borup: I don't. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everybody in the -- Zaremba: I would support the fire department having some input to the northern four lots. I don't think it needs to be all six. Newton-Huckabay: I have got that -- basically, Brad's statement related to this -- they will provide access that they can drive completely around all the proposed buildings. Oh. And they are supposed to -- and Knox -- Zaremba: Well, if they have access with Knox boxes -- if they have access and can drive all the way around, should they still have approval over the -- Newton-Huckabay: And I also have that. Zaremba: But are we -- if we are going to also have that, I would limit it to the northern four lots, as opposed to six. Newton-Huckabay: Four, five, six, and seven? Okay. 511 P 2 1 F.t 0 4 M1 P } G F� t Meridian Planning &Zoning Cam M October 19, 2006 Page 76 of 84 Borup: I agree. Just those lots. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we are not tiling the ditch -- or the canal. What about access? That's the only one -- ` Borup: Access to? n Newton-Huckabay: One access on the west. Are we to k going require to build the right- in, right -out or go for the letter to provide -- Y Zaremba: I think the way the applicant would like to see it is if it state exists it shall be right -in, right -out and have cross -access to the property. � Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: You mean if the applicant provides it? w Zaremba: If they choose to it in put -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: -- it would have to have those elements to it. But he wants the right not to put it in. Hood: Mr. Chair, maybe Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may want to -- the ACHD's, actually, already covered that condition, we don't necessarily need to regurgitate that. If you want to, that's fine, too, but the applicant already has that option and if they do construct cross -access there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to address that at all. Borup: Yeah. That's right. ACHD gives all kinds of alternatives. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. That works for me. l Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Now, what about the cul-de-sac and the drive -- long driveway. Just leave as is? Rohm: If that meets with the road standards as far as the 450 max and the rest of it is private aisle. Newton-Huckabay: So, leave it as it is? s, .rx t to d J } (Y7 y E " . ; 1 _ .;'''fit "� ry^¢ tr i X ase Y 44� Nr „ r l' ik x, „ , " >cr- TA°"' p 4 4 S A 5 fo y 'Vt r 4xs Y :.� ,•�:``t^ N _ a sNC' #„}g'a,`5 `j f gni. t .. pa'tt"° Y2 rt'c p. T WWn �; 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisss O October 19, 2006 Page 77 of 84 Borup: Well, I think -- from my standpoint, because there is -- because those other access points and cross -access agreements from the front, it's not technically a loop road, but it serves the same purpose and, you know, if you started measuring the cul- de-sac from the ditch and went 450 feet, you would be up to those -- well, not quite, but you would be -- you would be at least up to those other two lots. Moe: I may have missed this, but are you -- are you noting anything in regards to possibility of the emergency access on the north side? Newton-Huckabay: No, not yet. I need to know where to put that. Moe: I guess the concern I have there -- if you have the emergency access, the applicant did state that he may have a tenant that's going to take that -- both lots on the north, so, then, you're losing your emergency access to get back into that property. Borup: Well, not if -- not if he makes that a requirement to that tenant to have some kind of access through there, I think. A fire lane and a gate? Moe: Yeah. That's kind of what I was going to is to make that there was access. Borup: Well, that would be the ideal I think. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, finally -- so, another condition would be to pursue that or are we just recommending that before City Council? How do you want that stated on the north? Borup: I mean -- Moe: I guess emergency access? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Moe: Follow up prior to City Council whether or not -- Newton-Huckabay: Is that 1.2.9? Or 1.2.10? Borup: That would be a good place. Or it could be stated stronger to provide an emergency access from the north easement, unless -- Moe: Unavailable. Borup: Right. Or prohibited or something. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Here we go. Borup: Did you do anything on the trash compactor and stuff? F t '6'y„+ S)i•", k'{h';5e? $x,,� .:{ 'i 5° yp '.l,*'&` t. x i .� '� � b�' '�p,2 k�•�'t''4 'f j d 3 i E' x b �, r - w � L f d _ r � x s� '_&,a`9 .g Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis • October 19, 2006 Page 78 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: Okay. Do you want to review your notes or are you comfortable with what you have got? Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. It won't be like I haven't stumbled over my words on the record before. Borup: Everybody reads those so carefully. Newton-Huckabay: Really, it is the last motion I'm making today. After -- or did we close the Public Hearing? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-048 and PP 06- 050 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with the following modifications. And give me a moment to get -- what page are those on? Hood: Exhibit B, page one. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean what page on the internet thing here? Sixteen or -- Okay. I'm going to try to stay in order here, but -- condition of approval 1.2.2 -- shall we -- we just strike that whole statement relating to the applicant shall provide two public street access points to this property along Franklin Road. These two streets shall be linked together by a public street that loops into the proposed development across the Eight Mile Lateral. Borup: We still have the two public access points, but just cross the loop part, maybe. Newton-Huckabay: The two streets shall be linked together by a public street that loops into the proposed development across the Eight Mile Lateral. One of the public streets access points shall align with Southwest 12th Street, which currently intersects Franklin Road across from the property. Do I strike the rest of that statement -- or the applicant shall submit a revised plan with alternative -- Borup: Well, it's an or, so that could stay. I don't know if -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We'll leave that. So, we will strike -- go ahead. Hood: I'm sorry, not to intervene. I think the direction you're going, though, it's going to be easiest to strike that whole condition. Newton-Huckaby: Okay. Hood: There aren't two public streets proposed currently, so this would be a change. Borup: Oh. T cc} p ,y. :✓'� i ^% 3 Si„J{�6;�'j ��{p �f rT }4 :.��, "J ':# '� « d ,.f R"#.�, A.��+ �iF' 't` p�.t '•»4k tGt n; a. # y ..� ..i { f $q 33 Z 'x+7 4 C rtQdy 32 I { {{ 3 �� h{f 8; b'. Fj�Sai+, �5��.•e�^'��'y&�`i �ik {4?::�$YY �,Q.;s, i j Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit • October 19, 2006 Page 79 of 84 Hood: It's essentially staffs loop road proposal -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Hood: --or some other alternative that may have come from this hearing. That's the or. And if you want to keep anything from the or, that may be where you want to insert your alternative potential access -- emergency access to the north, but, otherwise, that whole thing, if I'm reading you correctly, should go away. The whole thing could be -- Borup: So, do we even want to leave this statement that says provide two access points? They are going to do it anyway, so it probably doesn't matter, does it? Hood: Well, the difference is they are not public street access points. Borup: Right. Yeah. We could cross out the public streets or just -- or just cross out the whole thing. Hood: Essentially, by 1.2.1 you're approving their -- their one public street access point, so you don't need to call that out. This is called out, because it's a change. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, strike comment 1.2.2 and, then, 1.2.4, and I think we can strike 1.2.4 and 1.2.6, the landscape plan, we are suggesting that they submit an alternative compliance application with landscaping as proposed on their landscape plan, with a five foot buffer and a six foot chain link fence with slats of a single color. And so do we leave 1.2.7, then, Caleb? Hood: The first portion of that has been met. He clarified what type of fencing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Leave it as is, then? Hood: It works fine just leaving it. Sure. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, 1.2.8, that's regarding the irrigation ditches and the lateral. Do we just strike that and state that the applicant will not be tiling -- Hood: What you can do is -- the Council is the only body that can actually -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: So, you can state that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that they not have to tile this, but as staff we are going to have to call this out for them to actually make that call. But you can sure put something in. Newton-Huckabay: Right. } Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis • October 19, 2006 Page 80 of 84 Borup: Or just leave it like it is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will just leave it as it is. And, then, now moving over to 3.4 and 3.18 and fire department. I would just take the statements made in the applicant's letter on 3.4 -- can we just reference the applicant's letter and include that the fire department is requiring a turnaround -- they agree to provide the fire department the ability to drive completely around any proposed building and provide Knox boxes, as well as grant the fire department -- on 3.18 now -- to the restrictions by the fire department on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, regarding use restrictions for hazardous material or what's the term you want me to use there? Zaremba: Flammable and hazardous. Newton-Huckabay: Flammable and hazardous. Or just subject to fire department review and approval? I'm looking for affirmation from somebody. Borup: That's being duly withheld. Hood: Yeah. It's a little bit difficult, because it is the fire department's comments, so I don't want to -- Nary: And is that -- is that authority until there is at some point a secondary access or forever? Hood: I mean the way the condition reads is the fire department reserves the right to restrict future uses in areas that only -- are only served by one access. So, as I read that, if you have two accesses, then, we don't -- we don't care. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Until a second access is provided on that. We didn't do anything with the street design. And -- oh. I'm song. Back to item 1.2.5. The statement reads: No trash compactors, loading areas, docks or bays shall face the western property line on Lots 3, 5 -- Lots 3 through 5 on Block 1. Would you strike loading areas, docks or bays, so the statement will read no trash compactors shall face the western property line on Lots 3 through 5, Block 1. And item 1.2.10, the applicant will provide emergency access from the north by City Council, unless prohibited by -- Borup: Just leave it as -- Hood: It's private property, so they would have to negotiate with that -- that person to acquire an easement there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, we just -- unless prohibited by stakeholders? Zaremba: Shall we say they should pursue it? Borup: Make every effort. } YN }i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis314n October 19, 2006 Page 81 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Best effort? Hood: It's hard for us to saythat -- you know, complies -- it complies or doesn't. So, that's -- if you want to require some -- yeah, it's hard to put it on some other person. They may not want to even write a letter saying, no, you can't have an easement across my property. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Applicant will pursue obtaining emergency access on the north property line by City Council and report at City Council. I do believe that is the end. Hood: I do have one more point of clarification that was discussed during your -- it was just discussed during -- and I told you to leave it out, because ACHD's covering it -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- with the -- the way that 1.2.3 is worded currently says -- requires the applicant to provide a cross -access easement to the Thomton property. So, I'm not sure what you want to do with that, but I think it -- Borup: Which number was that again? Hood: 1.2.3. And that was regardless of whether it's constructed as a shared driveway or as access to 13th Street. We wanted to see access provided through this site to that Thomton piece. So, whatever you want to do with that. I just -- you didn't make a change to that, but you talked about giving some flexibility and if you construct your driveway here, then, provide it. If you don't -- Newton-Huckabay: And that's what's in the ACHD comments; right? Hood: Correct. But ours goes a step further than that. Newton-Huckabay: Can we reference the ACHD comments in compliance with ACHD? Hood: What's your intent, I guess, of that condition? Newton-Huckabay: I understood that the Commission's intent was that we agreed they didn't necessarily have to build the driveway, but if they didn't they had to allow -- or if they did build the driveway, they had to allow them access. If they didn't build the driveway, they didn't have to provide any other access. Hood: Then, I would recommend you strike that entire condition. ACHD has covered that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike statement 1.2.3. aksr°' 8� t, p - „,,,+�.'r$ XTr .. » SAM, 6l t M V a e k3 A4 k. w W- :. 4 !1N ri =C x' rY 4 t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi • October 19, 2006 Page 82 of 84 Borup: I think in my mind it depends on what the use is. If it's a Maverick store, then, you don't want to be crossing all the other properties. If it's another office building or something, then -- or a retail or something, that would be appropriate, but we don't know that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I believe that is the end -- Rohm: End of motion? Hood: There is not much of a staff report left, but -- Zaremba: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Duly noted. Rohm: Okay. Good job, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050, to include all staff comments with the changes as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: All right. We have got one more Public Hearing, so -- Newton-Huckabay: We do? Item 14: Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: Yes. Just a short one. Very short. At this time I'd like to open CPA 06-004, a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to modify definition of office. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are proposing to amend some text within the Comprehensive Plan relative to resolution 04-454, which is commonly used for residentially designated properties on arterials that want to go to office space, because they are less than three acres in size, but have frontage on an arterial street. Recently the Council has made an interpretation that it goes vice -versa and if you're office you can ask for residential, essentially. That was not the intent of resolution 454. We are cleaning this up so it really only applies to those resident -- pretty much residential properties, existing homes that back out of their driveways today as a single family home and they want to convert theirs to office. To do so, not for someone that is supposed to be office asking for residential. So, that is the clarification. s "rs r¢S..rg1i t:r;hp! i,c#Tfi at a ,,+ J r 3: I C k T`F.4,..$ s w '� } 'r r a a,a IV �q' t � Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi A October 19, 2006 Page 83 of 84 We are proposing to remove the last sentence within office designation as currently written in the Comp Plan and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would note that the room is empty of public, therefore, nobody intends to add any public testimony and, therefore, I move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06- 004. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-004. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 06-004, to include all staff comments. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I thought we had a Commissioner that said she wasn't going to make another motion, but that could still happen. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Oh, you didn't do it. Zaremba: You still stole the thunder. I'll second it. Newton-Huckabay: No, actually, I was going to stay here and wait you guys out. -s+H 4f yl `.< 4y `ti ,tee ✓L.t�#73777 g Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi A October 19, 2006 Page 83 of 84 We are proposing to remove the last sentence within office designation as currently written in the Comp Plan and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would note that the room is empty of public, therefore, nobody intends to add any public testimony and, therefore, I move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06- 004. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-004. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 06-004, to include all staff comments. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I thought we had a Commissioner that said she wasn't going to make another motion, but that could still happen. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Oh, you didn't do it. Zaremba: You still stole the thunder. I'll second it. Newton-Huckabay: No, actually, I was going to stay here and wait you guys out. -s+H 4f yl `.< 4y `ti ,tee ✓L.t�#73777 J � r d ,( f ;'*. f s 31 {i,4i*., ➢�""'2 ;� ? .ry; $ gf 03 t yY 3.'tksk8 ,s aea<pr 4 P E # } F 3 } H 2.n{ rt 6 fi, i '^,t,ti`• ?..raY ,Y % n i ., e rmvtl wil Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis October 19, 2006 Page 84 of 84 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:03 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVEQZ MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED:. � ��.� �/z�%� WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CL RK �J J '°a`c i t' IR t t � X z ,,. ., �5�i,�, ' dSr;7,�C,�rc5'• .k c, f,.' hi tt....�n, J 1 Vic JV r . m CITY OF MERIDL4, ils, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAND `':.Fp9pd6 3� i DECISION & ORDERr,;r:` u In the matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a 5,200 square foot retail building Z Y' with a drive-through window in the C -G Zone, by W.H. Moore, Co. Case No. CUP -06-029 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 19, 2006 (Findings approved on 10-19-06) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 19, 2006, incorporated by reference) ' s 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 19, 2006, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the he date of October 19, 2006, incorporated by reference) x 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the 4 hearing date of October 19, 2006, in by reference) u ` B. Conclusions of Law I . The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use g� Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title I 1 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. t CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-029 - PAGE 1 of 4 NS� f.' 1 3 u% fb#v�C• Aj d; i S P :},+., -��•� .. S P �. 4 d n )a �ik ii2 S �+y;� .% C : � £ i} .STM' .. �" P�-E 'S i„ . ..A <�' ka r 77- i, -7, WW; y fs 4 t a i r . 1 N am ; . . F ..6 . �. �...3> .x . ...c..5 3 .. ..ta.., R. ? . ,x E 11"M ..rl+,. C^� � f. :i4 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 19, 2006, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan, dated September 29, 2006, and Landscape Plan, dated October 4, 2006, and Elevations, also dated August 9, 2006, are hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 19, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-029 - PAGE 2 of 4 s�e 0 time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 19, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-029 - PAGE 3 of 4 A ..y k yi k 4 " Y }" P 5 1,x'44' 7 9 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (Chair) -L� COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED t�a._ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED td (2�_ COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA f f _ f-� D I VOTE MICHAEL Attest:OF w n Tara Green, Deputy2city' C�lerl Copy served upon App��e�n r°bepartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By 1��1 �'l 4 Dated: City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-029 - PAGE 4 of 4 r t-7ei is }t2 i.2$ y I Rxt .i E>,'S`0W $�.Y .,..� •ti�Yr .S ,d -4,.#:l"^W, 3 •. R xZ E F` e•; 'k C fi.h'S%.4kd f {v L,.� rs '# vE' a..,f T ,�. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANGG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AWG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Hearing Date: 10/19/2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Amanda Hess, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Grandview Marketplace (Retail Building B) • CUP -06-029 Conditional Use Permit for a 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive --- through window, by W. H. Moore Co. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W. H. Moore Co., has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for a retail building and drive-through window. The proposed building will be located on the north side of Overland Road, approximately 400 feet west of the Eagle Road / Overland Road intersection on Lot 4, Block 1, of the Dorado Subdivision, Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M. The subject property is currently zoned CG (General Retail and Service Commercial District). Restaurants, retail stores, and drive-through windows are principally permitted uses within the C -G zone. However, procurement of a CUP is required where a drive-through facility is located within 300' of another drive-through, residential district, or an existing residence. Several residential properties to the west, that are currently zoned R-1, Ada. County, are located with 300' of the subject site. Additionally, the Sterling Savings Bank, Lot 6, Block 1, and Taco Bell, Lot 7, Block 1, of the Dorado have been issued Certificates of Zoning Compliance for construction of drive-through windows, which are also located. within 300 feet from the proposed building and drive-through window. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends amproval of CUP -06-029 for Grandview Marketplace Retail Buildine B as presented in the Staff Report for the bearing date of October 19 t to the conditions listed in Eglutbit B 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -029 as presented during the hearing of October 19, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on November 2, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -06- 029 as presented during the heating of October 19, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on November 2, 2006. Continuance Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAARG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AWG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP - 06 -029 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address / Location: Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision Section 17, T3N RIE b. Owner / Applicant: W. H. Moore, Co. 1940 S. Bonito Way, Suite 160 Meridian, ID 83642 c. Representative: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore d. Present Zoning: C -G C. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial f Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for a 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-through. 1. Date of Revised Site Plan (See Exhibit A): September 29, 2006 2. Date of Revised Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): October 4, 2006 S. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by the Development Agreement in effect for this site. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 2, 2006; October 16, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 22, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 9, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single family residential; highway -oriented services including a hotel and chain restaurants c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Grandview Marketplace Retail Building 1 (Dorado Subdivision), zoned C -G 2. West: Commercial (Dorado Subdivision), zoned C -G 3. South: Bonito Subdivision / El Dorado Business Campus, zoned C -C 4. East: Farmers & Merchants Bank (Dorado Subdivision), zoned C -G d. History of Previous Actions: In 2005, the City of Meridian approved the annexation and zoning (AZ -05-019) of 10.9 acres to C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) for this site. Preliminary Plat (PP -05-024) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-031) approval for a Planned Development for Dorado Subdivision was also granted in 2005. The PP and CUP application proposed 16 commercial lots. The Final Plat (FP -05-057) for Dorado was approved by the City Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANOG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ALNG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 Council in 2005. The subject site, Lot 4, is therefore subject to the conditions of final plat approval and the development agreement for the Dorado Subdivision. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Services installed with Dorado Subdivision. Location of water. Services installed with Dorado Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Floodplain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Size of Property: 39,268 sq. ft. (0.90 acres) 7. Description of Use: Proposed 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-through f. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): Thirty-five feet (35') of landscape buffer required on Overland Road. Forty-one plus feet (41'+) of buffer provided by the applicant. 2. Width of buffers between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of landscaped area: 27.5% (10,799 sq. t.) 4. Other landscaping standards: MCC 12-13-11 requires landscaping within and around parking lots. The landscaping standards for parking lots will be applied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance permit (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). g. Conditional Use Information: Procurement of a CUP is required where a drive-through facility is located within 300' of another drive—through, residential district, or an existing residence (UDC 11-4-3.11A). Several residential properties to the west, that are currently zoned R-1, Ada County, are located with 300' of the subject site. Additionally, the Sterling Savings Bank, Lot 6, Block 1, and Taco Bell, Lot 7, Block 1, of the Dorado have been issued Certificates of Zoning Compliance for construction of drive-through windows also located approximately 300 feet from the proposed building. h. Off -Street Parking (Non-residential Uses): 1. Parking spaces required: UDC 11 -3C -6B establishes minimum parking standard for non- residential uses. Within commercial districts, spaces shall be provided at one per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 2. Parking spaces proposed: 21 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: N/A 5. Percentage of interior parking as landscaping: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, staff will ensure that the proposed parking lot is improved with landscaping according to UDC requirements (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANlI G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ALG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 f. Summary of Proposed Streets and / or Access: Access to the site will be from a right -in, right -out only access from / to Overland Road. In addition, a right -in only access from Eagle Road has also been approved. Eagle Road, south of I- 84, and Overland Road are under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District (ACRID). ACHD has indicated approval of accesses at these locations. Additionally, a note on the Final Plat (Book 95, Page 11647) establishes a perpetual vehicular cross access easement that is dedicated to all lots within the Dorado Subdivision. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS On September 15, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACI1D) and RD. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Warks Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) Staff is conditioning approval of the subject CUP upon the applicant installing and maintaining landscaping on this site. Refer to the CUP Analysis, Section 10, for more information on landscaping at this site. Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANRG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) A 35 foot wide landscape buffer is typically required for C -G zoned properties which are located on an entryway corridor. The Dorado Subdivision, a planned development, has provided a landscape buffer on the subject site which ranges from approximately 36 feet to 42 feet. "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposal will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists drive-through windows as Permitted / Conditional Uses in the C -G zone. In this instance, however, the applicant is required to obtain CUP approval because the subject drive-through will be located within 300' of a residential zone as well as within 300' of other drive-through windows sited in the Dorado Subdivision. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the C -G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services, as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented in the CUP site plan, labeled as Sheet SR -1 and dated July 17, 2006, and the landscaping as proposed, with the following comments: Access, There are three access points to Dorado Subdivision, all approved by ACRD. The first is a right -in, right -out driveway from / to Overland Road, located approximately 260 feet west of Eagle Road. The second is a full access driveway from / to Overland Road at the west property line. The third is a right -in only access from Eagle Road located approximately 300 feet north of Overland Road. North bound turning is not allowed from the development onto Eagle Road. A perpetual vehicular cross access easement is dedicated to all lots within the Dorado Subdivision. Landscaping The applicant has proposed approximately 4,900 square feet of landscaped area including, but not limited to the 41 -foot landscape buffer on Overland Road. The subject application proposes five-foot wide planters along the north lot line and a minimum of ten -foot wide landscape planters on the east and west lot lines. The applicant has also provided planter islands within the parking lot which meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code. Par ' : The applicant is proposing to construct 21 parking stalls. Only 11 parking stalls are required. by Ordinance. UDC Table 11-3C-1 requires 90 -degree parking stalls to be 19 -feet long, adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. UDC 11-3C-5134 allows parking stall dimensions to be reduced by 2 feet in length if 2 feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscape area. Compact stalls may be reduced in depth by an additional two feet. UDC 11 -3A -17A requires sidewalks to be at least 5 -feet wide. Drive -Through_ Design,- Per the request of Planning Staff; the applicant submitted a revised site plan to modify the drive through design. Staff felt that extension of the landscape planters at the entrance and emit points better funnel traffic into and out of the drive though. Staff is supportive of the revised drive-through configuration. UDC 114-3-11 states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN& DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AkING DATE OF OCTOBER l9, 2006 circulation on the site and between adjacent properties." At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of- way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. Design Review Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): Staff fords that the subject site generally complies with the standards for uses along entryway corridors. Please see Exhibit B for detailed Conditions of Approval. L Architectural Character. a. Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. b. PdMM public entrancg(s)• The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. d. Pattern variations: At least two changes in one or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture, and / or materials. e. Mechanical equipment• All ground -level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. Z Color and materials. Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block:, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco -like synthetic materials. Smooth - faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 3 Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and / or parking is / are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. 4. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE B&G DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one -hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty of all customer entrances. The building elevations prepared by Larson Architects, Sheet Number A-1 and dated August 9, 2006, are approved by staff, as they comply with the Design Review standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-19 listed above. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval from the Planning Department prior to building construction, and all improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CIZ06-029 for the Grandview Retail Building B as presented dnriug the hearing of October 19 2006 based ExWbit s of Fact listed in EatWbit C and subLect to the conditions of approval listed in E it B. Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM& DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AWG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Dorado Subdivision Retail Use Plan 3. Dorado Subdivision Landscape Plan (Dated August 17, 2005) 4. Grandview Retail B Site Plan (Stamped "Revised" on September 29, 2006) 5. Grandview Retail B Landscape Plan (Dated October 4, 2006) 6. Building Elevations (Dated August 9, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from. Unified Development Code Grandview Marketplace Retail Building B (CUP -06-029) — Page 8 i J J £ P yt • dL Yc 7 • Pi i AQ,c a w ,s AJ a f ,Y' k. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H&WG DATE OF OCTOBER X 9, 2006 2. Dorado Subdivision Approved Landscape Plan we LOI& Mewuru'own R amu. Exhibit A z c r , 3, 1.11 1100PI01, 3, V ,r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN& DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FALG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 3. Dorado Subdivision Retail Use Plan Exhibit A ammme "mmus wool CITY OF .MERIDIAN PLANGG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ANG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 4. Grandview Retail B Site Plan (Dated July 17, 2006) Exhibit A I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI�*G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE JLG DATE OF OCTOBER 19 20 06 5• Grandview Retail B Landscape Plan (Dated October 4, 2006) Exhibit A 4�. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN& DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE E&G DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 6. Building Elevations (Dated August 9, 2006) Exhibit A Ili dm4w%30 IXUVAO AUN Aewml 4 � n t z Ka I a i d CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANQG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AWG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land Group, Inc., and dated October 4, 2006, is approved. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. The landscape plan is not to be altered without approval of the Planning and Zoning Department. No field changes to the landscape plan are permitted. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. 1.2 The Site Plan, labeled Sheet SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects, Inc., stamped "Revised" on September 29, 2006, is approved subject to the conditions listed herein. A site plan shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the subject retail use and accompanying drive-through. 1.3 The applicant shall comply with all previous requirements of this site associated with AZ -05-019, PP -05-024, CUP -05-031, and FP -05-057, as well as the Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision. 1.4 Two-way traffic shall be limited to the parking area only. 1.5 A "Do Not Enter" sign shall be installed at the drive-through exit to face north within the landscape planter located at the east property line, as depicted on the revised site plan. 1.6 A "Yield" sign shall be installed within the landscape planter island immediately north of the drive-through, as depicted on the revised site plan. Said sign shall face south to indicate to drive- through users that parlang lot traffic has the right of way. 1.7 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed around the perimeter of the proposed structure according to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.8 The applicant shall pap the associated costs with re noticing the public hearing 1.9 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11 3A 11 1.10 To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP706429 and the terms o£ the exig= Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zonin Compliance CZC) Vmnit &uui the Pl�t�nino Department pnor to construction of the building shell 1.11 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development A t�mnorary Certificate of Occunan cy_may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the reqWred improvements (e g landscaping and irrigation) Abid from a licensed contractor must accompany any request for temr*rary qgquRancy. 1.12 No signs are approved with this CUP application All business si s require a separate sigm permit in compliance with the sign ordinance 1.13 Staffs failure to cite specific rdinance provisions or terms of Dorado's approved Final Plat / Conditional Use does not relieve the agphcant of reWMibilifor comRliance 1.14 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service to this development is being proposed via existing stubs to the Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PL.ANN& DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G RATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 property- The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; ccant shall oordinate main size and routing with the public Works Department, and execute standard forms Of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is Minimum Cover less th t over alternatesewer Specifications. materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard 2.2 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances marked review. Both exhibits must be seal ( EXHIBIT B) for NOT RECORD. �' signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO 2.4 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.5 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. 2.6 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.7 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.9 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" Outlet face the main streetor parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. p e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. I Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet be required to have an approved turn around. 3.4 All internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 All roads are considered Fire Lanes. Provide signage, "No Parking — Fire Lane," and post at all Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE "Co DATE OF OCTOBER l 9, 2006 entrances. 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. cress roads wry an all weather 3.7 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one- and two-story construction. 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.10 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code, 3.12 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.13 Provide exterior egress lighting as require by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. Additional hydrants shall be installed to meet this requirement, if necessary. 3.15 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with Appendix D, Section D105. 3.16 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted, with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamPed (approved) trash enclosure plans along with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Utilize an existing 35 -foot wide curb return type driveway that functions as a full access driveway and intersects Overland Road approximately 365 feet east of Bonito Way, as proposed. 7.1.2 Construct a 24 -foot wide curb return -type driveway that functions as a right -in ONLY and intersects Overland Road approximately 235 feet west of Eagled./ right -out driveway 7.1.3 Construct a five-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the portion of e s th that was not improved as a part of the intersection project (approximately 320 feet). Construct the ite sidewalk a minimum of 50 feet from the centerline of Eagle Road. 7.1.4 Construct a 20 -foot wide right -in ONLY driveway that intersects Eagle Road Sl approximately 230 feet north of the curb line for Overland Road and construct a 15 -foot wide (390 feet long) deceleration lane on Eagle Road to accommodate the right -in driveway ONLY. Coordinate the details with Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H G DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 District staff in regard to the design and construction of the driveway and deceleration lane on Eagle Road. Construct a 6 -inch raided median in Eagle Road to restrict the movement ONLY. driveway to provide aright -in 7.1.5 Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Overland Road and Eagle Road is prohibited. Place a note on the final plat that states this access restriction 7.1.6 Prior to final approval, submit plans to the ACRD Development Review Department. 7.1.7 A traffic impact fee will be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building mot• t ACRD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding 7.1.8 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing it ri es shall b ae relocated outside of the ri �tion facilitight-of--way. 7.2.2 All utility relation costs associates with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.3 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.4 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.5 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACED Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.6 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of buildin (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. g Permit 7.2.7 Construction, use and property development shall be in confu requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for roccupanth all cy�h�able 7.2.8 Payment of applicable road impact fees is required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road ,Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.2.9 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. I'be applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days shall be required prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACED Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.10 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.11 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or Exhibit B XAII r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANG DEPARTMENTSTAFFREPORT FOR THE AMG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 of t Other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the f time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subj a waiver/variance of said requirements pmpy unless or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in efft at the time the change in use is ec sought. k ire n'3 r w= r� Axa i 4. v S r` P a ' Exhibit B Al ,� 7 z kLL} 4, t 4� K y 2. x s en r & r F re aA �' s4#wa �x r 0444 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE AWING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 C. Required Findings Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings; The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed building and drive-through window on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this District. Staff finds that the subjectroPAY is large enough to accommodate the required setbacksng,and other eatures required by Ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staffs analysis, and any oral or written Public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the designated Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Commercial." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan (see Section S, 9 and 10 above for more information regarding the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards.) c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff funds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a retail / restaurant with a drive-through should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, ITD and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit c CITY OF MERIDIAN PG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THEJLG DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006 O f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fames, glare or odors. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a retail / restaurant with a drive-through use in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount g detrimental to the general welfare of the public. enerated will be Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C �v. Oct OS 06 11341a Y�v ID046,>_ IV4917 *************PLEASE POST************* MERIDIAN RURAL EIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 540 East Franklin Road 888-1234 Chairman: Rich Greene Treasurer: Clair Bowman Secretary: TerryLeighton g ton *** Notice of a Monthly Meeting*** Notice is hereby given that on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Meridian Fire Station, 540 R. Franklin Road, the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District will hold a meeting to conduct the following business: Roll Call Approve the Agenda Old Business: 1. Approve minutes from the September 11, 2006 meeting 2. Approve and pay bills 3. Any other Old busi.ncss New Business: 1. Update Land Acquisition for Station 6 2. Training Tower -... ChiofAnderson 3. Review of Impact lees — Chief Anderson 4. Treasurer's Report —Clair Bowman 5. Department Reports — Staff 6. Any other new business Posted: 10-4-06 By the order of the Board of Commissioners Rich Greene, Chairman 5,,?^a'.r gi rt,, ti v^ 'X tt` 1 5 �Y i$ix 4r 5v i K nsk { 4 i. - n v -zT';-. L g r S z - 3k:J 011 t r Wig :z F d �h Broadcast Report Date/Time 10-05-2006 02:44:36 a.m. Local ID 1 2086884218 Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 2 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5°xi V OOC OS 06 11141a � �q ,nom „/!� +J P-1 *************PLEASE POST************* MERID[AN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 540 .East Franldin head SM1234 Chairman: Rich Greene Treasurer: Clair Bowman Secretary: Terry i eiS&ton *** Notice Of a Monthly Meg*** Notice is hereby given that on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Meridian Fire Station, 540 R. Franklin Road; the Met'" Rural Fire Protection District will hold a meeting to conduct the lollowing business: Roll Call Approve the Agenda Old Busium: 1. Approve ntim as from the September 11, 2006 meeting 2• Approve .and pay bills 3. Any other old business New Business: t. Update L.aW Acquisition for Station b 2. Training Tower -- Chicf Anderson 3. Review of Impact poses — Chief Anderson 4. Treasurer's Report—Clair Bowman 5. Department Reports — Stuff 6. Any other new business Posted: 104.06 By the order of the Board of Commissioners Rich Greene, Chaim Total Pages Scanned: 1 Total Pages Confirmed: 17 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration 001 002 023 3810160 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:56 003 023 023 8989551 8848723 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:13 004 023 8886854 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:24 005 023 8985501 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:10 006 023 8467366 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00;23 007 023 8950390 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:11 EC HS C1531200 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:11 Wages Line Mode Job Type Results 1/1 1 EC HS 1 CPS600 1/1 1 EC HS CP21600 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 1/1 1 EC HS CP31200 1/1 1 EC HS CP14400 1N 1 EC HS CP28800 1/1 1 EC HS C1531200 I Broadcast Report w Date/Time 10-05-2006 02:44:44 a.m. Local ID 1 2088884218 Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 2 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line 008 023 208 888 2682 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:101!1 Mode Job T YPe Results 009 023 208 387 6393 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:24 1 EC HS CP31200 010 023 1/1 2877909 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:24 1!1 1 EC HS CP14400 011 023 2088885052EC 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:10 1 HS CP14400 012 023 1/1 8881983 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:11 1!1 1 EC HS CP31200 013 023 2083776449 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:29 1 EC HS CP28800 014 023 1!1 4679562 M. 10-05-2006 00:00:11 1 EC HS CP14400 015 023 1!1 2088886701 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:10 1 EC HS CP26400 016 023 1/1 8841159 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:11 1 EC HS CP33600 017 023 1/1 2088840744 02:29:08 a.m. 10-05-2006 00:00:12 1 EC HS CP28800 1!1 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox HR: Host receive HR: Hosssend print PR: Polled remote P TU: Terminated by user Waiting CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system 03: Group3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct e s. .�, � t0io P6 �- �u po�-U�J� �J AW CITY OF MERIDIAN MAYOR'S YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday October 9th, 2006, At 7:00pm Meridian Police Department 1401 E Watertower Conference Room on Main Floor 1. Approve the Agenda 2. Roll call 3. Announcements a. Special thanks to all of those who helped with Scarecrow Festl 4. Consent Agenda a. Approve the September 27th minutes b. Approve Bylaws as changed c. Approve Executive Committee meeting minutes 10/2/06 5. Action Items a. Mayor's Youth Council resolution asking that the Idaho Statesman bring back the youth page b. Discuss and approve committee lists 6. Informational Items a. Leadership training November 10th 10:00 A.M. b. Update on Treasure Valley Mayor's Youth Partnership c. Report on the Make a Difference Day "Hauling for Hunger" October 21st d. Youth Council PSA for the Majestic Theater e. Clean Cities Campaign committee report f. Other committee updates? g. Red ribbon week involvement h. City council will consider bylaw changes and resolution on October 10th 7. Adjourn meeting • October 16, 2006 AZ 06-031 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT James L. Jewett ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to R-8 (115.91 acres), R-4 (62.92 acres), TN -R (51.36 acres), TN -C (34.65 acres) & R-2 (26.02 acres) zones for South Ridge Subdivision - south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report from 7-20 Hearing/Attached Memo from Planning See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See ITD Memo/ See Attached Letter from Mel Schumaker Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat ri Is e a presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNIN 0 PP 06-031 G & ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT James L. Jewett 5 ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercial/other lots & 16 common/open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN -C, TN -R, R-8, R-4 & R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision - south side of Overland Rd between Linder Rd & Ten Mile RD AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See AZ Packet COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '' x°' x'72 '}..p$ f* "i -:"i •1L A"# ^o- 7� Y Ry -t fff 7q . 9y, P U October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT Vicki Garton ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of .57 acre from an I -L zone to an R-8 zone for Vicki Garton - 435 W. Broadway AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Si, Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cffy of Meridian. • October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING e AZ -06-043 8, ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R -R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision - NEC of N. Ten Mile Rd a d W- Chlnden Blvd. and west of N. Spurwina Wav n AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT. CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sic COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments No Comment See Email from ITD Contacted: Date: Emailed: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cify of Meridian. z p f.. L] October 16, 2006 e MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 PP 06-045 APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single- family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres In a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision - NEC of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd. and west of N. Spurwing Way AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See AZ Packet COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 2} k 2. g � t t 4. ix Aw g � ftr ix 0 October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANN CUP 06-029 ING 8, ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company 9 ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi -tenant retail building with a drive-thru for Gradview Marl<et- ' IKetall B AGENCY n "B" - NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. s October 16, 2006 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 AZ 06-045 APPLICANT Wirt Edmonds ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision - 4515 S. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting/ Comments from Post Office / See Email Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. October 16, 2006 PP 06-047 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT Wirt Edmonds ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 single -family residential lots and 3 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision - 4515 S. Locust Grove 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 presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. • October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 11 AZ 06-048 October 19, 2006 APPLICANT Creamline Associates, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C -G zone (8.74 acres) and I -L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision - 1400 W. Franklin Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT. CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNIN s PP 06-050 G 8, ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT Creamline Associates, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I -L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Creamline Park Subdivisi 1400 W. Franklin Road on - AC.FNr'v CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See AZ Packet COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. NL f t s .. zit e � w R 7, Ea 8 pp 0 October 16, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING • CPA 06-004 81 ZONING MEETING October 19, 2006 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the definition of "Office' by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become property, of the City of Meridian.